Questions for Evolutionists

[BigBallinStalin]

Great. Viceroy misunderstands evolution and economics.

Trolling harder on more fronts!
(or doubling down on the stupidity)

This is a major dilemma for me as since he is discussing a subject area I am very involved with (you could almost call me knowledgable... wait lets not go overboard...) I find I should really get stuck in and try amd explain my position (and correct his mistakes), on the other hand its Viceroy; the guy who believes the lochness monster exists.

Exactly, jokes are more profitable.

[Viceroy63]

Which question is it then? I think there are several here. I am only one simple man, Ma'am. And I would like to give only one simple answer.

Simple is one thing you do seem to excel at.

Is that a question? Or an insult? And then you expect me to answer you?

[Symmetry]

Which question is it then? I think there are several here. I am only one simple man, Ma'am. And I would like to give only one simple answer.

Simple is one thing you do seem to excel at.

Is that a question? Or an insult? And then you expect me to answer you?

I'm pretty sure that counts as an answer.

[PLAYER57832]

Which question is it then? I think there are several here. I am only one simple man, Ma'am. And I would like to give only one simple answer.

Start with this one...

may I, Player?

ON the topic of power,artificial coal, etc, all of which you brought up: what is the point you re trying to make with this?

(thanks jones)

[Viceroy63]

The point is that the public is not told the truth or even what they want to hear. They are told that which would motivate them into ignorantly following an ideal or system that enslaves them and to get them to do it willingly.

Do you really believe that when the idea came up to use nuclear energy that they did not sit down and count the cost? That some one did not raise their hands and asked, "What are we to do then with the spent, radioactive, Fuel Rods?" Of course they thought it through and decided, to do it any way.

It would be the most costly undertaking ever to bury those spent, radioactive, fuel rods in the earth under constant supervision and monitoring but the did it and still do. And How? They told the public it was cheap energy when in fact, untold billions of dollars went into subsidizing Nuclear energy. And still does!

Why? in order to get the masses behind a system of doing things that enslave us all and not liberate us. It's the same thing with evolution. We have developed an industry behind the scenes. Text books are not cheap and neither are museums or colleges. Some one has to pay for those things. A lot of some ones. That's where the ignorant masses come in.

That's the point.

[PLAYER57832]

The point is that the public is not told the truth or even what they want to hear. They are told that which would motivate them into ignorantly following an ideal or system that enslaves them and to get them to do it willingly.

Do you really believe that when the idea came up to use nuclear energy that they did not sit down and count the cost? That some one did not raise their hands and asked, "What are we to do then with the spent, radioactive, Fuel Rods?" Of course they thought it through and decided, to do it any way.

It would be the most costly undertaking ever to bury those spent, radioactive, fuel rods in the earth under constant supervision and monitoring but the did it and still do. And How? They told the public it was cheap energy when in fact, untold billions of dollars went into subsidizing Nuclear energy. And still does!

Why? in order to get the masses behind a system of doing things that enslave us all and not liberate us. It's the same thing with evolution. We have developed an industry behind the scenes. Text books are not cheap and neither are museums or colleges. Some one has to pay for those things. A lot of some ones. That's where the ignorant masses come in.

None of this answers the questions we posed.

I have heard the same rhetoric from plenty of people, but with very different agendas. You need to go beyond the rhetoric and deal with facts and truth. So far, you have not done that. You skirt any real question just as you did in this answer.

So, again,... try answering the question Jonesthecurl posed, or perhaps the one AnyD posed. Either will do just fine, for a start.

But we don't need more rhetoric of why you think we all have been duped. We know you think that. We want to know what you believe the truth to be and why. (other than ... you think its in the Bible)
That's the point.[/quote]

[jonesthecurl]

The point is that the public is not told the truth or even what they want to hear. They are told that which would motivate them into ignorantly following an ideal or system that enslaves them and to get them to do it willingly.

Do you really believe that when the idea came up to use nuclear energy that they did not sit down and count the cost? That some one did not raise their hands and asked, "What are we to do then with the spent, radioactive, Fuel Rods?" Of course they thought it through and decided, to do it any way.

It would be the most costly undertaking ever to bury those spent, radioactive, fuel rods in the earth under constant supervision and monitoring but the did it and still do. And How? They told the public it was cheap energy when in fact, untold billions of dollars went into subsidizing Nuclear energy. And still does!

