Is he right, Veeky Forums?

but you don't know if you can repair it.

How about 200 years ago?

The idea is common sense..

Hey I'm saying something green without saying green.

..well at least he's not talking about God.

Unfortunately convincing people to do stuff while preserving there own integrity..

Is a politicians game.

He's a lucky sod.

Seems like a more extreme version of "why go colonize mars if we haven't even colonized the sahara"

The fact that we're nut currently terraforming Mars.

As for the second point it's kinda in the name.

Not necessarily. We will likely be able to sustain colonies on other planets before we have the capability to, for example, quench supervolcanoes.

Asteroid redirecting isn't too far off but the same technologies that will allow that will allow for small-scale colonization.

That's the kind of attitude that will get this fucking species killed.

tfw I'm the only one in the thread who likes this quote. I wonder what makes everyone else feel like they have denigrate and put down this idea? It's a good idea.

Is it just hipsterism? You don't want to look unhip? What is it?

MEGA?

"Instead of nuking Mars we should instead nuke ourselves, since planting trees and eating tofu clearly isn't working"
-African American scientist person

>if we have the power to get iron from ore then we should be able to get ore from iron!

Why is this guy even mildly respected? It's like he lacks everything that makes a person a scientist

Possibly, but not necessarily. It's an okay statement despite being a false equivalency that won't always map 1:1.

No, they would require different technologies and research. Why are today's pop scientists so dumb? I think we need the Catholic church back.

shitty strawman, your scenario has two different goals. your shitty picture further how stupid you generally are.

The goals are similar - to reverse an irreversible process.
Why is is irreversible?
>Albedo feedback effect
This shit is literally why ice ages happen, and why exponential warming will too.

And the picture is perfectly valid; science is based on the fundamentals of Aristotlian reasoning. Philosophy and science are as intertwined as language is to literature.

your analogy is akin to "if we have the power to turn another planet into earth, then we have the power to turn earth into another planet." which is not what he said. He was making the point that IF we can turn a planet pretty dissimilar to earth into earth, then we should be able to fix the problems earth has since it's not as far gone. It's a logically reasonable statement that you're misrepresenting.
>And the picture is perfectly valid
no it's not. you were given many reasons why it's not in the shitty thread you made/copied from. You're still doing the same thing as that thread did, misconstruing the words of people to fit your narrative.

I was not in that thread, and given the fact that you cannot recall even one argument, I advise against sucking more pop-sci dick

And my analogy is still valid - all I am saying is that once earth has been warmed too much, it is impossible to reverse due to said effect unless we offset the earths orbit. Read up.

Going on Veeky Forums to call people stupid does not work when you do not supplement it with arguments.

Idiot

No, he assumes Earth is worse than a terraformed Mars.

BTW, we don't have the power to poorly terraform Mars. Or venus or and moon out in the solar system

>all I am saying is that once earth has been warmed too much, it is impossible to reverse due to said effect unless we offset the earths orbit.
That's retarded. The Earth has been much hotter in the past than humans could feasibly warm it to.

Read, nigga
That has been due to the eccentricity of the orbit that arises every ~10 000 years, in tandem with supervolcanoes and the albedo feedback effect.
Global warming is not purely the release of greenhouse gases. The change in global albedo due to melting ice caps and rising sea levels will reduce global albedo by 0.5, hence leading to a temperature increase of ~5°.
TL;DR orbits and shit lead to the snowball effect that usually causes temperature changes. Now, we are causing this snowball effect with greenhouse gases. This will only be stopper by a sudden change in orbit

I think albedo and orbital dynamics are out of the scope of climate change deniers, but I applaud your response as much better than most.

I'm not sure I understand you. Why do you believe that the ice albedo feedback will be large enough to runaway? That's not in any of the predictions I've seen.

