Skeptic Project

Posted: Mar 29, 2012 - 08:31

(0)

Level: 0

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=206611

The thing gets really juicy after page 5. As in "DOOM!" juicy.

Posted: Mar 29, 2012 - 11:23

(0)

Level: 6
CS Original

Myriad's post on p7 is one of the few parts of that thread I'd consider worth reading:

The most striking similarity between the truth movement and the peak oil movement, to me, is how the believers explain skepticism. For example, this recent post and its comments thread, on one of the more interesting peak oil blogs The Archdruid Report, discusses the question of why the public, skeptics, and experts are so blind to the crisis and only the enlightened fringe can see the obvious truth.

The Archdruid's answer delves into centuries of philosophical thought to explore the importance of initiation experiences in overcoming supposed pernicious social influences that can distort one's perception of reality. The post and its comments thread contain vivid and sometimes touching accounts of various commenters' own initiation experiences (reading a book or essay, viewing a video) that opened their eyes to the truth, that changed their entire perception of the nature of the world. Now that their eyes are open, they see others remaining strangely blind to the obvious, just as they themselves had been prior to their own "initiations." This has caused feelings of isolation, strained family relations, and frustration at slow progress in awakening the blinded-by-ideology/TV-tranquilized/distracted masses. Some express the hope that the inevitable next crisis will help wake more people up faster.

It's interesting how nicely this meme spreads through the (overlapping) doom, CT and Zeitgeist circles. I remember VTV asking his guests to recall the defining moment of their realizing the "truth", which seemed a bit weird at the time, but by this line of reasoning actually makes a lot of sense.

Posted: Mar 30, 2012 - 07:17

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from CyborgJesus

Myriad's post on p7 is one of the few parts of that thread I'd consider worth reading:

The most striking similarity between the truth movement and the peak oil movement, to me, is how the believers explain skepticism. For example, this recent post and its comments thread, on one of the more interesting peak oil blogs The Archdruid Report, discusses the question of why the public, skeptics, and experts are so blind to the crisis and only the enlightened fringe can see the obvious truth.

The Archdruid's answer delves into centuries of philosophical thought to explore the importance of initiation experiences in overcoming supposed pernicious social influences that can distort one's perception of reality. The post and its comments thread contain vivid and sometimes touching accounts of various commenters' own initiation experiences (reading a book or essay, viewing a video) that opened their eyes to the truth, that changed their entire perception of the nature of the world. Now that their eyes are open, they see others remaining strangely blind to the obvious, just as they themselves had been prior to their own "initiations." This has caused feelings of isolation, strained family relations, and frustration at slow progress in awakening the blinded-by-ideology/TV-tranquilized/distracted masses. Some express the hope that the inevitable next crisis will help wake more people up faster.

It's interesting how nicely this meme spreads through the (overlapping) doom, CT and Zeitgeist circles. I remember VTV asking his guests to recall the defining moment of their realizing the "truth", which seemed a bit weird at the time, but by this line of reasoning actually makes a lot of sense.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=206611&page=9

Who´s this Achemde guy the doomtard so valiantly worships?

Posted: Mar 30, 2012 - 13:33

(0)

Level: 6
CS Original

The maker of crisis of civilization? Never heard of him before. His views seem to match with those of Chomsky or Albert: Common ownership of land and resources, decentralized planning, regulation of major industries. Nothing too outlandish, but also nothing detailed enough to be really interesting. How would a non-consumerist economy work? What would be the incentives? Who/What would control the distribution of goods and resources?

Posted: Mar 30, 2012 - 15:04

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from CyborgJesus

The maker of crisis of civilization? Never heard of him before. His views seem to match with those of Chomsky or Albert: Common ownership of land and resources, decentralized planning, regulation of major industries. Nothing too outlandish, but also nothing detailed enough to be really interesting. How would a non-consumerist economy work? What would be the incentives? Who/What would control the distribution of goods and resources?

