Wind now competes with fossil fuels, and solar almost does - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2015/10/06/wind-cheap-coal-gas/ <comment><USER2> 1\. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries.

2\. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thorium. Fast breeder. Pebble bed. I don't care which you pick, no one is going to pour 10 years and $1-4 billion into a plant that won't be cost competitive when it turns up (maybe some governments, but you can't fix that; it'll just get mothballed).

3\. Utility scale batteries are going to be needed to make up for solar and wind's capacity factor (availability). Tesla is going to clean up with its Gigafactory. Well done Elon. I hope Mars treats you well.

4\. Any pollutants or negative externalities of both solar panel and battery production can be much better contained and managed than the output of a coal plant.

5\. Cheaper renewables means even cheaper power available for the transition to electric vehicles.

6\. First world demand for renewables will continue to drive down costs, allowing third world countries to piggyback off the cost savings. Remember how Africa leapfrogged with cell phones instead of land lines? Imagine battery packs and solar roofs in every home instead of traditional utilities. It's _already feasible with current economics_.

Did I cover everything? Anything missing?

<comment><USER3> You did miss two things - distribution networks and industrial customers. Those are the two problems that nobody seems to be solving yet.

Basically, high-voltage electricity is distributed with networks that are dumb and old. The generation and usage is very carefully balanced with heavy users and large producers, because the network does not have storage capacity. It also has very little tolerance for power imbalance, the frequency cutoffs in the old equipment running most of the network are rather severe (in high- voltage networks, frequency increases with more power being fed into the system).

There are already extremely severe network problems in Germany for example where quite a bit of power comes from solar and wind. (I worked as an embedded sw engineer doing software that controlled solar inverters for a while)

The problem with upgrading distribution network is of course the MASSIVE amounts capex needed to replace it.

The other problem is industrial consumers - an aluminium smelter requires a certain amount of power coming in 24/7 or the ovens will freeze and if they do, restart is basically impossible. There are many other factories with similar problems. Given the trend towards just-in-time production and shipping, the chain of events that leads to massive disruption in the global trade can start from a fairly small shutdown with large snowball effects.

I'm not trying to put down green power generation, just saying that getting the price down to reasonable level is just one part of the puzzle.

<comment><USER4> >The problem with upgrading distribution network is of course the MASSIVE amounts capex needed to replace it.

No. This is primarily a _political_ issue not a question of lack of resources, and the capex and difficulty required is, while high, typically overestimated by a large degree.

The main problem is that the networks are usually owned by monopoly utilities with interests in power generation. How much do you think they want to upgrade if the net result is more competition? Hell, they'd probably pay _not_ to have to upgrade.

>There are already extremely severe network problems in Germany for example where quite a bit of power comes from solar and wind.

"Severe" would suggest blackouts or at least brownouts like California had in 2001.

>The other problem is industrial consumers - an aluminium smelter requires a certain amount of power coming in 24/7 or the ovens will freeze and if they do, restart is basically impossible.

If you must do something impossible, do it at least... twice :) ??

[http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-aluminum- firm-...](http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-aluminum-firm-rescues- grid-twice/150/407/82143/)

"Over the past 12 months, German aluminum giant Trimet has ramped down production twice on request from German grid operators."

Yes, they didn't shut it off entirely, but this demonstrates that smelters who can vary their electricity usage are actually part of the solution, not the problem.

(provided Germany didn't overpay them to ramp down that is... which they may well have)

<comment><USER5> > The main problem is that the networks are usually owned by monopoly > utilities with interests in power generation. How much do you think they > want to upgrade if the net result is more competition? Hell, they'd probably > pay not to have to upgrade.

This... is exactly what is happening :-). Utilities and network operators are trying out ways to give incentives to customers who can respond with negative load (i.e. turning the power down). It makes economic sense because the alternative is increasing production at immense speeds, which is quite costly and inefficient (often using diesel generators, and a lot of them). Aluminium smelters like the examples you give (and quite a few other businesses) are doing precisely this.

Also note that an aluminium smelter works by electrolysis, not by pyrolysis (which is what GP seems to suggest?), which is why they use so much electricity and why they can in fact turn it on and off at a whim.

<comment><USER6> Yes, by electrolysis. Of molten minerals. This also consumes energy

"Alumina is dissolved in molten cryolite, typically at 960 °C"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wind and solar are still not competitive. The report says that coal costs $75 per megawatt hour, while land-based wind costs $83 and solar comes in at a whopping $122. That's far from "almost competitive". Also note that these are not costs of _production_ , these are what people wind up paying for it. That means that the coal numbers include extensive taxes, while the solar and wind numbers include extensive tax discounts and incentives. This makes the real difference in production costs even bigger than what this report implies.

If we as a society decide we want clean energy, that's fine, but it is important that people make these decisions based upon actual facts. Clean energy in 2015 is still _significantly_ more expensive than energy produced using fossil fuels (and of course this report leaves nuclear out entirely, which is far cheaper than coal).

<comment><USER8> This reminds me of that comment attributed to Bill Gates: "64k memory ought to be enough for everybody"

The trend is very clear: solar and wind are dropping in prices. It's now only a matter of when, not if.

<comment><USER9> Except that he didn't say that at all and has given extremely detailed accounts of the current thinking at the time in history (they were already looking towards the upcoming limitations and bottlenecks they would face in expanding RAM sizes).

Although it is true that solar and wind are dropping in prices recently I don't think an urban legend misquote has any relevance.

<comment><USER8> Which is why I said that it is "attributed" to Bill Gates. I know he didn't say it

<comment><USER10> In the future you might want say 'misattributed' or 'wrongly attributed' for this case.

The term 'attributed to X' can mean "is widely but wrongly attributed to X", but can also mean "I heard it somewhere and it sounds true so I'll go with my gut feeling instead of verifying it" or "I hear there are doubts, so while I have no opinion, I'll keep my bases covered."

Personally, rather than be stuck in that mire, I would suggest quoting Prof. Frink from Simpsons:

> 'I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 > times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe > will own them.'

This in turn came from the quote widely but wrongly attributed to Thomas J. Watson of IBM:

> 'I think there is a world market for maybe five computers'

Quoting from [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson) :

> Often dated to 1943. Thorough research of Watson's writings and statements > have produced no example of him saying this. It appears to be a corruption > of a remark by Howard Aiken that four or five computers could meet all of > the United Kingdom's computing needs. See Ralph Keyes (2006), The Quote > Verifier.

Of these, only the Frink version has an accurate attribution. I think the other two come with some malice. By repeating the urban legend as if it's relevant, I think you are forwarding that malice, even if unintentionally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The frustrating part about this is that fossil fuels have had the scales tipped in their favor via 1) subsities, and 2) not accounting for externalities in the price. The economic costs of particular emissions, CO2, mercury, and other pollutants are very real, and astronomical, but a classic tragedy of the commons.

If we factor those into the price, renewables like solar and wind would be much more competitive.

<comment><USER12> You make a valid point, but I'd be curious to what extent this applies on both sides. I know I certainly hear a lot of buzz about the subsidies provided for "green energy", installing panels, that sort of thing. I was also under the impression that we haven't fully moved away from using certain rare earth metals/other compounds in the panels/large electric generators, which likely have a heavy cost externality in mining.

Really wish there was some repository of what the "true costs" of the things we use are, this has got me thinking about even more mundane goods when you consider the whole supply chain.

<comment><USER13> Fossil fuels get on the order of 100+ billion per year in direct and indirect subsidies in the US _as a conservative estimate_. By far the largest subsides for 'Green Energy' go to corn ethanol which is mostly political football. After that there really more rounding errors than anything else.

PS: Nuclear seems to be popular on a lot of tech sites, but it needs massive subsides to come close to break even.

