What's new

US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

My poor students own iPods. There will always be plenty of consumers to buy their products.

You're mistaken. Practically every job we currently have is automatable in the near future. Unless you're doing something really creative and independent, you're vulnerable to automation within a couple of decades. What will happen in 5 years when 3m+ trucking jobs (and jobs created to support these truckers, like gas stations in some spots) become obsolete? Automated trucks is the most common example because of how imminent the threat of automation is. But even doctors are vulnerable as diagnostic neural nets, eg Watson and Google's DeepMind, develop.
 
You're mistaken. Practically every job we currently have is automatable in the near future. Unless you're doing something really creative and independent, you're vulnerable to automation within a couple of decades. What will happen in 5 years when 3m+ trucking jobs (and jobs created to support these truckers, like gas stations in some spots) become obsolete? Automated trucks is the most common example because of how imminent the threat of automation is. But even doctors are vulnerable as diagnostic neural nets, eg Watson and Google's DeepMind, develop.

Over time, people will find jobs in new industries.
 
Over time, people will find jobs in new industries.

No they won't. There won't be any new industries where humans outperform robots except for the most creative or skilled fields. Are you saying a 50 year old truck driver will retrain to be an AI developer? A robotic engineer? Of course not. He'd be out of work, or latching onto the low-pay low-skill jobs that still exist. Until they don't.
 
I heard an idea where UBI is tied to level of automation. The more automated a company is, the more they contribute to the UBI fund. That way, the more automated an economy becomes, the bigger the payment everyone gets.

Do you think that wouldn't be enough? If so, what else can you do within the current system?

A prominent leftist writer Matt Bruenig has penned a few articles on UBI and how he could foresee it working (taking inspiration from a couple Nordic countries who've already instated it IIRC)
 
To those curious: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/ubi-finland-centre-party-unemployment-jobs/

ubi.jpg
 
Right now? No, it's not happening. Eventually they'd have to when there are no longer enough people to buy the products of their companies.

1:30

[video=youtube_share;ZxO83ne8Sic]https://youtu.be/ZxO83ne8Sic

But even doctors are vulnerable as diagnostic neural nets, eg Watson and Google's DeepMind, develop.

I'm not really seeing that happening any time soon. Even something as simple as an EKG requires human eyes. You can make a lot of arguments based on things such as radiology but even that will require human eyes and a clinical correlation that isn't really something you can algorithmize. Of course, there will continue to be pushes for this as many continue to view medicine as something that can be achieved through guidelines and algorithms which is why you see huge pushes for expanded practice of mid-level (non-physician) providers to be "prescribers." The push on these things comes from a mindset that science is like a magic 8 ball and each question has a specific accompanying answer, so that if a patient has a, b and c, then you're going to do x, y and z -- it's science! Unfortunately, even AI can't scrutinize the primary literature of the treatments and interventions to really question how we know what we know, or if what we know is correct or how it will apply to a given situation.
 
1:30

[video=youtube_share;ZxO83ne8Sic]https://youtu.be/ZxO83ne8Sic



I'm not really seeing that happening any time soon. Even something as simple as an EKG requires human eyes. You can make a lot of arguments based on things such as radiology but even that will require human eyes and a clinical correlation that isn't really something you can algorithmize. Of course, there will continue to be pushes for this as many continue to view medicine as something that can be achieved through guidelines and algorithms which is why you see huge pushes for expanded practice of mid-level (non-physician) providers to be "prescribers." The push on these things comes from a mindset that science is like a magic 8 ball and each question has a specific accompanying answer, so that if a patient has a, b and c, then you're going to do x, y and z -- it's science! Unfortunately, even AI can't scrutinize the primary literature of the treatments and interventions to really question how we know what we know, or if what we know is correct or how it will apply to a given situation.

I don't fully disagree. I think many opportunities of collaboration between advanced AI and highly-skilled humans will open up. However, these jobs are limited in number, and cannot support the population at large.

I always recommend this, but everyone should read The Second Machine age, as it goes deeply into what's expected to happen over the next couple of decades. It's a very accessible business/economics focused book.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Machi...351982&sr=8-1&keywords=the+second+machine+age
 
A prominent leftist writer Matt Bruenig has penned a few articles on UBI and how he could foresee it working (taking inspiration from a couple Nordic countries who've already instated it IIRC)

I will check them out, thanks. I also wanted to say that no country has instated UBI as of today. Finland has/is experimenting with the idea, on a limited basis. Remember, UBI must be unconditional, universal, and equivalent to income from a full-time low-skill job.
 
So when do I get my 18k? I need to pay insurance on my Porsche mother****er.
 
So when do I get my 18k? I need to pay insurance on my Porsche mother****er.