Well, this is his reasoning. I know that is crazy, but what are the major flaws?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8158513&postcount=373

Posted: Mar 30, 2012 - 16:51

(0)

Level: 6
CS Original

He's simply collecting a lot of negative trends and assuming they'll occur at the same time and location. This is unlikely, and he's almost admitting it himself.

Climate Change: Some effects are already being witnessed, but most will be long-term and some places will be affected much more strongly than others.

Peak Oil: Rising oil prices would affect primarily those who can afford to pay the least. If you imagine the world as a landscape where wealth and power correlate to peaks and poverty to valleys, it's just logical to assume that a potential flood will destroy the people in the valleys first, given the ones at the peaks more time to adjust and prepare.

Sovereign debt: This is the only problem I can see posing immediate risks. Afaik, the best way to predict future events is to account for the power and motivations of all individual actors involved. "The Predictioneer's Game" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita provides more info on how this is done professionally to predict the outcomes of past events like the Iraq War, or currently Iran's nuclear project.
For now, let's do a very rough estimate and assume that we're faced with a huge debt crisis that might lead to a global doomsday scenario. Wouldn't that drastically change the motivations of the lenders from recouping their investments to avoiding losing everything else they have? As far as I'm concerned, "We can give you 20% of principal or we can screw up the world economy and you won't make deals for the next decade" sounds like an easy enough proposition.

And the pragmatic outlook: I don't think there's anything wrong with having multiple flags or putting some of your assets into something you consider safe, but if you can't change it, why not shut up and get yourself and your loved ones to a safe place?

Posted: Mar 30, 2012 - 20:18

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from CyborgJesus

He's simply collecting a lot of negative trends and assuming they'll occur at the same time and location. This is unlikely, and he's almost admitting it himself.

Climate Change: Some effects are already being witnessed, but most will be long-term and some places will be affected much more strongly than others.

Peak Oil: Rising oil prices would affect primarily those who can afford to pay the least. If you imagine the world as a landscape where wealth and power correlate to peaks and poverty to valleys, it's just logical to assume that a potential flood will destroy the people in the valleys first, given the ones at the peaks more time to adjust and prepare.

Sovereign debt: This is the only problem I can see posing immediate risks. Afaik, the best way to predict future events is to account for the power and motivations of all individual actors involved. "The Predictioneer's Game" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita provides more info on how this is done professionally to predict the outcomes of past events like the Iraq War, or currently Iran's nuclear project.
For now, let's do a very rough estimate and assume that we're faced with a huge debt crisis that might lead to a global doomsday scenario. Wouldn't that drastically change the motivations of the lenders from recouping their investments to avoiding losing everything else they have? As far as I'm concerned, "We can give you 20% of principal or we can screw up the world economy and you won't make deals for the next decade" sounds like an easy enough proposition.

And the pragmatic outlook: I don't think there's anything wrong with having multiple flags or putting some of your assets into something you consider safe, but if you can't change it, why not shut up and get yourself and your loved ones to a safe place?

So that explains him lashing out at anyone who does not believe him? If you notice every time someone says that they don´t buy his theories he unleashes insults and calls everyone "idiots".

Posted: Mar 30, 2012 - 21:25

(1)

Level: 6
CS Original

It's a fairly typical reaction. If you present a position you feel strongly about and just receive complete rejection in response, it takes some strength of character to sit back and ask "Why am I getting this response?" instead of "Why is everybody too stupid to understand me?".

I didn't get the impression that he has a strong grasp of the material relevant to doom-ism - that's why he keeps linking to slick videos. You could probably get him to shift away from his 2012 position towards more moderate one if you used some negotiation finesse, but then, I could list 50 things that are both more fun and more useful than convincing random people on the Internet.

Posted: Mar 31, 2012 - 09:43

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from CyborgJesus

It's a fairly typical reaction. If you present a position you feel strongly about and just receive complete rejection in response, it takes some strength of character to sit back and ask "Why am I getting this response?" instead of "Why is everybody too stupid to understand me?".

