you must not have seen the 'physics of finance'. it explains it all, as a gauge theory (like everything---and then, what is a guage theory, and why---get to the root problem.). beliefs and behaviors are just physical properties (which themselves may be beliefs and behaviors, so one has a bit of a tautology).
also, economically, this is crazy. who needs salmon anyway? they can grow beef in petri dishes, so salmon too. nature i think ran a piece saying following trends that 100% of americans will be obese in 50 years, so growth is possible. think pprogress. a book from american enterprise projected Dow 36,000 not long ago, and it seems on track (despite a few fluctuations; maybe -36,000, which is still within the margin of error of the forecast). house prices in some cities are projected to be on average in the millions soon.
but only with more science and engineering will this be possible. love those linear regressions---remember the evolutiobnary scenario which leads from cgimps to larry summers?. as cass sunnstein (who advised obama and for whom i dont really have a bunch of respect for though he is a good piopularizer) put it you just need a (behavioral economic) 'nudge'.
more and more NIH funding!!! the military industrial complex needs you.
i do find it interesting that it takes only about 1-2% of science phd's to design alot of what is in the world. some have to build it, but most of the rest can just herd sheeps.
> I have nothing but respect for his scientific abilities and
> don't do diddly to
> address the human beliefs and behaviors that caused global
> to all you hard science elitists out there, but ideologies
> of denial and
> calamitous behavior are not in the purview of microbiology,
> physics, etc.
> They are studied by humanities and social sciences - the
> fields scanted and
> scorned by modern society, and consequently underfunded,
> and gee ya think
> that's a coincidence?
> When the heck is US society going to wise up and recognize
> that so long as
> we seek "technical solutions" to
> non-technological problems, we are simply
> continuing to try to shop and gizmo our way around the
> truth: humans and our
> domestic animals (all those cows, Louis) are increasing the
> major biomass on
> earth. We are leaving very little room for anything else.
> At the rate
> we're going, Soylent Green actually is the logical end
> Meanwhile, Obama is continuing to disappoint me, as in his
> answers to that
> national science questionnaire that was given to the
> candidates, by seeming
> to be back in about 1960 with respect to science. More
> money! More research!
> More projects! More engineers and scientists!
> There's absolutely not the slightest evidence that
> pouring millions more
> into, say, scholarships for science students, is going to
> affect whether
> Sarah Palin, for instance, decides to stop shooting wolves
> from helicopters
> and start recycling and promoting local organic food. Just
> scientific instruments are used to document the physical
> aspects of a
> problem doesn't mean the problem lies wholly within the
> domain of physical
> sciences. Or that the solution is to do more science,
> build more
> technology, and sell more gizmos (whether to individuals or
> "Combating climate change using scientific
> methods" is like promoting
> international peace by funding Star Wars.
> But I doubt many scientists, now that science is the
> Emperor of climate
> change funding, are going to point out that this emperor
> has no clothes.
> Design, develop and build as many new energy solutions as
> you want, move
> mountains and glaciers. Until humans decide to stop
> saturating the planet
> with our species and our food animals, our roads and our
> shopping malls, no
> technology will ever catch up with the march of the
> millions, and millions,
> and millions yet to come.
> Browner, Jackson and their Congressional allies will act to
> "reduce" GW
> emissions. That reduction will in turn be canceled out by
> the increase in
> humans... even before that scant reduction occurs. You
> don't reach zero
> through even a 50% decrease. You don't even reach a
> 50% decrease when you
> offset it with a prior, unchecked increase in the species
> whose per capita
> emissions cause the problem to begin with.
> Chu will lead vast numbers of highly trained teams of
> well-paid science and
> technology folks to research "new energy" and
> "energy efficiency." Again -
> if you are trying to decrease the net amount of energy
> used, isn't the
> simplest and fundamentally only solution to .. decrease net
> energy used?
> Not "change to a different form" that encourages
> people to simply expand
> their use. To take up the new slack. To once again max out
> the system, graze
> the commons, until we're up against a wall once again.
> That wall is not technology. The wall is us. The wall is
> sheer numbers of
> infinitely expanding humans on a finite and non-expanding
> But apparently this will continue to be the elephant in the
> room - even
> while the real elephants are crowded and poached into
> extinction. While more
> and more of the planet is converted to more and more
> humans, human food
> animals, human cities, human machine space, are scientists
> simply going to
> say, "More money for research"? More technology?
> Are scientists truly that
> blind -- or grandiose in their dreams of being the All and
> Everything on
> Every Subject -- that they won't point this out? Will
> they simply keep
> taking money to do research (and buy more Stuff and move
> into bigger Houses
> and keep living the American Dream, which ever more
> increasingly resembles
> an addict's denial).
> I have a statistician friend who works with fisheries
> scientists. They
> develop expensive and ever more elaborate instruments and
> computer methods
> to verify the ever fewer salmon. He's worried about
> losing his job. I'm
> worried about losing the salmon! I'm worried that a
> bunch of well-paid
> scientists, along with perhaps even more well-paid agency
> managers, have
> colluded for years to cluck their concern about salmon --
> while holding
> their hands out for more and more money to count the
> decrease in runs.
> sorry about the long rant, but I find Obama's
> "business as usual" approach
> to global environmental problems -- as it were, a
> "science as usual"
> approach -- distressingly unthoughtful.
> As Upton Sinclair said, " It is difficult to get a man
> to understand
> something when his job depends on not understanding
> The new wealth of jobs and funding for scientists depends
> on not
> understanding - or not admitting - that much of the
> "problems of society"
> are not solved by stepping away from society into a science
> lab. Or a
> manufacturing plant. They are solved within society - an
> area science
> disciplines, by definition, do not study. Obama
> doesn't seem to have
> studied them either.
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Phil Gasper
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Published: 2008/12/11 01:13:12 GMT
> > *Obama picks environment nominees*
> > Barack Obama is to nominate leading scientist Steven
> Chu as his Energy
> > Secretary, US media have reported.
> > Mr Chu is an energy specialist and the director of the
> Lawrence Berkeley
> > National Laboratory.
> > Mr Obama will pick former head of the New Jersey
> Department of
> > Environmental Protection Lisa Jackson to head the
> Environmental Protection
> > Agency (EPA).
> > And Carol Browner, EPA chief under Bill Clinton, will
> be Mr Obama's "energy
> > czar", according to media reports.
> > Ms Browner will coordinate energy, climate and
> environmental policy across
> > a number of different government departments.
> > The incoming president has said that tackling climate
> change will be one of
> > his administration's top priorities.
> > Mr Chu shared the 1997 Nobel Prize for physics for
> his work on cooling
> > and trapping atoms using laser light and is a leader
> in the field to combat
> > climate change using scientific methods.
> "EVERY GUN that is made, every warship launched, every
> rocket fired
> signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who
> hunger and are not
> fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms
> is not spending
> money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
> genius of its
> scientists, the hopes of its children." --U.S.
> president Dwight D.
> Eisenhower, 1953.
> "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into
> the stratosphere, or
> sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might
> otherwise be used to
> make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long
> run, too
> intelligent." --British author George Orwell