I do not deny climate change. Just saying that more factors are at play, which for the sake of simplicity are ignored. Better to say to the common man: "co2 is shit yo" than "co2 may affect the albedo hence leading to higher temperature ." Besides, albedo is dependent on the change in temperature co2 causes.
If it is large enough to cause an ice age, it is large enough to cause exponential heating. Albedo is one of the factors used to estimate planetary equilibrium temperature, and will greatly affect it. See attached formula.

excellent video from PBS space time
youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws

>and given the fact that you cannot recall even one argument
the thread is still up. why would I retype a thread just cause you're too lazy to read it?
>And my analogy is still valid
i just explained why it's not. now you're backtracking and moving the goalpost.
>Going on Veeky Forums to call people stupid does not work when you do not supplement it with arguments.
only argument I have to make are those to invalidate yours. Your arguments are shit and have been shown to be.

retard.

Not true.
"Turning Mars into another Earth" has a few strategies on the table, chief among which is terraforming by artificially inseminating an atmosphere, by burning matter to release CO2. This process would be ongoing for centuries before it would be thick enough to use for plant growth and the greenhouse effect would take hold, and even then it would be centuries to let the plants photosynthesize in the weak Martian sun, to a level of oxygen even close to usable to humans, with or without complex rebreathers.

It's not true because the technology to "turn Earth back into Earth" (hideously worded, imho) is literally the opposite of the technology to turn Mars into Barsoom.

That's why you metaphor is irrelevant.
>asteroid redirecting isn't too far
Is this true Veeky Forums?

>Hail satan.

I dunno, we've proven that we can land on an asteroid, but it's hard to find the ones small enough to make it viable fuel wise.

But yeah, it's one of those things that's "15 years into the future", nearly possible but not quite.

Of course, the actual plans that are closest to greenlighting involve putting a 'roid in lunar orbit and do science there. I have no idea how much of those plans are popsci misinterpretations and what is actually in the pipe, but we know that we can land on speeding asteroids, so one step further ahead than five years ago, I suppose?

>I hope the fact that the harpoons didn't work doesn't stop this.

It's easier to make ore from iron than iron from ore.

Everything about your post is retarded.

but what you're describing is only to get the transforming process started. Once you get to the last stage of fine tuning to make it easily habitable to humans it would seem that the technology used for that fine tuning would be usable to fine tune the earth considering earth would be close to ideal earth than mars would be. But since we don't have the actual technology for either yet it's an inconsequential statement for right now.

Do you even know what ore is?

>small enough
So, small asteroids, right?
>15 years
How would that "colonization" works?

>Image of quotes
Literally the populist side of scientists.

I don't know how retarded are the people who use this image as an argument.

hey man we get it, it's dumb. stop pointing it out.

years
>colonization
No, sorry, I might have worded myself unclearly.

I mean that "in 15 years" we might have the technology to reroute asteroids as a concept, seeing as we've been able to land on them and the rest should be a matter of thrust to weight ratio and time.
>pic related

I have no illusion that we'll be able to "colonize" anything extraterrestrial in less than 50 years time, with the possible exception of a temporary high maintenance Martian base.

This one, lol.

>this is from XKCD.com/678
>just so I don't abuse R. Monroe's delightfully liberal copyright.

I mean

He would be, potentially, but we don't have that power regardless.

No. Because having enough power to terraform a planet means we need more than a planet's worth of resources to pull it off.

And experience to do so.

I'm sure as fuck not experimenting on Earth first time around.

You need more resources if you want to terraform a planet in a short period of time. But if you're willing to wait some billion years or so you can do it for cheap.

But I suppose that defeats the purpose of such a pursuit for us right?

Well it'll still take multiple generations. It's not just energy or resources. You need things like plants, animals... all those have to be raised and moved tot he planet.

Which is a pretty fair point

Reminder that 98% of posters on sci are plebs.
Your picture does infact make sense, and those who do not try to see the sense in it have a way short of impossibility to go before they may call themselves scientists.

I guess *tip* since I sound a bit pretentious, but my above point refers to exactly that.

The context he's using it in:
If we HAD the ability to terraform another planet, then, as we are NOW, we would also use the same methods to help bring Earth back to a state that is in remission instead of decline.