Interestingly, that quote you're referencing demonstrates fairly well why I do not believe that any amount of money you give anyone will solve any problems society currently faces from any long-term perspective. These themes are common for everyone. Currently we're all talking about how if we were any of our FAs that we'd realize having $10M would set us for life and we wouldn't be stingy about another $3-4M. The only way I could see UBI being beneficial is by getting rid of the massive cost of bureaucracy of all the agencies currently handling entitlements and benefits, in a sense just funneling all that money into one source. But, eventually, and sooner rather than later, we will see people still being homeless, still in debt, still not able to afford food, etc., and we will call for the reinstatement of social safety nets in addition to UBI.
 
No they won't. There won't be any new industries where humans outperform robots except for the most creative or skilled fields. Are you saying a 50 year old truck driver will retrain to be an AI developer? A robotic engineer? Of course not. He'd be out of work, or latching onto the low-pay low-skill jobs that still exist. Until they don't.

People will. Not the people who lost their jobs to robots. There will be a (major?) downturn in the economy and then an uptick as new industries form and those trained and skilled in such fields, find employment. It may take a decade or two. But I think it would happen.
 
Hilarious that you think big oil is a "free market". Oil is subsidies with massive tax breaks retard.
[MENTION=54]Beantown[/MENTION]!


yeah negrepping me with that! on this post

that's good news then!


lets assume for a second that this fairy tale about catastrophic man made climate change is real! seems like we do not need the government then!
because the free market always goes for more potential!

i mean if you believe coal is the way to go, your choice. you will make money now but you gotta invest in the future! ! people who want to make money will then go to clean energy industry and make their money their!

that's just simple economics!

so let the paris climate accord **** off!


their nis a built in incentive! no need to rob taxpayer sof the money! or ram globalism down my throat


so what who the **** cares about subsidies and tax breaks!

i am a libertarian! i am against most forms of taxation! and against any and all government subsidies

taxbreaks who cares! it is not the governments money!
 
You want to spend ten trillion dollars per year and don't expect any adverse consequences? And how in the world are you going to raise taxes on the rich high enough to come anywhere close to even 10% of that figure?

I'm sure alt has some magical band-aid solution.

Let's say 18K times every adult 245 million that equals a little more than 4.4 trillion. SSI is nearly a trillion let's say we save 800 billion there. We're down to 3.6 trillion. We can more than make our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP while cutting 200 billion from the military(let's stop subsidizing European social services). We are down to 3.4 trillion. Now let's say we set the even Steven level at the top 40%. That is the top 40% have a new tax liability that is equal to or greater than the 18K. We can now remove 40% of our original 4.4 trillion off the top. That's 1.7 trillion dollars. We now have a funding need of 1.7 trillion dollars but even all of that won't be the sole responsibility of the top 40%. People making less will have some tax liability it will just be less than the full 18K. I can't tell you an exact number but I can tell you that it would be much less than 1.7 trillion. Further there are alternative funding sources such as a vat tax or consumption tax extraction tax increase in capital gains tax etcetera that could be used in concert with our progressive income tax to fund it. This is all assuming that there are no other savings in Social spending which seems kind of ridiculous. I can't imagine that you could give everyone $18,000 and that as many people would still need the vast array of programs that we currently offer.

In short when you do an overly simple calculation the new tax burden seems much much much larger than it actually would need to be.
 
Whats_App_Image_2017_06_02_at_04_31_41.jpg



lol unlike past prediction who have not come trough they learned form it, and did not put a date on it this time!


wasnt new york supposed to be underwater by now(prediction form the 90's


i lov ehow they say science consequences(we should ban science now)

hahahaha CNN VERY FAKE NEWS!
 
ACLU think it is racist injustice

HAHAHHAHAA


making it about race! yeah we have to call it racist!

so fun!
in other news, dow jones hits record high, guess it is some after effect of what obama did last few months of his presidency
 
The truly amazing thing? That we actually have to accept this incompetence, this ignorance of truth, of science, of educated values. We can't say "enough!" And remove him with one week's notice. Pack your bags, you have until June 15th. Instead we actually get to see him announce what amounts to a crime against humanity. A middle finger to the future of the human race. A middle finger to a far too large % of all Life on Earth. Accepting a future that will bring real predictable human suffering and conflict on Earth. In order to promote a return to the 1950's and America first.

America First. Humanity Second. America First. Grandchildren and great grandchildren Second. America First. Life on Earth Second. America First. And breaking a treaty obligation signed by a majority of nations on Earth to make America First. Announcing that the world is on its own. America First. Mankind Second. This monstrous human being does not have the authority to make such a decision. He does not have the authority to commit a crime against humanity.

The nations of Earth stand against him. He has isolated himself as a pariah, renounced America's leadership and made his nation a pariah. 70% of the American people favored remaining committed to the Paris Accord. With this decision, Trump sought a political victory with his base. With this decision, Donald J. Trump sealed the judgement of History. With this decision Donald J. Trump sealed his fate.
 
(CNN)Withdrawing from the Paris climate accord is about the only predictable -- even rational -- move that President Trump has made since taking office.

Following embarrassing reversals on the Mexican wall, the Muslim immigration ban and other signature policies, he sees rejecting accepted orthodoxy on climate change as an easy deliverable to please his populist base.