Why? in order to get the masses behind a system of doing things that enslave us all and not liberate us. It's the same thing with evolution. We have developed an industry behind the scenes. Text books are not cheap and neither are museums or colleges. Some one has to pay for those things. A lot of some ones. That's where the ignorant masses come in.

That's the point.

Let me see if I get this right: nuclear power is expensive, therefore people have to like it. So, um, "they" lie to them. Because, um, "they" like fuel rods or something.
Museums and textbooks are expensive, so, um "they" made up lies to, um, get money?

Tell me, are creationist museums and textbooks cheaper? If so why?

[Lootifer]

Is the separation of Hydrogen and Oxygen particles from water so expensive that a person can power his auto with a glass of water but not his home? If it did take more energy to get the hydrogen from water then why would peopledo it? There are kits that you can purchase to convert your current car into a hydrogen, H2O Vehicle. Why would people buy these kits if it is more expensive to get the hydrogen out of the water then to drive the car with regular gasoline?

OK; Let's examine a simple hydro-generator for example. I use this term to describe a Dam where water forcing it's way through turbines turns a generator and produces power for a million homes lets say. In no way do I know the cost of building a dam but let's say that a dam cost some $20,000,000 dollars to construct over a two year period. And it powers a million homes. If Each home paid only $1.00 dollar per year to the electric company to pay for the construction of that dam then the dam would be paid off in 20 years. Do I have the math right?

No you dont. A hydro station that generates enough electricity to supply 1million people is likely to cost way in excess of 2 billion dollars rather than 20 million (hell prob even more but you are not worth the research time).

[crispybits]

Taking the Hoover Dam as an example

Cost of construction (adjusted for inflation) = $821 million (conservative estimate based on cost of living inflation - by the gold price it would be $4.3 billon and the USA was on the gold standard at the time the dam was built)

Annual maintenance cost = $20 million (that's conservative too, it's more like over $50m but we're gonna average it out so taken a low figure)

Year of construction = 1935 (77 years of operation)

Annual power generation = 4.2 billion KWh

Annual consumption of an average American household = 11,500 KWh

Annual generation in terms of households = approx 365,000

Total 77 year cost = $2.36 billion

Total annual bill per household = just under $6500

I think $1 per year might have been a little optimistic

Figures from wikipedia (construction cost and power generation), LA Times (maintenance cost) and US Energy Administration (household consumption)

[tzor]

You can tell a person has admitted they have lost the argument when they start talking about water over the dam.

Let the conspiracy theory games commence.

(Sits back and opens a bag of banana chips.)

[jonesthecurl]

The damn what?

[BigBallinStalin]

Taking the Hoover Dam as an example

Cost of construction (adjusted for inflation) = $821 million (conservative estimate based on cost of living inflation - by the gold price it would be $4.3 billon and the USA was on the gold standard at the time the dam was built)

Annual maintenance cost = $20 million (that's conservative too, it's more like over $50m but we're gonna average it out so taken a low figure)

Year of construction = 1935 (77 years of operation)

Annual power generation = 4.2 billion KWh

Annual consumption of an average American household = 11,500 KWh

Annual generation in terms of households = approx 365,000

Total 77 year cost = $2.36 billion

Total annual bill per household = just under $6500

I think $1 per year might have been a little optimistic

Figures from wikipedia (construction cost and power generation), LA Times (maintenance cost) and US Energy Administration (household consumption)

The gold standard around the time of the HD's construction was arbitrarily fixed at a rate of about $35 per ounce. It's not a reliable price to adjust for inflation.

Also, some crazy shit was going down between the years of 1931 to 1936, so correcting for inflation using the CPI (consumer price index) is also inaccurate... but 'accurate' enough!

According to the US http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/,
1931: $742,350,000.00
1932: $823,629,197.08
(the remaining years are in the range of $820bn to $870bn).

I'll spare us a rant about the problems of CPI and the data generating process regarding comparing various types of prices of tbe significantly changing object of inquiry (i.e. the US economy and the effects of international trade).

"All things considered," those conservative figures are much more practical--compared to using the rubbish gold price.

RE: LA Times, I'm not sure how competent they are in discounting to present value. (What discount rate would they use, and why?). Regardless, Viceroy's calculations don't address this problem at all.


tl;dr, Viceroy's $1 per year is definitely unrealistic--assuming that the HD is a good enough standard for the price of hydroelectricity. He may be on to something if he advocated for free competition in the energy sector... (inb4 Lootifer: "natural monopoly! natural monopoly! natural monopoly! natural monopoly!". inb4 PLAYER: "you hate the environment!!" inb4 JB: "But the unionS@!" and "FDR was teh bestest!").