Read what I typed, read what he said, and read what I typed again.

Sometimes I think Veeky Forums should be labeled /aut/

Again, there was just a thread about this. since you people are too stupid to search for things, here are the basic points.

1. It's just an appeal to authority. A shitty one at that, as outside of Veeky Forums they pretty well respected. krauss and dawkins in particular. the entire argument is fallacious and that alone is enough to discard it.
2. there are scientists who belong on the right side that are as equally respected as those on the left. Feynman in particular is notoriously dismissive of philosophy.
3. the statements of those on the right are being misconstrued. Of them, only krauss is being outright dismissive of philosophy. And he's not actually wrong about what he said.
4. both science and philosophy have both changed a lot from the time period of the left to the time period of the right. Most research today is done in teams, which is why you don't the guys on the right to be as good as the guys on the left. Even if they were part of a great discovery, you would give them little credit for it.
5. meanwhile, philosophy grows more and more esoteric as time goes on. while it may have started out as asking questions almost everyone goes through, modern philosophy tends to be about inconsequential stuff most people outside of philosophy don't care about. Most areas have basically become pointless mental masturbation.
6. it is more telling that contempt for philosophy amongst scientists seems to grow as time goes on.
7. philosophy a shit

tl;dr: picture is stupid, modern philosophy is stupid, you're stupid, and your dog is stupid for having such a stupid master.

Your whole crapshoot argument is just an giant shotgun blast of "the argument from innocence", and then you go on to say logic (philosophy) is shit.

Not only do you not have a clue as to what you're talking about, but you don't even attempt to give citations.

You just make claims and just loop in circular logic.

Philosophy is actually infallible.
Why?
Because it only have one premise and nothing else: Question presumptions.

It can't be shit because it doesn't' make statements, it only asks questions and arrives at conclusions based on the results of those questions.

Jesus, you don't know a damn thing about anything.

>I hate philosophy
>I don't know what induction, deduction and logic are

>muh muh muh

Feynman was hardly antiphilosophical.

>5. meanwhile, philosophy grows more and more esoteric as time goes on. while it may have started out as asking questions almost everyone goes through, modern philosophy tends to be about inconsequential stuff most people outside of philosophy don't care about. Most areas have basically become pointless mental masturbation.

None of that is true.
Your confusing your straw man arguments and sophism for philosophy.

Philosophy has simple, perfect, inflexible rules.
It's actually simpler and more important than science.
Only those that don't know any philosophy actually make the comments you make.

Why degree do you have in philosophy?
I'd like to know.

>I want to stay on this one planet which is a target for destruction at any moment.

If you can't see the purpose for interstellar expansion, you're the equivalent to a grouchy old man who "doesn't understand the young people these days."

How could you ever think we should not explore?

>Feynman in particular is notoriously dismissive of philosophy.

Really. This lie again?
You've been perpetrating this lie for months now.
Feynman and Popper were actually the best of friends and agreed 100% on the differentiation between Sophism and Philosophy.

But you don't. You don't understand the difference.
One has rules, the other does not.
Philosophy followed Empirical Foundationalism and Epistemological Axiomatic Restrictions.
Sophism is just nonsense.

Feynman examples the difference here:
youtube.com/watch?v=E383eEA54DE

You've never read any Feynman nor viewed any of his videos.
It's clear you're making shit up from sporadic article jumping.

try harder. you're not saying why any point is wrong. you're sperging out with random general accusations without saying where they apply.
>Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.
>question of whether or not when you see something you see only the light or you see the thing you're looking at is one of those dopey philosophical things that an ordinary person has no difficulty with.Even the most profound philosopher sitting and eating his dinner has many difficulties making out that what he looks at perhaps might be only the light from the steak.But it still implies the existence of the steak which he's able to lift by the fork to his mouth. The philosophers that where unable to make the analysis of that idea have fallen by the wayside to hunger".
yea he really loved it.
>Your confusing your straw man arguments and sophism for philosophy.
>agreed 100% on the differentiation between Sophism and Philosophy.
You're playing the no true Scotsman card. Clearly you're able to see the pointless masturbation side of philosophy, but you regard it as non-philosophy just because it doesn't fit your agenda. It is philosophy and in fact is most of philosophy today.
>Philosophy has simple, perfect, inflexible rules. It's actually simpler and more important than science. Only those that don't know any philosophy actually make the comments you make.
Jesus get off its dick. For someone who loves philosophy you should be better at making arguments that aren't just pointless blanket statements and ad hominems.