<comment><USER14> I'm not saying you're wrong (and I think you're right), but do you have a source for the "fossil fuels get $100billion+ in subsidies" and "Nuclear needs massive subsidies to come close to break even"?

<comment> ju-st For nuclear:

> A new 3,260 MW Hinkley Point C nuclear power station was given planning > consent on 19 March 2013.[10] A guaranteed "strike price" of £92.50 per > megawatt-hour (to be indexed for inflation over 45 years) was announced on > 21 October 2013. The new power station would see Hinkley's contribution to > the country's power supply rise to 7%.[9] At the time of the planning > consent, the price for electric energy on the wholesale market was around > £45 per megawatt-hour while the new power plant was expected to need > earnings of £90 per megawatt-hour in order to break even.[11]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_B_Nuclear_Power_Station)

<comment><USER15> Up north the latest nuclear plant guarantees price for its owners at 50 EUR/MWh (37 GBP) or less: [http://www.energypost.eu/rosatom-signs-contract- build-nuclea...](http://www.energypost.eu/rosatom-signs-contract-build- nuclear-plant-fennovoima-finland/)

<comment><USER13> "Its cost estimate has gone up from €3 billion to €8.5 billion." So, these estimates are not exactly worth much.

<comment><USER15> You are misreading the article, that cost overrun is from a previous nuke project (supplied by Areva, started in 2005 and not yet finished).

Regarding what the price guarantees are worth (and it's not an estimate, it's in contract), there are some interesting scenarios for sure if they can't hold up their promises. For example the joint company is being bankrolled with a large slice from Rosatom, one wonders what happens to their capital in case of a bankruptcy!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices.

"while natural gas-based electricity cost $82 in North and South America."

This makes no sense – the price of NG is very local.

I just ran an analysis of NYISO Zone J (New York City's) average hourly price for the last year – and it comes out at an average of $40.87 per MWh(peak and off peak). This would include all sources of generation.

The prices in the article would have everyone generating electricity loosing massive amounts of money – which they aren't.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mOm7bMQYJof7WDfqXmbA...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mOm7bMQYJof7WDfqXmbAgHu59uiSeBLSStzKhoqq7eU/edit?usp=sharing)

You can find raw pricing data from the various US energy markets below – you'll have to dig a bit. This is price though, not cost.

[http://www.nyiso.com/](http://www.nyiso.com/) [http://www.pjm.com/](http://www.pjm.com/) [http://www.ercot.com/](http://www.ercot.com/) [http://www.miso.com/](http://www.miso.com/) [http://www.caiso.com/](http://www.caiso.com/)

<comment><USER17> > _I wish there was a link to the article and sources on the prices._

Here [1] is the official press release. However, I don't think the full report is available as a free download.

[1] [http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost- cost-c...](http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/wind-solar-boost-cost- competitiveness-versus-fossil-fuels/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article uses euphemisms and double-talk:

 _As more countries and states enact market systems that put a price on carbon emissions, clean energy technologies will actually become cheaper than fossil fuel technologies_

Translated into plain English:

 _As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels._

What does the author have to gain by obfuscating something so obvious?

What is the impact on people when their energy costs are raised? (Hint: energy - vast amounts of it - goes into everything, from growing food to producing artificial heart valves.)

<comment><USER19> >Translated into plain English:

>As more governments raise the price of fossil fuels through increased taxation, solar and wind may cost less than fossil fuels.

well, as it stands currently the whole society pays the tax for the fossil fuels use - that tax is the expenses and damages caused by the environment damage and climate change, oil wars, backward countries and people having huge political power due to being rich from oil, etc... It is only fair to shift at least some of the tax burden to the actual producers and consumers of the fossil fuels.

>What is the impact on people when their energy costs are raised?

what are you talking about? 100w solar panel costs less than $100, double that for installation and wires&converter. So $200 loan at 6% for 20 years is $1.5/month or $0.05/day. In CA the panel will produce 1kwh/day. I.e. $0.05/kwh. And no more kissing of Saudi princes' lower backs :)

<comment><USER20> For society you need reliability, you just don't stop freezers just because sun goes down, or there is period of storms or night. You would need atleast 14 times the hour capacity just to smooth the daily curve. [In winter there is less sunlight hours and maximum sun light is mid-day.] The cost is more than 0.1$ per watt hour of capacity, just for battery, and not for any power electronics going with it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery)

So this alone would increase your cost estimates by 150$

And for society you probably want a weeks worth of electricity stored in some form or other to deal with weather differences, and not summer winter difference. So minimal goal would be 24*7. Or just more than 150 hours.

Or that another 1500$ of cost not included in your estimations. Now a big thing to realize, in electricity markets where networks are required to take in solar and wind from other players, its not the producer of electricity that bears the cost of that large storage its the utility that buys the electricity from market.

Right now it works somewhere along the lines. Lets make 40% efficient fossil fuel plants instead of 60% efficient slowly starting fossil fuel plants, so that we can turn them on and off for covering the difference between intermitted sources and consumption. So in reality renewable plants end up just becoming fuel saving devices for fossil fuel plants while reducing fuel efficiency of said plants when they actually are turned on . In long run I believe nuclear is way to go if we want to stop global warming. The intermittency problem goes away with it and you can run a grid with 100% nuclear with very little storage because production isn't intermittent, and with modern plants you can vary electricity production between 50 and 100%

Global warming is accumulating effect, the emissions are just rate of change, and not the temperature difference, and we need to aim pretty close to zero emissions to stop it. [Yes nature takes some of it off from circulation but a lot less than people think because naysayers compare our emissions to winter, summer cycle of plants that cancels itself in yearly basis.]

<comment><USER19> it isn't a car, so the range of technological options is much wider, ie. there is no need for high capacity small batteries. One can hydrolyze the water during low loads and store the resulting hydrogen (hydrolysis equipment and stationary storage is relatively simple and cheap). A generator with gas turbine to burn the hydrogen would cost on the scale like $400/kw - a small addition to the $2K/kw capital cost for solar panels install. The week of reserve storage - 200kwh to be generated - with even low 40% efficiency of turbine generation - would require storing 250m3 of hydrogen to provide a week reserve per 1kw of basic capacity. Lets say that storage is generous $1/m3.

As result, under $3K/kw we'd have a week of reserve and the ability to short- term double power during peaks using the gas turbines. And using the same loan calculations it is $0.075/kwh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wind may be cheap, but here in the UK a hostile government and NIMBYs have made it hard to open new wind-farms.

</comment><comment><USER22> Scaling of these solutions is what we need to worry about. Scaling wind and solar to actually provide energy on the scale we humans consume it is a totally different question that "how much does this cost per mega watt hour".

<comment><USER23> I'm actually more excited about the small scale generation. Solar is the only viable method for generating electricity in 1 watt to several KW. Wind also comes in handy here. I'm wondering what news technologies this will allow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Using real money accounting or funny money accounting?

<comment><USER25> Using real money, taking into account much of the complexity of real world accounting: i.e. considering lower current interest rates, and many places where many of fossil fuel's externalities have to be paid for by the users of the fuel.</comment></comment>


SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32201354 <comment><AUTHOR> Some quotes:

"Under these conditions, there does not seem to be a significant difference between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common coronaviruses (χ2 test, P=0.11). Of course, the major flaw in this study is that the percentage of deaths attributable to the virus is not determined, but this is the case for all studies reporting respiratory virus infections, including SARS-CoV-2."

"Under these conditions, and all other things being equal, SARS-CoV-2 infection cannot be described as being statistically more severe than infection with other coronaviruses in common circulation."

"Finally, in OECD countries, SARS-CoV-2 does not seem to be deadlier than other circulating viruses."

<comment><USER2> And yet hospitals and morgues in major cities are overwhelmed. Which they aren't the rest of the time as a result of commonly circulating coronaviruses. So _something_ is different.