Too bad it fries the planet. He was elected on this pledge, and he plans to deliver.

Canceling the Paris deal is a classic post-truth policy. Based on the outright denial of overwhelming scientific reality -- and telegraphed in suspense-building gameshow style this week via Twitter and conflicting media teasers -- it is Trump at his most callous, ignorant and attention-seeking.

As a former reality TV star, Trump cares about how things look, not how they really are. Torpedoing climate efforts is the ultimate "up yours" to liberals -- after all, that's the point. The aim is symbolic, but faced with higher carbon emissions and consequent disastrous global warming, our children may not see it that way.

My guess is that far from undermining the determination of other world leaders to cut carbon emissions, Trump's action will have a galvanizing effect on the Paris accords. It will prompt other countries to redouble their efforts, precisely in order not to let Trump be seen to win this vital battle over the future of the planet.

The European Union in particular, led by Germany's Angela Merkel, has no intention of letting Trump get away with this kind of global vandalism. On climate, the EU is united far more than on any other issue. Brexit will make no difference -- all mainstream political parties in the UK back Paris. The move will lead to the isolation of the Trump administration and further corrode international goodwill towards America.

It will also mean the US ceding climate leadership to China, a mantle Beijing is only too eager to assume. The Chinese want both to solve their crippling smog problem and look like a responsible global superpower. Their considered and long-term approach is cast in direct opposition to the self-centered showman now inhabiting the White House.

And the Chinese approach is not merely altruistic. China's leaders have long recognized the economic opportunities in moving aggressively into clean energy technologies. Solar is now cheaper -- as well as cleaner -- than coal in many developing countries.

Trump, who likes to pose as a successful businessman, seems not to understand the value of innovation. Instead he seeks to turn the clock back to an imagined golden age of fossil fuels. If America falls behind in the clean energy revolution, it is not Trump who will pay the price.

For the environmental community, this looks like a rerun of George W. Bush's withdrawal from the earlier Kyoto treaty in 2001. That political gambit lost the world a decade. Trump's may lose far more -- if we let it.

I now expect to see the full fury of the environmental movement -- including just about everyone except for the Breitbart right -- to be turned on the US coal industry, the only powerful economic player to oppose climate action. (Even Big Oil now backs Paris, along with most of the rest of corporate America.)

Expect determined efforts to defund coal mining, huge divestment campaigns against coal company stocks and rallies to close down coal-fired power plants all across America.
The coal industry has now put itself squarely in the cross-hairs of an intense global reaction. Hitting coal is a way to hit back at Trump -- where it hurts.

Trump will thus have achieved precisely the opposite of his intended effect.

Instead of shoring up coal jobs, he will have made a full-scale "war on coal" -- and US coal in particular -- the pre-eminent moral cause of our time, just as the struggle against apartheid was for an earlier generation.

And -- ironically for such a divisive person -- he will have helped bring about an unprecedented degree of global unity, albeit against his own administration. For that, we can perhaps be grateful.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/opinions/trump-has-alienated-the-us-lynas-opinion/

With this one selfish and misguided decision, Donald J. Trump has sealed his fate.
 
Red, beginning in oh the sixties, science has gone to the birds.... as in Big Bird/Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, and Barney. All those smiley feel-gooders who consider it more important to have consensus than truth.

Used to be, when someone was presenting a new paper in the college department seminars, the nay-sayers were wall-to-wall attacking every crack in the new report. We don't get that anymore, and anyone presenting a favored politically-useful result like "The sky is falling, we must have a world climate consensus and a carbon tax", it doesn't matter how the data was collected, everybody smiles and prostates themselves to show they're in accord.

Despite some real problems with the data collection methods early on, with recording stations placement questionable, our satellite data today is probably good enough to sustain the claim that we have had a climate warming and a carbon dioxide increase approximately commensurate. But we still have not addressed the fundamentals on a substantial number of large issues, such as measuring ocean temps at depth or getting a grasp on ocean outgassing. The dissolved CO2 is an order of magnitude greater than out atmospheric CO2, and as yet we have not correctly corrected for carbonate deposition under warmer subtropical seas. So I think reasonable scientists should dispute the extrapolated claims and predictions for the future, and it is true, as Dutch has pointed out, that the sea level predictions have failed to live up to projections until now. Maybe those estimates have been flawed, and we should review the calculations.

But the bigger issues are natural climate variations we still don't understand. Short-term, as in a hundred years or less, rises in temps have preceded every ice age we have been able to examine, according to published reports. And we are still within statistical norms for our present warm period, in terms of peak temps, if we are somewhat overdue for the big freeze.

But where I say it's obviously "Not Science" is where we have launched phony BS political measures in our "Accord" as somehow addressing the need. The measures are purely political agenda. We should scrap that nonsense.

But hey, you've got Barney, Mr. Rogers, Big Bird and the Science Guy on your team. How could you ever be wrong.
 
Top