Wow you're dumb.

He was one of the few who could say "this is silly" in the same breath as "this is what I do".

In all his works and books and stories, he's the first to admit he's a blatant fool. He doesn't claim to be rational for five consecutive seconds.

So fuck off with your fucking fuckery. Philosophy is the foundation of knowledge. Without it, you're literally the definition of a pleb, no matter how much money you gain.

The smartest people I know have been philosophers first, and craftsmen, tradesmen, scientists, artists etc second.

Dawkins isn't "recognized", he's deified by the idiots who think that he's the first fucking atheist.

WOW, you really don't know the difference between sophism and philosophy? Maybe teaching at one of the options in pic related is for you.

As a criticism of terraforming Mars or whatever, yes he is absolutely right. Of course, we can't even fly people to Mars, let alone terraform it.

Fuck off. Your attempts at making an argument are pathetic. You're spouting a bunch of unrelated shit without addressing any points. You're speaking just to have something say and you're doing this in every post. No wonder you love philosophy so much, you'd fail in any other field.
>Philosophy is the foundation of knowledge. Without it, you're literally the definition of a pleb, no matter how much money you gain.
This isn't a counter point to anything. Arguing with your emotions isn't going to work here faggot.
>The smartest people I know have been philosophers first, and craftsmen, tradesmen, scientists, artists etc second.
Nice anecdotal evidence faggot, again it doesn't mean anything. Isn't a logic class one of the first things you have to take for a philosophy degree?
>hurr durr if you hate what I like it's obviously because you don't understand it. Clearly something I like can't be wrong.

I honestly expected better from philosofags. this is just high school tier arguments. At least try to argue based on logic and facts.

Terrible bait, or literally retarded.

Also, it's three of us, at least.

"Philosophy today" exactly what the hell do you mean by that phrase? You say nothing except whine about how you don't believe a word we say. Which is fair and good, but hardly truthful... Pointing out some perceived "obvious logical fallacy" is also the first step to being ousted here, if you do it about something anyone has half a semester in, so why the fuck do you try to do it with a subject literally as old as civilization, where some of the most decisive starting works are LITERALLY THE FIRST BOOKS?

Philosophy from the antics is still useful.

Physics from the antics is not.

Draw your own cocksucking conclusions, faggot.

>Terrible bait
>hurts my feelings must be bait
pathethic
>exactly what the hell do you mean by that phrase?
clearly you know what I mean
>Philosophy from the antics is still useful.
playing dumb doesn't help your case, it just makes you look dumb
>You say nothing except whine about how you don't believe a word we say
because there's not much for me TO say. all your arguments about how only I can only say what I said if i've never studied philosohpy, your anecdotal evidence, and your claim that you're necessarily a pleb without it are all fallacious and don't need much of a response. when you Actually make a point, i'll respond to it.
>Pointing out some perceived "obvious logical fallacy" is also the first step to being ousted here
>wahhh stop pointing out the logical inconsistencies in my arguments
pathetic
>where some of the most decisive starting works are LITERALLY THE FIRST BOOKS?
Again spouting off random pointless nonsence. what point do you think you're making here? religion predates both philosophy and science, doesn't make it better than either.
>Physics from the antics is not.
How you see the lack of progress in philosophy as a strength and the progress of physics as a weakness is beyond me.
>Draw your own cocksucking conclusions, faggot.
yes, let the mad flow through you.

No. Just because you can break down materials to create an atmosphere and a biosphere doesn't mean that we would survive that process in an already developed biosphere.