<comment><AUTHOR> The added panic and hysteria is different. The numbers can also not be trusted.

"The figures are questionable Angelo Borrelli, the head of Civil Protection, who announces the latest figures every day at 6 p.m., said Saturday night that the 793 new deaths have been caused "by and with" the coronavirus. "We count all the dead, we make no distinction between with and by the coronavirus." However, one wonders whether these daily figures reflect the situation correctly. The dead are said to have almost all had one or more other diseases, which leaves a question mark as to exactly how deadly the coronavirus is. At the same time, it has become clear that a large number of people who die at home (which is often a retirement home) do not undergo a coronavirus test." [https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/03/22/als-italie-het- voorland...](https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/03/22/als-italie-het-voorland-is- wat-staat-nederland-te-wachten-a3994528)</comment></comment></comment>


Secret US flight flew over Scottish airspace to capture Snowden - <AUTHOR> http://www.thenational.scot/news/secret-us-flight-flew-over-scottish-airspace-to-capture-snowden.13226 <comment><USER2> If it weren't for the mistreatment of Bradley Manning, I'd consider US Government attempts to capture Snowden somewhat reasonable.

If (in hindsight) there had been any high level response acknowledging the inappropriateness of any of the revealed programs, and attempting to fix or impose accountability measures on covert programs, I'd feel reassured that the bad behavior evidenced by the leaked information was an anomaly.

But since neither of those happened, it appears that the US secret police are simply out of control.

Why would a politician speak out against the programs when his/her most private information is now known (by the leaked docs) to be vulnerable? Now his/her most private emails or correspondence could be used against him by those wishing to thwart accountability measures.

Why would a journalist spread awareness of the leaked information and question the legitimacy of the organizations found to be acting in extralegal fashion?

It's chilling (and somewhat ironic) that the atmosphere of fear and suppression of dissent that is desired explicitly by governments that have run aggressive secret police regimes is exactly what we've now got in the US.

A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the chilling effect on journalists.

When you consider the utter silence from powerful people about the leaked information (with the exception of a few eccentric celebrities and billionaires) it's clear what a profoundly chilling effect the revelations had.

<comment><USER3> > A principled president would have owned up to the misconduct and taken steps > to regain the public trust. A principled president would be ashamed of the > chilling effect on journalists.

There were only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] and _also_ supported defensible net neutrality [2]. One of them is now a presidential candidate.

Last May, they wrote: "I voted against the Patriot Act every time, and it still needs major reform." [3]

[1] [http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00201)

[2] [http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to- protect-...](http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-net- neutrality-markey-leads-senate-dems-in-call-to-reclassify-broadband-as-a- utility)

[3] [http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot- act/](http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/)

<comment><USER4> link [1] is down, in fact several links at senate.gov are down. I don't want to say your claim is disingenuous because you did throw a caveat in there, however Rand Paul did not support handing the internet off to the FCC to regulate if we want to call that defensible. He did however publicly rail against the freedom act and tried to fillibuster it though ultimately that failed.

<comment><USER3> My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders. You're right though, Rand Paul did _a lot_ to fight the "Freedom" Act.

<comment><USER4> > My comment was actually referring to Bernie Sanders.

I know, I didn't know if you meant to disqualify him with that caveat. On balance he is a pretty good presidential candidate in that he has a lot of pro-freedom rational stances on important issues, they are predictable and he has been consistently vocal about them.

Just wanted to point out Paul is a presidential canidate as well.

edit: meant to qualify with, it seems like you didn't intentionally leave him out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The craft was used in controversial US 'rendition' missions_

This is apparently true, but misleading. The specific plane we're discussing was used by the CIA, but by this point had been transferred to DOJ for some time.

It's also misleading to use the word "rendition" as a shorthand for "extraordinary rendition" (which is itself newspeak for "kidnapping"). "Rendition" itself is simply the process of effectuating extradition. The term "extraordinary rendition" is doubly Orwellian, because "rendition" is the word for what a _host jurisdiction_ does. A government cooperating in extradition _renders_ subjects. The CIA _kidnapped_ people, apparently without engaging any process of the host government.

To make matters worse, the CIA's kidnapping program sent terrorism subjects to _foreign jurisdictions_ , allegedly (and almost certainly) to enable them to be interrogated by the norms of countries that weren't squeamish about coercive, torturous interrogations. The USG wanted Snowden back on US soil.

I suppose there's a coherent argument to be made that the US should have destroyed the CIA's torture charter jet, and that any further use of that particular piece of equipment is tainted by its history. To me, it's just a plane, and if we're going to do something drastic in response to the CIA's complicity (and participation) in torture, that thing should probably be a series of criminal prosecutions.

Either way, the implication that Snowden was targeted for extrajudicial kidnapping isn't supported by any evidence presented so far. So far, the facts we know about support a pretty boring narrative: the USG knew it was going to charge Snowden with crimes for which most of Europe would comply with extradition, and sent a DOJ plane to streamline that process.

It's hard to blame media outlets for reporting like this, because the story of how we came to know that this particular plane had participated in the CIA's kidnapping scheme makes for really good reading. But it's still important to know the whole story.

And this particular headline is pretty silly. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, proprietors of GCHQ, the west's most unhinged signals intelligence agency. A DOJ plane flying over Scotland to fetch a SIGINT leaker isn't particularly newsworthy.

<comment><USER6> To me I could really care less what the plane was used for in the past.

A plane flying from anywhere that doesn't file a flight plan is just plain wrong, especially when it crosses foreign airspace.

<comment><USER7> Pilots are usually not required to file a flight plan for VFR (visual) flight. It's an extremely common occurrence.

(Yes, things get a little more complicated when crossing boarders... but I just wanted to point out that it's not such a crazy thing to do.)

<comment><USER8> You are right

However I'm also 100% sure this is not a VFR flight.

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't be so sure. Not a lot of weather at FL450, and in the UK that's Class C airspace, not Class A like it is in the States.

<comment><USER10> Even in Class C in UK airspace, you need a clearance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _Not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker. -- Obama 6 /27/13_

[http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama...](http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19166043-obama- not-scrambling-jets-to-get-nsa-leaker-snowden?lite)

He's true though, it wasn't jets.

<comment><USER12> Well, it's likely it was a jet airplane as the altitude of the flight was 45,000. I suppose in this usage it was implied to be fighter-jets.

<comment><USER13> It's amazing to witness the gift of gap that high level politicians possess. Obama says "not going to scramble jets."

What the public assumes he means:

\- "Three letter agencies and the military won't be conducting clandestine operations to proactively seek out and remove Snowden from a foreign country."

What he actually means:

\- Quite literally, he's saying that they won't be sending fighter jets to go blow up Snowden. Of course that would be silly and not make any sense whatsoever, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what he was referring to.

<comment><USER14> As an aside a good example of this politically evasive precision in speaking was Clinton's famous "I did not inhale" line when confronted if he had ever used marijuana. His answer was true, he's allergic to smoke and was well known around campus for baking/eating marijuana not inhaling it.

Speaking of Clinton and document leaks, next time Hillary Clinton is asked about the classified email server scandal take note of her precise replies, it is impressive how politicians can fire out precise answers when pressured to both deflect and deny accusations and protect themselves at the same time by later claiming precision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One thing I don't understand - why would the US care? Why expend resources on trying to capture Snowden? He's basically harmless at this point - he's passed all the information he had to few journalists (which would be a better target now) and there's no way anyone will ever let him near anything more secret than grandma's cookies recipe. Besides petty vengeance, what's the point?

<comment><USER16> Four reasons off the top of my head:

1\. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside sponsorship.

2\. There's no guarantee that all the information that he took was released publicly. It would be helpful to know the extent of what was taken, and who else knows it.

