"In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises."
I wouldn't sell my beach house in Miami just yet. Detroit should be safe though, maybe people will move back there.
Key graph:
"Let’s pause here. Note that Daniels’s immediate concern is not to stop Zinn’s book from being taught, but to prevent the state of Indiana from awarding professional development credit to teachers on the basis of this course. He wonders who has jurisdiction. These are reasonable concerns—provided you have a clear view of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States."
The article also quotes several renowned historians panning Zinn's scholarship and calling the book in question "a pretty lousy piece of work."
"The murder was being treated as an act of terrorism, the police said.
There have been several attacks on Islamic buildings in Britain since the murder of soldier Lee Rigby on a south London street in May stoked community tensions."
So...almost never called terrorism...except in the news report you link, apparently.
And there never is any collective Christian guilt because Christ was a pacifist according to the New Testament. He did not say "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." (9:5)
If he had, indeed, said something like that to Mary Magdelene as he was dying on the cross, perhaps we could have a different conversation.
"...and that human beings will be left unemployed and penniless."
This is the point I failed to address elsewhere, and this is where your thinking errs. The history of life on this planet is a story of constant and unstoppable progress, from the beginning of the evolution of life to the (quasi) capitalistic economy we have today. Perturbations of chaotic systems - essentially what you are describing in your robot hypothetical - happen on occasion but the end result in every case has made the system better and stronger.
Name a technological advance which has worsened the human condition.
Setting aside advances in weaponry, I can't think of one.
But you are saying this is the one. This is the time technology is going to screw us and leave us unemployed and penniless (with the GOP taking food stamps away, lol, gotta get your political dig in).
The only problem with this insight is...well...the entire history of the planet. And you have a large burden to prove your case.
I understand that you can't see what's around the robot/3-D printer bend. No one can. But if evolution had stopped in the Pleistocene because homo erectus was worried about homo sapien stealing all the jobs, we wouldn't be here today.
Your question - so where will the jobs come from - suggests that an answer can be known.
There are millions of people today working in professions unfathomable to people living 100 years ago. A politician even 50 years ago could not have foreseen and planned for the dramatic changes in our economy caused by the internet. Capitalism creates new opportunities as old ones are made increasingly irrelevant.
Detroit - the city not the auto industry - became increasingly irrelevant because it refused to change quickly enough. The city created perverse incentives for businesses and investors - including incredibly high tax rates - who left to find greener pastures.
And we're not yet in an Isaac Asimov novel, but consider your question about robots stealing all the labor from a different angle. Technology has rendered millions of jobs irrelevant in the last 50 years, from farming to banking to the airline and auto industries. But that same technology created different opportunities (whether those are more or less than what was destroyed is debatable).
It wasn't possible to see the outcome of those perturbations beforehand, just as it's not possible to see the answer to your question right now. But that doesn't mean we should actively takes steps, including draconian ones like seizing robots, to stop that creative destruction.
Detroit did just that - the city and the industry. They wanted to maintain the status quo, maintain the union jobs and benefits, maintain the public sector jobs and pensions, and people and businesses voted with their feet. Those people now live in, and pay taxes to (!), the cities who adjusted and created a friendlier environment for them.
In focusing on the first outlandish statement, I forgot this second one: "In essence, Detroit is the natural outgrowth of the main principles of today’s Tea Party-dominated Republican Party. It doesn’t work, and isn’t the future."
Detroit has been dominated by liberal politicians and policies for 50 years. The city hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1961, and every current member of the City Council is a Democrat. Although two seats are vacant because the city can't afford to pay them.
How on earth does a city dominated by liberal politicians suddenly become the natural outgrowth of the Tea Party? Blaming it on Lansing is intellectually sloppy. Elect a Tea Party mayor and city council, wait fifty years, or even twenty five, I'll be generous, and then we can talk.
"It seems to me that we need to abandon capitalism as production becomes detached from human labor."
Rarely, if ever, have I seen a more a more incredible statement. Detroit suffers from a dearth of capitalism, no too much.
Here's a thought experiment: look around the country to see where cities are doing well...in Texas, North Dakota, etc. Study what public policies they have put in place to attract business, people, create opportunities, and the like. And then do that in Detroit, only better. You don't need theory on this one - the answers are already out there.
Detroit is the canary in the coal mine for far left liberal public policies. The last thing the city needs is for it's leaders to double down on that approach.
Abandoning capitalism - which was responsible for making Detroit a great city to begin with - is ridiculous. Central planning - and communist/socialistic economic policies in general - have failed eventually everywhere they've been tried. It is capitalism which has allowed America to create more, discover more, and provide more to the rest of the world that perhaps any other country in the history of the planet.
Why on earth would you jettison capitalism in favor of something you already know is a failure?
Ah...but you're smarter than me right? And you're smarter than Adam Smith's invisible hand. And you're smarter than all of the failures who have gone before you. You can figure it out, I'm sure.
The IPCC is about to come out with a report revising climate CO2 sensitivity downward:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581979-peek-inside-next-ipcc-assessment-sensitive-information
"In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises."