[tzor]

True fact: This large wooden water wheel, built in Troy NY, inspired Ferris to create an amusement ride, subsequently named after him.

Click image to enlarge.

It was powered by a dam in the river and was used to power the mills below.

[nietzsche]

Just one point you guys are forgetting here (or being too naive): normally the government subsidizes what they want, it depends totally on executive decisions which depend of lobbies. And after that a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made.

But you guys will reject my point, BBS will come with a market parchment to show me why I'm wrong, and those science rooted will praise scientist and praise what the texts say, when new ideas come from intuition all the time.

Just something you have to take into account, you have not all the answers you know..

[BigBallinStalin]

Just one point you guys are forgetting here (or being too naive): normally the government subsidizes what they want, it depends totally on executive decisions which depend of lobbies. And after that a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made.

But you guys will reject my point, BBS will come with a market parchment to show me why I'm wrong, and those science rooted will praise scientist and praise what the texts say, when new ideas come from intuition all the time.

Just something you have to take into account, you have not all the answers you know..

I'll be brief.

(1) Yes, there's crony capitalism (self-interested politicians, lobbying, problems with voter behavior, asymmetric information, etc.).

(2) But government doesn't subsidize what it wants. Instead, it's a shit fest for votes and political clout among elected officials, public officials, and voters. Within each of those three groups, some groups get what they want, and some don't.

For example, people on welfare tend to opt for politicians who favor welfare; people opposing raises in utility bills will opt for politicians who don't raise utility bills; people who want utility bills raised (those particular lobbying associations) will opt for politicians who think likewise. These groups (of which there are many more) fight for a pool of resources over which the government and lower-level governments can allocate.

(3) Then, there's the advantage of free markets: the driving down of prices, the incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and blah blah blah.

The issue is this:

(A) How much does (1) and (2) affect (3)?
(what are the benefits and costs?)

(B) And given x-amount of infringement, what would the outcomes of (3) become?
(problem of counterfactual)

[nietzsche]

Just one point you guys are forgetting here (or being too naive): normally the government subsidizes what they want, it depends totally on executive decisions which depend of lobbies. And after that a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made.

But you guys will reject my point, BBS will come with a market parchment to show me why I'm wrong, and those science rooted will praise scientist and praise what the texts say, when new ideas come from intuition all the time.

Just something you have to take into account, you have not all the answers you know..

I'll be brief.

(1) Yes, there's crony capitalism (self-interested politicians, lobbying, problems with voter behavior, asymmetric information, etc.).

(2) But government doesn't subsidize what it wants. Instead, it's a shit fest for votes and political clout among elected officials, public officials, and voters. Within each of those three groups, some groups get what they want, and some don't.

For example, people on welfare tend to opt for politicians who favor welfare; people opposing raises in utility bills will opt for politicians who don't raise utility bills; people who want utility bills raised (those particular lobbying associations) will opt for politicians who think likewise. These groups (of which there are many more) fight for a pool of resources over which the government and lower-level governments can allocate.

(3) Then, there's the advantage of free markets: the driving down of prices, the incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and blah blah blah.

The issue is this:

(A) How much does (1) and (2) affect (3)?
(what are the benefits and costs?)

(B) And given x-amount of infringement, what would the outcomes of (3) become?
(problem of counterfactual)

Say I accept your point number 2, because it would be endless to try and come to a fine tuning of your definition. Would that make my point "a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made. " false?

It'd awesome if we as a community came to a written agreement as to which positions are considered to be ridiculous without further thought. I say this because many of you are based on science and have claimed yours the "common sense" (which reminds me of Locke), and just take as a job to ridicule others without real thinking. Basically it goes as this "Lol you fool UserA, thinking about UncoolThing1 when it's clear that CommonSenseAssumption1 is what's real, just see what GodOnAtheistCustome tells us"

I want to be clear that I'm not taking sides in the argument, I'm merely commenting on the way the debate is been held.

[Lootifer]

example 

Blah blah blah

He may be on to something if he advocated for free competition in the energy sector..

Or you could just check out this....

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Regarding your later point. Electricity generation should, and is in New Zealand, competed for in aa free market. In recent years the spot market for generation has resulted in new generation build costs that are roughly aligned with the cheapest options in the eia document. The main exceptions being we have a number of geothermal and wind options that are cheaper than those numbers listed because of ourz natural resources.