I didn't get the impression that he has a strong grasp of the material relevant to doom-ism - that's why he keeps linking to slick videos. You could probably get him to shift away from his 2012 position towards more moderate one if you used some negotiation finesse, but then, I could list 50 things that are both more fun and more useful than convincing random people on the Internet.

Well, from what I get from him is that he believes not the world is endings this year, but the sins, like economical crisis and peak-oil are becoming more evidence sort of speaking. He seems really convinced too, like were he says he will have no children because he knows what is coming.

Posted: Mar 31, 2012 - 11:59

(0)

Level: 0

Another example:

When someone posted a post from one of the UE´s sources (a scientist that said the Earth was getting full), saying that mankind would be able to get through this crisis, he immediately downplayed it as the guy merely wanting to reassure people.

It´s almost like he WANTS a disaster to happen so he´s vindicated or something.

#10

Posted: Mar 31, 2012 - 15:35

(0)

Level: 6
CS Original

The core argument is between techno-realists, who argue that markets, technology and human ingenuity will solve global problems, and techno-pessimists, who argue that we'll require further political, economic and individual lifestyle changes to avoid a doom scenario.

If we assume that the pessimists are right, then some kind of crash will occur within this century. If this is true, it might actually be a good thing to convince people that the crash will happen sooner than later, as they'll start preparing earlier, given them more time to avoid the actual crash. It's just like projects at work: If the real deadline is on day 12, some project managers might tell their teams it's on day 9 to give them a buffer of three more days.

Tbh, I'd like to see serious political and economic shifts whether doom will occur or not, but some people - including TZM/TVP - argue that it will need the fear of doom to inspire people to take action, and that's probably why this guy argues so vehemently for his dystopian predictions.

The passivity makes no sense either way, though. If nobody has kids because the future sucks, there won't be any.

#11

Posted: Mar 31, 2012 - 16:21

(0)

Level: 0

Quote from CyborgJesus

The core argument is between techno-realists, who argue that markets, technology and human ingenuity will solve global problems, and techno-pessimists, who argue that we'll require further political, economic and individual lifestyle changes to avoid a doom scenario.

If we assume that the pessimists are right, then some kind of crash will occur within this century. If this is true, it might actually be a good thing to convince people that the crash will happen sooner than later, as they'll start preparing earlier, given them more time to avoid the actual crash. It's just like projects at work: If the real deadline is on day 12, some project managers might tell their teams it's on day 9 to give them a buffer of three more days.

Tbh, I'd like to see serious political and economic shifts whether doom will occur or not, but some people - including TZM/TVP - argue that it will need the fear of doom to inspire people to take action, and that's probably why this guy argues so vehemently for his dystopian predictions.

The passivity makes no sense either way, though. If nobody has kids because the future sucks, there won't be any.

It confuses me tho. He says nothing will change sop we should pucker up and accept our doom. But I agree that some changes in the globe are inevitable and should be undertaken.

Do you think the guy is right?

#12

Posted: Mar 31, 2012 - 19:05

(0)

Level: 6
CS Original

Nah. I think he's just mirroring ideas he heard somewhere else and gets a lot of it wrong in the process.

The whole inevitability spiel is pretty common with doomers, the logic goes like this:
1: People receive warning of impending doom, nobody listens
2: Doom occurs
3: People realize how wrong they were and act smarter in the future

Of course, if doom were to occur, the last thing people would blame are complex political patterns and systemic causes, as politicians tend to make much more pleasing punching bags. People in power would simply be replaced by others and everything would stay the same. Optionally: Doomers would give too much power to some idealist with unproven and untested ideas and end up with a worse system than before.

If we want to see political change, I don't think we need mass awareness but a few thousand people who are able and willing to actually do stuff. Conduct research, fund and execute projects, test experimental solutions to major problems in a safe environment - I think that's what will get us to the next level of civilization. Arguing with random folks or making the sixth documentary on why consumerism is evil won't.

#13