I wouldn't sell my beach house in Miami just yet. Detroit should be safe though, maybe people will move back there.
I think you're reaching on this one. See this from the President of the NAS:
http://www.nas.org/articles/
Key graph:
"Let’s pause here. Note that Daniels’s immediate concern is not to stop Zinn’s book from being taught, but to prevent the state of Indiana from awarding professional development credit to teachers on the basis of this course. He wonders who has jurisdiction. These are reasonable concerns—provided you have a clear view of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States."
The article also quotes several renowned historians panning Zinn's scholarship and calling the book in question "a pretty lousy piece of work."
"The murder was being treated as an act of terrorism, the police said.
There have been several attacks on Islamic buildings in Britain since the murder of soldier Lee Rigby on a south London street in May stoked community tensions."
So...almost never called terrorism...except in the news report you link, apparently.
And there never is any collective Christian guilt because Christ was a pacifist according to the New Testament. He did not say "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." (9:5)
If he had, indeed, said something like that to Mary Magdelene as he was dying on the cross, perhaps we could have a different conversation.
"...and that human beings will be left unemployed and penniless."
This is the point I failed to address elsewhere, and this is where your thinking errs. The history of life on this planet is a story of constant and unstoppable progress, from the beginning of the evolution of life to the (quasi) capitalistic economy we have today. Perturbations of chaotic systems - essentially what you are describing in your robot hypothetical - happen on occasion but the end result in every case has made the system better and stronger.
Name a technological advance which has worsened the human condition.
Setting aside advances in weaponry, I can't think of one.
But you are saying this is the one. This is the time technology is going to screw us and leave us unemployed and penniless (with the GOP taking food stamps away, lol, gotta get your political dig in).
The only problem with this insight is...well...the entire history of the planet. And you have a large burden to prove your case.
I understand that you can't see what's around the robot/3-D printer bend. No one can. But if evolution had stopped in the Pleistocene because homo erectus was worried about homo sapien stealing all the jobs, we wouldn't be here today.
Your question - so where will the jobs come from - suggests that an answer can be known.
There are millions of people today working in professions unfathomable to people living 100 years ago. A politician even 50 years ago could not have foreseen and planned for the dramatic changes in our economy caused by the internet. Capitalism creates new opportunities as old ones are made increasingly irrelevant.
Detroit - the city not the auto industry - became increasingly irrelevant because it refused to change quickly enough. The city created perverse incentives for businesses and investors - including incredibly high tax rates - who left to find greener pastures.
And we're not yet in an Isaac Asimov novel, but consider your question about robots stealing all the labor from a different angle. Technology has rendered millions of jobs irrelevant in the last 50 years, from farming to banking to the airline and auto industries. But that same technology created different opportunities (whether those are more or less than what was destroyed is debatable).
It wasn't possible to see the outcome of those perturbations beforehand, just as it's not possible to see the answer to your question right now. But that doesn't mean we should actively takes steps, including draconian ones like seizing robots, to stop that creative destruction.
Detroit did just that - the city and the industry. They wanted to maintain the status quo, maintain the union jobs and benefits, maintain the public sector jobs and pensions, and people and businesses voted with their feet. Those people now live in, and pay taxes to (!), the cities who adjusted and created a friendlier environment for them.
In focusing on the first outlandish statement, I forgot this second one: "In essence, Detroit is the natural outgrowth of the main principles of today’s Tea Party-dominated Republican Party. It doesn’t work, and isn’t the future."
Detroit has been dominated by liberal politicians and policies for 50 years. The city hasn’t had a Republican mayor since 1961, and every current member of the City Council is a Democrat. Although two seats are vacant because the city can't afford to pay them.
How on earth does a city dominated by liberal politicians suddenly become the natural outgrowth of the Tea Party? Blaming it on Lansing is intellectually sloppy. Elect a Tea Party mayor and city council, wait fifty years, or even twenty five, I'll be generous, and then we can talk.
"It seems to me that we need to abandon capitalism as production becomes detached from human labor."
Rarely, if ever, have I seen a more a more incredible statement. Detroit suffers from a dearth of capitalism, no too much.
Here's a thought experiment: look around the country to see where cities are doing well...in Texas, North Dakota, etc. Study what public policies they have put in place to attract business, people, create opportunities, and the like. And then do that in Detroit, only better. You don't need theory on this one - the answers are already out there.
Detroit is the canary in the coal mine for far left liberal public policies. The last thing the city needs is for it's leaders to double down on that approach.
Abandoning capitalism - which was responsible for making Detroit a great city to begin with - is ridiculous. Central planning - and communist/socialistic economic policies in general - have failed eventually everywhere they've been tried. It is capitalism which has allowed America to create more, discover more, and provide more to the rest of the world that perhaps any other country in the history of the planet.
Why on earth would you jettison capitalism in favor of something you already know is a failure?
Ah...but you're smarter than me right? And you're smarter than Adam Smith's invisible hand. And you're smarter than all of the failures who have gone before you. You can figure it out, I'm sure.