Oh and our gas capex costs arent quite as low. In other words we are currently building a mixture of wind, geo and gas supporting (peaking) plant.

[BigBallinStalin]

Just one point you guys are forgetting here (or being too naive): normally the government subsidizes what they want, it depends totally on executive decisions which depend of lobbies. And after that a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made.

But you guys will reject my point, BBS will come with a market parchment to show me why I'm wrong, and those science rooted will praise scientist and praise what the texts say, when new ideas come from intuition all the time.

Just something you have to take into account, you have not all the answers you know..

I'll be brief.

(1) Yes, there's crony capitalism (self-interested politicians, lobbying, problems with voter behavior, asymmetric information, etc.).

(2) But government doesn't subsidize what it wants. Instead, it's a shit fest for votes and political clout among elected officials, public officials, and voters. Within each of those three groups, some groups get what they want, and some don't.

For example, people on welfare tend to opt for politicians who favor welfare; people opposing raises in utility bills will opt for politicians who don't raise utility bills; people who want utility bills raised (those particular lobbying associations) will opt for politicians who think likewise. These groups (of which there are many more) fight for a pool of resources over which the government and lower-level governments can allocate.

(3) Then, there's the advantage of free markets: the driving down of prices, the incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and blah blah blah.

The issue is this:

(A) How much does (1) and (2) affect (3)?
(what are the benefits and costs?)

(B) And given x-amount of infringement, what would the outcomes of (3) become?
(problem of counterfactual)

Say I accept your point number 2, because it would be endless to try and come to a fine tuning of your definition. Would that make my point "a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made. " false?

#2 is about the political process of rent-seeking. It's about the increasing politicizing over more and more goods and services.

Your point deals with one source of innovation, so I don't see the relevance. It does remind me that the government forbade private space exploration until recently, so maybe that's related?

It'd awesome if we as a community came to a written agreement as to which positions are considered to be ridiculous without further thought. I say this because many of you are based on science and have claimed yours the "common sense" (which reminds me of Locke), and just take as a job to ridicule others without real thinking. Basically it goes as this "Lol you fool UserA, thinking about UncoolThing1 when it's clear that CommonSenseAssumption1 is what's real, just see what GodOnAtheistCustome tells us"

I want to be clear that I'm not taking sides in the argument, I'm merely commenting on the way the debate is been held.

When one side has proven themselves incapable of rational debate, then let the lulz ensue.

There's not much of a point in accommodating obstinate idiots. Occasional idiocy/mistakes/misunderstandings is fine when it's not the general pattern of a particular individual. However, if it actually is a pattern of that individual, then it doesn't make sense to hold unreal expectations of them (i.e. taking them seriously becomes fruitless).

[BigBallinStalin]

example 

Blah blah blah

He may be on to something if he advocated for free competition in the energy sector..

Or you could just check out this....

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Regarding your later point. Electricity generation should, and is in New Zealand, competed for in aa free market. In recent years the spot market for generation has resulted in new generation build costs that are roughly aligned with the cheapest options in the eia document. The main exceptions being we have a number of geothermal and wind options that are cheaper than those numbers listed because of ourz natural resources.

Oh and our gas capex costs arent quite as low. In other words we are currently building a mixture of wind, geo and gas supporting (peaking) plant.

Wot? You didn't like the part about the gold standard???

[nietzsche]

Just one point you guys are forgetting here (or being too naive): normally the government subsidizes what they want, it depends totally on executive decisions which depend of lobbies. And after that a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made.

But you guys will reject my point, BBS will come with a market parchment to show me why I'm wrong, and those science rooted will praise scientist and praise what the texts say, when new ideas come from intuition all the time.

Just something you have to take into account, you have not all the answers you know..

I'll be brief.

(1) Yes, there's crony capitalism (self-interested politicians, lobbying, problems with voter behavior, asymmetric information, etc.).

(2) But government doesn't subsidize what it wants. Instead, it's a shit fest for votes and political clout among elected officials, public officials, and voters. Within each of those three groups, some groups get what they want, and some don't.

For example, people on welfare tend to opt for politicians who favor welfare; people opposing raises in utility bills will opt for politicians who don't raise utility bills; people who want utility bills raised (those particular lobbying associations) will opt for politicians who think likewise. These groups (of which there are many more) fight for a pool of resources over which the government and lower-level governments can allocate.

(3) Then, there's the advantage of free markets: the driving down of prices, the incentive to innovate and become more efficient, and blah blah blah.