3\. It would be helpful to know what other intelligence services have asked him/taken from him.

4 "To encourage the others"

<comment><USER17> > 1\. There's no guarantee that he acted alone and or without outside > sponsorship.

That has been debated and put to rest.

Our elected officials initially tried to say he was a Russian spy, but could not provide any evidence to support the claim.

If he were a foreign asset, like for the Russians, for example, he would not have acted the way he did. In fact, his handlers would have preferred that he continued to operate in secret and continue to feed them as much info as he can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I really hope they pardon him eventually. I could be wrong, but don't most americans support what he did?

EDIT: you are probably all correct, plenty of people don't understand/care who he is or what he stands for. I still wish the government would recognize that the NSA is acting unconstitutionally and he called them out on it.

<comment><USER19> Most "tech savvy" people support him and how he made us aware of the NSA bs, but a lot of normal people who just watch the news view him as a "traitor" to 'Murica (America).

Sadly, people think "I have nothing to hide, so I don't care if the government/NSA monitors my internet usage/history/etc".

Personally, I think the terrorists have won in a small sense. TSA is a joke (American airport security), NSA monitors everything so nothing is really secure, backdoors are built into all devices, encryption across several companies is being questioned because "terrorists" use it (even though the Paris attacks communication were over SMS).

Edit: typos

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's particularly charitable to caricature people who don't support Snowden as being jingoist "'muricans". In fact, the term "'murica" is pretty classist; even the word itself mocks the accents of flyover country.

There is a serious, defensible, coherent argument against what Snowden did. You don't have to be a low-information cable news consumer to agree with it, nor do you have to believe that "if you have nothing to hide surveillance is no problem".

(To put my biases on the table: I understand what he did better, I think, than most HN people, and think the ideal outcome would be a felony conviction and an immediately commuted sentence; thus far, I think he's done more good than harm, but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in exactly that way again.)

<comment><USER20> "but I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 never happened in exactly that way again.)"

I think it would be better if what happened in 2013 had never -had- to happen in any way.

<comment><USER5> That's also true, but orthogonal to what I'm saying.

<comment><USER21> The point is that you've put the criticism on the person in the situation (Snowden) instead of the people/system that created the situation.

There isn't any perfect way, in the eyes of the state, to deal with a police state _because it 's a police state_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article isn't very clear on an important point: What evidence is there to indicate that the flight was made _for the purpose of capturing Snowden_?

</comment><comment><USER23> I have slightly off-topic question. Did the surveillance program revealed by Snowden violate constitution? if so, has anyone sued the gvt for it?

<comment><USER24> There was a lawsuit, but it got dismissed:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> FYI, the plane was "Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream V" flying above 45000ft. Impressive plane.

</comment><comment><USER26> Attention, Americans in this comments section: even though you're complaining now, if you guys obediently line up to re-elect the party doing this come November, _you are part of the problem._

<comment><USER27> Are you implying the next Republican president will put a stop to it? That's what the partisan argument in your comment seems to imply.

Which comes down to probably Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Donald Trump... I don't see that happening.

<comment><USER26> I am not implying anything. I am straight up stating that if you don't throw the bastards out, they will never learn.

If you actually care about policy instead of about avoiding the hated outgroup, your relationship with politicians needs to be transactional. If they don't deliver, find another one, even if said politician is (gasp! shock!) not a Democrat. I would recommend the same, by the way, to Republicans who are upset that the Congressional GOP isn't cutting spending. Vote them out of power, it's the only way to get your point through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The range of a Gulfstream V is about 6500 miles. Given that fact the jet could have easily flown without entering UK airspace at all. The Gulfstream V also has an initial cruising altitude of 41,000 feet with a max of 51,000 feet. 45,000 feet may be high for a commercial jet but the G5 cruises comfortably at that altitude. Given these facts I am not sure why the CIA would create the exposure flying over the UK would create. My guess is they have heard of flight aware and know a transponder does.

<comment><USER29> There's safety restrictions for flight paths - in case of sudden engine failure, you want the plane to be able to glide to an airfield or other inhabited areas that you can get rescued from.

I'm also not familiar enough with air-traffic control rules in the area to be sure, but it looks like you'd have to either pass through Icelandic or Scottish airspace to get to Scandinavia.

<comment><USER28> That makes sense but there are so many transpacific routes that spend huge stretches of time over open water that I am not sure it is even feasible for all commercial flights. CIA SAD/SOG operations likely have a much broader risk envelope.

<comment><USER29> Further brief research suggests it's "flight time with one failed engine" that's a constraint, somewhere between 60 and 180 minutes, depending on how the plane is certified. The Gulfstream 5 is a twin-engine aircraft, which makes it more awkward for crossing large bodies of water. For long-distance flights, you're more likely to be on a four-engine plane, which has more lenient safety margins in case of engine failure.

That said, the Pacific has a good chunk of diversion airports available as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't know what they were afraid of. They've been able to get the media to be reserved enough in their judgements and reporting that no elected officials have felt the pressure to do anything, and, therefore, nothing has changed. As I read elsewhere recently: What happens when the government has perfect clarity on everything everyone does, when we're all guilty of "3 felonies a day?"

</comment><comment><USER31> The UK knew. They just aren't going to answer to Alex Salmond.

</comment><comment><USER32> Shouldn't that be "British" airspace? If the Scots don't like it, they should declare independence (but that failed) and maybe build an air defense network to shoot down unidentified possible CIA rendition jets (not very feasible).

<comment><USER33> It is both British airspace and Scottish airspace. Scotland is formally a constituent country of the United Kingdom, with it's own devolved government. And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign policy or defence (and several other areas), it does have a legitimate interest in asking questions of the UK government if they feel there is a possibility that what the UK government has allowed is not in the interest of Scotland.

There's very little they can _do_ about it, unless there's an indication that a law has been broken. But there's plenty of room for political point scoring.

<comment><USER32> "And while the devolved government does not have responsibility for foreign policy or defence" That's pretty much it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is there anyone naive enough to think that the US government would turn the other cheek after getting egg all over its face? Of _course_ they made extraordinary efforts to capture Snowden before he got away.

</comment><comment><USER35> Four legs good, two legs bad! Snuff him out!

<comment><USER36> Are you really saying that the US government is Stalinist?

<comment><USER35> Stalinist, no. Mob culture? Lost its way? Disconnected from history? yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Not my government.

</comment><comment><USER38> The people on that airplane ought to be in prison and rightfully deserve to be killed. They have no doubt flown out countless times to kidnap people who they proceeded to torture and kill, or deliver to others to torture and kill. Worse still, those people are walking around as civilians in the United States as if they had done nothing wrong.

I'm nauseated to think that these people are free. Anyone in a position to leak their identities so that they can be dealt with should consider it their moral obligation to do so.

<comment><USER39> > _rightfully deserve to be killed_

You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about the wrong others have done. We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't do it again.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Just wondering if EU going to give Obama another Nobel prize.

</comment><comment><USER41> I have no problem with the US filing a criminal complain against Snowden and dispatching a plane to pick him up. I have an entirely big problem with the US government using shadow planes or whatever they want to call them to act on it.

If there is a public filing of a criminal charge all following actions need to be out in the open and "above the board". This cloak and dagger shit screams "you don't have rights if you piss us off" is something the Administration should have changed from day one but instead they just doubled down on it.</comment>


The art of destroying software - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/108441214 <comment><USER2> Basically understand Unix philosophy.

Components should be small and simple. If something does not work, then you should be able to delete and rewrite that small part, instead of fixing the big whole mess.</comment>


Don't Blame Your Community: Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml <comment><USER2> > If you're reading Techdirt, and the ads we serve are not good, you have > every right to use an ad blocker. It's your browser, do whatever you want > with it. I, personally, do not use an ad blocker because I don't find most > ads annoying -- but if you do, more power to you. You're absolutely welcome > here on Techdirt.