The issue is this:

(A) How much does (1) and (2) affect (3)?
(what are the benefits and costs?)

(B) And given x-amount of infringement, what would the outcomes of (3) become?
(problem of counterfactual)

Say I accept your point number 2, because it would be endless to try and come to a fine tuning of your definition. Would that make my point "a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made. " false?

#2 is about the political process of rent-seeking. It's about the increasing politicizing over more and more goods and services.

Your point deals with one source of innovation, so I don't see the relevance. It does remind me that the government forbade private space exploration until recently, so maybe that's related?

It'd awesome if we as a community came to a written agreement as to which positions are considered to be ridiculous without further thought. I say this because many of you are based on science and have claimed yours the "common sense" (which reminds me of Locke), and just take as a job to ridicule others without real thinking. Basically it goes as this "Lol you fool UserA, thinking about UncoolThing1 when it's clear that CommonSenseAssumption1 is what's real, just see what GodOnAtheistCustome tells us"

I want to be clear that I'm not taking sides in the argument, I'm merely commenting on the way the debate is been held.

When one side has proven themselves incapable of rational debate, then let the lulz ensue.

There's not much of a point in accommodating obstinate idiots. Occasional idiocy/mistakes/misunderstandings is fine when it's not the general pattern of a particular individual. However, if it actually is a pattern of that individual, then it doesn't make sense to hold unreal expectations of them (i.e. taking them seriously becomes fruitless).

oh boy, what have i got myself into.

you are right, i don't know what i was thinking.

[PLAYER57832]

Just one point you guys are forgetting here (or being too naive): normally the government subsidizes what they want, it depends totally on executive decisions which depend of lobbies. And after that a technology can skyrocket after it's been available to mainstream, because (as it has been said) normally the breakthroughs in science come from a different field when associations are made.

But you guys will reject my point, BBS will come with a market parchment to show me why I'm wrong, and those science rooted will praise scientist and praise what the texts say, when new ideas come from intuition all the time.

Just something you have to take into account, you have not all the answers you know..

No, I don't disagree at all. In fact, I made essentially the same point in various other threads.

But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.

Of course, Dole did pretty much create a "problem" in Hawaii to justify deposing the monarchy there.... But anyway, this is pretty far off the topic of evolution.

The question is why Viceroy thinks evolution is part of his scenario.

[tzor]

But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.

You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.

The project to get a man on the moon was supposed to be a ten year (max) project.
I forget how many years to took to develop the two nuclear prototypes but it wasn't many.

Doctors and scientists "cure" disease and their funding is an annual basis but it's hard to refuse them so it never gets cut.

And if you break down all of those projects, it's not what "the government wants" but what individuals wanted. All government projects "bring home the bacon" to someone who in turn use it to get reelected.

[PLAYER57832]

But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.

You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.

Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.

AND... still waiting for Viceroy to explain why he thinks his scenario is important, anyway.

[Lootifer]

But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.

You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.

Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.

AND... still waiting for Viceroy to explain why he thinks his scenario is important, anyway.

Putting on my BBS shaped mask for a second...

We can really say that (underlined) with a stright face; knowing what would have happened in a counterfactual scenario is impossible (much like predicting the future is).

My personal opinion is that neither (government funding of unprofitable research or free market advancments) would make a great deal of difference. Research comes down to ideas and people; who pays for it (and their apparent "strategy") is rather meaningless in the long run.

[PLAYER57832]

But I will say that up until very recently, "what the government wants" has been based upon some specific long term public goals.
Curing Polio, curing Malaria, developing the nuclear bomb, getting to the moon, etc. etc.

You have a very short sited view of "long term" public goals.

Oh please, it was a quick spur of the moment list. The POINT is that without the basis of initially unprofitable government research, most of the "free market advancements" never would have happened.

AND... still waiting for Viceroy to explain why he thinks his scenario is important, anyway.

Putting on my BBS shaped mask for a second...

We can really say that (underlined) with a stright face; knowing what would have happened in a counterfactual scenario is impossible (much like predicting the future is).

My personal opinion is that neither (government funding of unprofitable research or free market advancments) would make a great deal of difference. Research comes down to ideas and people; who pays for it (and their apparent "strategy") is rather meaningless in the long run.

People who say that are those who are just plain unaware of the history of such research or how much it truly entails.

The free market is great at putting the sugar coating on aspirin. It is not so great at inventing the aspirin.