I know I'm in a minority so even posting this is absolutely pointless, but... if I don't like the adverts that a website runs I do one of the following: pay them to not have to view them (if they have a subscription option), don't visit the website again or begrudgingly view them.

Yes it's "my browser" but it's also the websites content. If they didn't want me to view adverts they wouldn't have adverts, so the assumption is the adverts are there for me to view them. Either I view the adverts or I don't visit the website. If techdirt doesn't mine me blocking adverts, great, but why not make it a profile option? Sign up and get the option to disable adverts!

Maybe I'm crazy, but I view access to websites, media and items (eg: biscuits) the same. If I want access / ownership / consumption of something and the owner wants me to pay $10, view an advert or give them my email address then I do that or I don't get the content. Just like I would hope everyone thinks the same of the content I'm involved in the production of (although I don't run adverts on the websites that I own...)

As an aside I know of a website that has been around for a long time now that is suffering because of sticking to their guns regarding advertising. They don't want to sacrifice the "spirit" of the website so they're losing advertising options fast (some of the content is _not_ advertiser friendly...) and this is going to lead to them shutting down soon, which is a shame because it's a website that matters a lot to me and has a significant userbase and is a part of the internet history. Sometimes sticking to your guns to the death isn't the best thing for your users...

<comment><USER3> This is the internet not television. I'm not obliged to see their ads. Yes, it's their content but my viewport. By the same argument I shouldn't be allowed to surf the web using lynx (the console browser) because it doesn't show pictures and many ads are pictures or flash. On my client I can change the content all the way all want, if I don't want to see the word "fuck" I can replace it for " _beep_ " with a greasemonkey script, if I don't want to see ads I use an adblock. Internet is about freedom, television is about not- filterable predefined content down your throat.

<comment><USER4> _This is the internet not television. I'm not obliged to see their ads._

I don't think anyone is really saying that. But I agree with criticsquid in that if I think a site has content worth viewing, I want to do what I can to support that site, whether it means subscriptions or viewing ads.

So I don't run an ad-blocker. If I run into a site with ads that annoy me, I just don't visit that site. A site decides whether or not to run annoying ads, even if they don't get to pick the ads specifically, so I show my frustration by not giving such sites my traffic at all.

<comment><USER5> There are sites that I visit regularly and many more sites that I arrive at only through search results. It's the second set of sites that keeps the adblocker turned on.

There is an option in Adblocker Plus, I think, to allow non-annoying ads. If it comes to the Safari version I will try it. OTOH, every time I open a new tab, the Expose version of 12 most visited sites are retrieved with ads, so maybe I'm contributing enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As the author states in the last paragraph, this is exactly the same argument as with piracy, but the OP is in a worse position to make it because the author has to pay for traffic - unlike pirated music/ebooks/software, where pirates generously share the bandwidth costs.

And the impression I get is the same as with piracy. A few % have no problem because they are huge, have a devoted following, another income stream or because they post link-bait without mercy. It's like the lottery winners calling other people stupid for not winning. (Same reasoning in the software world: Adobe still exists despite lots of people torrenting Photoshop, Apple doesn't even bother to add copy protection to its OS, so then why are all the little crybaby studios whining about piracy?! Similar examples exist for games, music...)

The headline, as explained in the article, is also a tautology. Because if a site goes bankrupt due to ad blocking, it is _the staff's fault_ , and therefore the site did not go bankrupt due to ad blocking. Besides, it is conveniently hard to prove for what reason a site went bankrupt - same story as with pirated goods again.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use an adblocker because most sites I visit that serve ads do not personally vet the ads that run (with the great exception I can recall being 4chan, of all places!), they use an unfiltered third party network, which generally are great vehicles for malware.

The few tenths of a penny my ad impression is worth does not offset the cost, nor the risk, of your site infecting me with the rootkit of the day. Where do I send the bill?

The second reason being the ads are generally scammy (One simple rule...), distracting (moving things, sound, etc), irrelvant (I live at home by myself. I am male. Why are you showing me women's fashion magazines and breast enlargement ads?!), etc.

I've got no problem with text ads (ala Google) which eliminate most of these concerns - heck, in Google's case, they're even usually relevant!

<comment><USER4> _I use an adblocker because most sites I visit that serve ads do not personally vet the ads that run (with the great exception I can recall being 4chan, of all places!), they use an unfiltered third party network, which generally are great vehicles for malware._

While sites might not be able to vet individual ads, they do get to choose which advertisers to use and it's glaringly obvious which ones use the ads people hate.

Why not just not visit sites that decide to use annoying ads?

<comment><USER8> Because you've already caught the malware by the time you figure it out?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a good article, linked within, about how as an entrepreneur, of things go wrong, it's your fault.

I'd say that's valuable advice for humans, not just entrepreneurs.

This belief is useful not because it _true_ , but because acting as of it's true offers you the best chance of changing what you can change.

[http://www.marksonland.com/2010/03/note_to_entrpreneurs_its_...](http://www.marksonland.com/2010/03/note_to_entrpreneurs_its_your_1.html)

<comment><USER10> One of my friends uses this philosophy in competitive gaming -- each point lost, each teammate death, each tower destroyed is his fault -- to inspire him to become better.

It's too easy to find scapegoats for our blame. I try to remember this when I find myself sliding back into mediocrity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A major failing of this article is that it presupposes that people actually considered the quality of advertising in their decision to run ad blockers.

When running an ad blocker, most ads are blocked by default on every site. Therefore the user never even has a chance to see if the ads are "good" or not.

The question is, what happens if everyone starts using this software? Granted, it's a very unlikely scenario since it takes effort to install and manage ad blockers. But it's not hard to imagine that a relationship would exist between marginal increases in ad blocker usage, and marginal decreases in ad revenue.

Most of the "good" examples in this article are not even ads, they are sponsored content. It's roughly analogous to using product placements in TV shows to replace revenue lost to ad skipping software in DVRs. But not many websites are big enough (like TechDirt is) to command the special attention from advertisers to create these "one off" deals.

</comment><comment><USER12> The qq around ad blockers is the same as the qq around piracy. Bootleg vhs tapes were available before streaming media, relatively easy to make, and share. However the vast majority of people do not consume them to a damaging extent. The same is true for ad blockers and content distribution now. Ad blockers are a solution to a usability and business model problem. If you as a producer of content find it to be a huge issue, then you have it in your power to change it.

Only when its more convenient to do something the 'correct' way will it be guaranteed to be the predominant way.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't mind ads _when I want to buy a product or service and don't know where to look_ , but otherwise they're just noise that generally slows page loading or makes the readable content scroll up and down (I really hate those ads). I use an ad blocker to make reading web content as easy as reading the newspaper (where I can skip entire pages of ads).

If I like a web site, I'll pay for it. But I'm paying _because I like the content_ , not to remove the ads. It's a thank you, not a ransom payment.

</comment><comment><USER14> "Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites" - another false-positive thought of trendy venture-backed hipsters. Ok, speak your post-scarcity bla-bla-bla further.

</comment><comment><USER15> i use ad blockers primarily so that third parties cannot track me across different domains all over the internet and to increase page load times dramatically.

</comment><comment><USER16> I would love for a simple easy way to make micro-payments to the websites I use regularly.

It'd be even better if that allowed me to turn off ads.

I'm gently concerned that would mean that site owners would allow obnoxious ads in an attempt to drive people to paying, but I guess they realise that people would ad-block or never visit again.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think it's likely that this is untrue. Slashdot and reddit are the two examples that come to mind of a userbase who are likely to be filtering ads and thus greatly reducing the revenue of their hosts.

<comment><USER18> ...you think it's untrue that ad-blocking does not kill sites, because two sites likely to be ad-blocked more than the average are very, very successful?

<comment><USER19> In this context successful should be synonym of profitable. Which, last time I checked, reddit is not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article is years old and no longer reflects current information.

<comment><USER19> What do you mean?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > _"Ad Blocking Is Not Killing Any Sites"_

That's only because it's not really prevalent to the general masses. If it was, e.g if browsers came with Ad Blocking pre-installed and enabled as a default, thousands of news sites and blogs would suffer and crash.

<comment><USER19> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4804474>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I use an adblocker at home but not at work. Honestly, for most of the sites I visit, there isn't much of a difference (anymore). Websites have realized that having fewer high-quality ads is better than having a massive number of crap ads.</comment>


Discover recently launched startups in your area - <AUTHOR> http://www.acquainted.co

<comment><USER2> Apart from job searching why would anyone care what startups are specifically based in their area?

The overwhelming majority of startups are destined to fail because they're _bad businesses_ so why is it important to connect with a startup vs any other company?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, benologist!

The area-specific feature goes beyond just where the startups are based. We focus on companies that offer a unique product or service primarily to people in their area. Think Instacart or Postmates, before the expansions.

Why? We feel that with the boom of neat startups across the US and further, people in the same area are sometimes the last to find out! The broadcast is far and wide and often ends up circling back to the locals, as opposed to beginning with them. Acquainted aims to create an easier way to connect new businesses and their surrounding customers.

Hope this helps!

<comment><USER2> Is this kind of like ProductHunt where people join not to solve a specific need but to see what's out there, as a lead generation service?

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't consider Acquainted to be a lead generation service, rather a platform for rallying awareness and engagement for new businesses that uniquely enrich the community.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Guns of Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/the-guns-of-bitcoin-1f779309a718 <comment><USER2> I do like how cryptocurrencies are causing us to have some existential conversations about money and value and what they actually mean.

A key learning I took away from Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century was that you really shouldn't be holding on to more currency than you need to. That it's good to have useful tangible assets like real estate.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it accepted economic theory that the value of the dollar comes from the requirement that U.S. taxes be paid in dollars?

Does the same hold for the Euro?

<comment><USER4> Well, supply and demand is generally accepted economic theory, so yes. No one is claiming it's the sole reason for the value of the USD, but it is certainly a (huge) contributing factor.</comment></comment>


Quantum Computing for Hackers - Hacker News London Meetup - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/41325239

<comment><USER2> Manipulating light at the single-photon level has previously been outside the realm of modern electronic technology, presenting a significant barrier to more widespread research and development of quantum computing technology. <http://bit.ly/IESbdZ></comment>


Can Evolution Have a 'Higher Purpose'? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/can-evolution-have-a-higher-purpose.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0 <comment><USER2> Both the Intelligent Alien and Simulation ideas just push the question of 'purpose' up a level. Sure, the aliens may have a purpose, but if they are themselves a cosmological purposeless accident then by extension it's arguable that so are we.

<comment><USER3> > Both the Intelligent Alien and Simulation ideas just push the question of > 'purpose' up a level

They do, but while the 'kid in his garage running the simulation' may have no purpose, I guess the article author is suggesting that in a simulation our 'purpose' is to let the experiment play out and entertain this transcendental 'kid'.

<comment><USER4> Right, but what gives the purpose created by the garage-kid any sway? What gives garage-kid the authority to set my purpose? Creating something doesn't automatically mean our purpose is what the creator says it is; I think most people don't subscribe to the belief that kids should always do whatever their parents think is important once they are adults.

So in the end, what does it mean if the garage-kid created us to entertain him? Am I bound by that purpose? Does it somehow give my life more meaning?

<comment><USER2> Even worse, what if the purpose is malignant. What if we're part of a intradimensional torture device, or something? That seems even worse than purposelessness. Or we're all in Rick Sanchez's pocket universe spaceship battery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, if time is somehow "leaky", if the barrier between future and present is not absolutely, 100% impenetrable, then it's quite a distinct possibility that a future superintelligence would meddle into the affairs of its own past, perhaps with the goal of enabling its own existence.

Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is not perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly delineated (QM). Of course, there is a long way from these suggestions to time travel - but the thing is, you don't need time travel in the pop-sci sense. All you need is a "leak" of some interactions, however tenuous, from the distant future into the present. You only need to manipulate the states of a tiny number of particles in the brains and/or chromosomes of various creatures, affecting the wave functions of a few atoms and then allowing the effects to play out from there.

To be sure, this is very highly speculative, and I'm not suggesting this is what is actually happening. I'm just saying - if this, then that. Or, to put it in clearer terms, the conditions are:

1\. Time is ever so slightly "leaky".

2\. A vast, extraordinarily powerful superintelligence will emerge in the future, or humanity will in effect be that for all practical purposes.

It would be essentially the equivalent of God leaving biologic evolution and human progress mostly to their own devices, but once in a while putting his thumb on those respective scales. In this scenario, evolution would be a bipolar process: powered by the usual push of genetics, natural selection, etc at the bottom, but also informed by the pull of a future ideal at the top.

Going much further, kickstarting life, or even triggering the beginning of this Universe could also be targets of interest for manipulation.

<comment><USER6> > Both general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to suggest that time is > not perfectly linear (GR) and not perfectly crisp or perfectly clearly > delineated (QM)

Neither QM nor GR admit retrocausality. Even interactions that look time- inverted still don't let you send information back in time.

I'm also not sure I agree with the idea that QM says anything is not "clearly delineated". Uncertainty relations in QM are less interesting statements than most people seem to think. It's not a matter of nature being inexact or something, it's just the fact that most physical operators don't share the same eigenstates. E.g. You wouldn't say a standing wave is "moving at x m/s" (because it's standing still), while on the other hand you wouldn't say "the wavelength of this point is k" (because points don't have wavelengths). But standing waves have wavelengths and point particles have velocities. Nothing in this description suggests to me that nature itself is inexact. It might be, but vanilla QM doesn't require it to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk religion"?

Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow's questions like "why am I/we here?", "what is the meaning of life" and other big life questions are common among all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation | aliens may have seeded life on earth | evolution has a purpose) yet outright reject any religious discussion?

<comment><USER4> In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it.

So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the answer is almost always nothing. At that point, what is the use of discussion?

<comment><USER7> "the answer is almost always nothing"

That's just not true. The whole area of Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are raised.

<comment><USER8> > Christian Apologetics attempts to answer many of the questions that are > raised

With respect, either you misunderstand the point you are responding to, or you misunderstand apologetics, as actually practiced and taught in evangelical institutions.

Apologetics, in the evangelical sense (like all terms, it has had varied practical forms), is the rational defence of pre-existing doctrine. It deals with epistemology, natural philosophy, hermeneutics, and other areas only when they can be used to support the doctrine. It is pretty much the opposite of rational inquiry, because it explicitly begins with the conclusion and seeks arguments to justify it. It is, in practice, an example of the parent comment: what falsification of the doctrine would an apologist accept? There would always be another argument, another apologia to bolster the claim.

[Source: theological degrees and was an evangelical apologist for 20 years. Books such as Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-First Century, Crossway, 2010; Peter Kreeft, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, IVP, 1994; and much of the rest of IVP's output.]

<comment><USER7> One visit to carm.org or reasonablefaith.org with any questions outside the parameters you've set and you'll see there are ample examples to the contrary.

<comment><USER8> Both are mainstream evangelical apologetics, of the form I was referring to, and illustrate my point. Please point to pages in either that you feel establish good-faith falsification criteria for any evangelical doctrine, as per the original comment.

<comment><USER7> Good-faith, meaning what? Non-Christian?

<comment><USER8> Good faith meaning, an honest attempt. It's not an insult to apologetics that they don't. As I said (and as CARM's front page declares) its mission is to defend and justify Christian doctrine, not to investigate whether it is correct. I think you'd be better off rejecting the premise of the original comment (why falsification is important), than you would trying to argue that apologetics operates that way.

<comment><USER7> Well, I'm 47 now and have had the open challenge since 1990 that if anyone can show me that the Bible is not what it purports to be, then I will have to renounce my faith and search elsewhere. I think that qualifies as an honest attempt :)

I'm also not convinced that falsification is the be-all, end-all to deriving meaning. I think it's a very useful tool, but it has its flaws.

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree that Christian Apologetics is merely about defending Christian doctrine. It does that, but it does so by encompassing historical, reasoned, and evidential bases. Is it proof? No. Is it a body of evidence that people can examine and decide for themselves if the message is plausible? Most certainly yes.

<comment><USER9> That is a challenge ;) I am not sure what you think the bible is though. But here are a few things.

The bible predicts the earth is set on pillars (Job). But it is not.

The bible says man was made in gods image, etc. So it is really surprising we can find fossil records from monkeys to humans, and find lots of Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Jesus never heals any mentally handicapped people, as a matter of fact, they seem to be left out of the bible. But he does drive out demons. Is that god misdiagnosing people?

The bible shows us two places where the religion changes: 2 Kings when Jeshua finds an "old scroll" and Jesus bringing a new message. Actually when you look deeper there are at least 5 different god views in the bible, I challenge you to find them.

Imagine the god is like Kim Jong il (North Korea), could it be the bible is propaganda? It is more a bend then truth? How would you know the difference? (Go watch some German, or North Korean propaganda, then you know how that feels.) I can safely say, you are a better person than god, since you have certainly killed fewer innocent people. So all that love, that perfectness and goodness, propaganda ... I bet god never has to take a shit either.

<comment><USER7> Nothing new. Let me up the challenge for you. All of the stuff you've said here and more can be better represented at [http://bibviz.com/](http://bibviz.com/)

There are great answers to your questions above and more, but in my experience those questions are usually not asked in earnest because once I've given an answer more questions are thrown at me.

Let me pick out the last question I asked in earnest before becoming a Christian. There were many before it, but this was the last one I had:

[http://bibviz.com/how-did-judas-die-sab.html](http://bibviz.com/how-did- judas-die-sab.html)

This is what's called a paradox. It appears to be a contradiction. A reasonable explanation that resolves the paradox is Judas hung himself and died. The body decomposed, fell on the rocks and his bowels gushed out. This is reasonable because in the following verse it explains why the property is called "The field of Blood".

So what do you think? Is that reasonable? If I fork that website, I would turn the red line indicating a contradiction to blue, meaning that there is a reasonable explanation.

Virtually every argument I've even been thrown I've been able to find an answer, but most people don't even know the questions little alone the answers.

<comment><USER9> I am not so sure if your example is of the same level. My questions were more at how can you "anchor" the bible.

Broadly speaking, I think people can be somewhere on the following line:

1\. The bible is the perfect word of the creator

2\. The bible is inspired by a god

3\. The bible is bronze/iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs.

But let me know how you think, I would guess you are somewhere between 1 or 2, but perhaps you would want to word it differently?

When the bible talks about a soul, heaven, hell, judgement, angels, demons. How can we know that that is reliable? The only parts of the bible we can test for reliability is when it talks about things in our reality. But where it does, it shows a very naive view of reality. How then can we conclude its view of the spiritual world is any better?

<comment><USER7> It's is the most published book in human history, with over 6 billion copies. It outsells every book every year (sorry New York Times). The answers are there, in particular have a look at the archaeological & prophetic evidences.

The question "how can we know that the Bible is reliable?" is an excellent question. As for Christianity, the Bible itself explains how to kill it: 1 Corinthians 15:14 "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

So all you have to do is explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many have accepted the challenge and failed. I failed. I couldn't do it.

<comment><USER9> Going back to my line,

> archaeological & prophetic evidences

Nothing that somehow moves away from 3: humans writing down their myths and beliefs. The bible talks about an exodus of 1 million jews from Egypt, zero evidence. The bible prophesied the destruction of Damascus, still here. The drying up of the Nile, didn't happen. The biblical reason for why Nineveh was destroyed is different from the archaeological reason.

The one prophecy (Ezechiel) might be argued is Israel becoming a nation again in 1948. But it requires quite a bit of handwaving. The chance of something happening to Israel that fits some prophecy is high, by the amount and vagueness of those.

> with over 6 billion copies

So by your measure, the quran also has answers, it is number 2 book by far.

> explain away the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Humans writing down myths, a very simple explanation. I would suggest you read how one of the first martyr explains it to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). But it is not about explanations. It is about knowledge. Many things might be true, but we will never be able to know those things.

No body no crime. But also the positive version, no receipt no reimbursement. Nobody can disproof the resurrection. But nobody can proof it either. Therefor we cannot know.

<comment><USER7> I don't understand your point about the death of Stephen (which I just happened to be reading in my devotional time this past week) in Acts 7. Could you elaborate?

I respect a person's right to believe whatever they want. All I ask is they respect my right to believe whatever I want. I used to believe the Bible was a collection of myths as well. If you want to believe that, that's certainly your right.

But I don't buy it. Not after reading the entire narrative, which IMHO currently is best done through the Read Scripture app for iPhone/Android ([http://readscripture.org/](http://readscripture.org/)). Not after I made an honest attempt to explain away the resurrection.

So just to be clear, do you think Jesus Christ was a myth, or that His death and resurrection was a myth?

<comment><USER9> How does Stephen proof that Jesus rose from the dead? And why does that evidence convince (or not) the Sanhedrin? Remember this is not long after it all happened and these are the same men who asked Pilatus for Jesus his execution.

People are free to belief what they want. But people behave according to their beliefs. And sometimes when people think they know the truth, they feel justified in limiting other people their freedoms. More so if they think the creator of the universe agrees, and others are sinners.

So I look for that "liberal" spark in believers. You clearly have it, and that number is growing, but many christians do not. Many others who belief in unknowable and invisible things are even worse. (Non religious people can also lack it.)

As for what I believe:

Was Jesus a real person existed, likely. Did he rise from the dead, no. Was his message misunderstood, yes. Part of Jesus his message was, it is not about what you do, but why you do it. It is about your heart. An eternity in heaven or hell are exactly the wrong motivation.

I think Jesus meant humanity can go much further if we all follow the golden rule, and are less biased towards foreigners and outcasts. More grace more forgiveness, less judgement. When two or more people cooperate in that way, they can do more. That is the holy spirit, not some supernatural force. And that will bring the "kingdom of heaven" here on earth.

It might not feel like it, but we are getting closer to that. How many lepers did god heal? 50 total? Science has healed 5 million.

Only after our thinkers had the "liberal" spark, and were less bound by the dogma of religion, did we finally start to make strides into removing human suffering.

People forget, but in the time of Jesus, over 50% of children died before they were 15. In the rich areas of this world, it is less then 0.2%, in our poorest countries, it is less then 10%.

<comment><USER7> I'm thoroughly confused by what you're saying, Ozy. I agree as well that Jesus of Nazareth existed, but the evidence I have examined and gone over and over many times points to a different Jesus than the one you're describing.

Here's a summary of the evidence I'm talking about. Tell me what you think: [http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The- Resu...](http://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The- Resurrection.pdf)

<comment><USER9> > Here's a summary of the evidence I'm talking about.

And that is our disagreement, my bar for evidence is a lot higher. Literally the doc itself says: "the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked [..] hoaxes [..] or it is the most remarkable fact of history." If we had proof, it could be only one thing, not two things.

And we can rule out one of the two, because we have no evidence of anything supernatural and no indication that people can come back from the dead. (If you can proof either, you can collect a million dollars at the JREF.)

So we would need to go with option number one. And how unlikely is that option? I mean people have died for Marxism. Clearly Jesus his teachings were a good message that people thought was important, even at high personal cost. And willing to bend the truth for and exaggerate quite a bit. All very normal human behaviour.

Back to Stephen. He did not even try to convince the Sanhedrin. He could have made is story legitimate with proof: remember when Jesus died and the temple veil was torn in half? Remember the sudden darkness? Remember the dead walking in the city? Remember that despite the Roman guards, the grave was empty? See how we can heal the sick and so could Jesus. But he doesn't, because it wouldn't convince the Sanhedrin, because it did not happen.

When it comes to the supernatural, we have no grounding, we cannot evaluate the difference between people writing down myths, vs a god spreading misleading propaganda, vs a loving god that you wish to belief in.

If belief gives you comfort and perspective in life, good, go for it. But in Saudi Arabia, people kill each other for not wearing headscarfs. And their proof for their beliefs is as good as yours. Namely ungrounded and still at 3: all explained by iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs.

And even if there is a supernatural, the biblical descriptions of it are as accurate as when it describes the earth resting on pillars.

Thanks you for the discussion. If you have any questions or think I was inaccurate, please let me know. If you have proof, please show me by winning the JREF price. Barring proof, I would suggest you read the bible but cut out anything supernatural. It is still a nice message.

Plus just ceasing to exist when you die after having tried to live well is not so bad. Probably preferable to an eternity with a god who, by his own admission, has committed genocide and has no respect for human rights or humane treatment of prisoners.

<comment><USER7> There is a difference between proof and evidence. It's important to distinguish the two.

Ozy, if you're interested I'd be willing to keep corresponding with you. Drop me an email at email@example.com

I'll leave you with an old apocryphal story that I hope drives the point home that matter how much we achieve as human beings, it will never be enough:

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>--

A scientist approaches God, and says to Him, "Look, God, we don't need you anymore. Nowadays, we can do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous. We can transplant organs, giving new life to a dying man, we can cure almost any disease, and we can even clone animals. It won't be long, and we'll be able to clone humans, too. So, I'm sorry, but you are just outdated".

God listens patiently to the scientist and says, "I can see that you believe you don't need me, and I understand. However, I love you, and I don't want to see you make a big mistake, so why don't we make sure? I say we should have a man-making contest, just to be sure."

The scientist replies, "I'll take that challenge".

So, God says, "Ok, let's do it the way I did it in the old days, with Adam and Eve". The scientists says, "No problem", and reaches down to scoop up a handful of dirt.

"Whoa, hold on there a minute", God says. "You get your OWN dirt".

\-----

:)

<comment><USER9> If you think I misused evidence or proof, or switched them, please show me where and why and what difference it makes. But It would be easier if you engage with the content of the argument. I apply something I call maximum grace, that is, interpret the arguments in the best possible way for the other.

I have shown you why I think there is basically no reason to move the needle from 3: people writing down myths. You seem to disagree, but have not commented on Stephens defense. Or for instance what makes you think god is loving and good, seeing how he admits to genocide and cruel and unusual (eternal) punishment. I am really interested in your thoughts here. Why do you think the needle moves up?

In the other comment you said "you probably don't believe me, but it's because He lives I can face tomorrow". And I know many people fall back to nihilism if they contemplate the thought god does not exist. I think though in day to day it does not work that way, people cope just fine. But for me, when I think about the christian god, I just replace it with the best of humanity, and the best society has to offer, that we can all try to strife for.

<comment><USER7> Drop me an email (email@example.com) and I'll continue this with you :) Although we disagree, I think you've been very civil towards me. I appreciate that.

You've made some points that I need to chew on for a bit, which means I don't have a response for you just yet. I'm not fully understanding your points about Stephen, so I need to flesh it out a bit more until I at least get the gist of what you're saying. I prefer an inductive form of learning and reasoning, which takes time and effort. Hacker News is a great way to start conversations, but it's terrible for continuing them (this thread will eventually lock and not permit further comments).

Hope to hear from you (and anyone else who is reading this and would like to chat about the top of Maslow's hierarchy (which, by the way, he later criticized his own views and added a 6th's peak. Of course, we being sensible beings, we added a seventh at the very bottom: Wifi :D )) email me firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've always thought the 'living in a simulation' scenario and creationism are pretty much the same thing, if the person that started the simulation felt some sort of rules ought to be followed (for the longevity of the simulation, or whatever reason they might have). That doesn't seem like a stretch - we do that with the Sim games, and we're hardly brilliant.

<comment><USER9> If we are living in a simulation, it is a simulation of atoms, or quantum fields, or perhaps something deeper behind that. That got started with enormous energy in the form of hot dense quark gluon plasma. From there the rest follows.

It is not a simulation of humans.

We have zero indication there are rules at a higher level than the quantum or gravity. Like rules on what you ought to do in the bedroom.

Also earth nor humans were created by intelligence, just like how mineral crystals or fjords are not created by intelligence.

Hence we must conclude that bronze/iron age religions and maybe living in a simulator are not the same thing.

For the rest of this question of a creator, we cannot know, anybody claiming to know anything beyond "perhaps" or "maybe" is a fool, or will win a nobel price. By lack of the latter the rest of us will assume the first.

<comment><USER10> You're taking some mighty large liberties defining what our simulation is, and how it started. A simulation can begin with any state, including a hundred years ago with already written books and simulated Big Bang background radiation.

There is no difference.

<comment><USER9> Beings that find themselves in a universe that was created a minute ago but looks old, would be correct when they conclude it looks old. Anything else is unknowable and can not be used to further any theories.

Especially when such ideas are grounded in bronze age thinking.

"There is no difference." Indeed, if god exists or not, there is no difference ...

<comment><USER10> Well, there is no difference now. If someone has a big power button, or wants to inject things into the simulation later, or hold a final judgement, that will definitely matter. Not that we can stop it from happening either way. But perhaps we can please the Sim master...?

<comment><USER9> If we could have knowledge of such things, maybe.

But what if it turns out this is a simulation by some extremist party, who want to see how to stack people against each other using religion? In that case we would owe it to the people there in the real world that we don't ...

Plus you can rest assured that that the sim master himself lives in a simulated universe, somebody else will hold his big button. Buttons all the way down.

From the pit of unknowable things, people can dredge up any coherent story. They might believe it themselves or convince others. Fine when it offers some kind of solace or perspective on life. Not fine when it costs people their freedom or their live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=FLRhV1rWIpm_pU19bBm_2RXw&v=HxTnqKuNygE)

Counterpoint.

</comment><comment><USER9> If compute power is the only thing that matters, we do not live in a simulation. The best computer we can hope to build in the future will only have a minute fraction of the compute power of reality. Simulating reality on that computer will either be a tiny reality, or a much lower fidelity reality.

If you find yourself alive, likely you live where there is the most compute power, therefor, base reality.

Especially since we have zero indicators that any part of our reality is "fake".

Think about a character in the Sims, it would never be able to understand the mechanism by which its arm moves, if it understood its world completely. Because those movements are part of the simulator, not part of the simulated world. Arm movement is not an emergent effect.

Our reality however is based on atoms. Or quantum fields if you want to go deeper. And maybe some kind of cellular automata behind that.

If evolution had a purpose, we can detect an upwards line in complexity, and we must conclude it is unlikely we humans are the end station. Probably we will create self replicating intelligent machines that can colonize space. Emotional meat bags are not very suitable ...

<comment><USER12> Reality in the universe one level up could be different in such a way that it is more conducive to creation of virtual universes. Our idea of reality could be a mere shadow of what others think of as reality.

<comment><USER9> From our universe, and simulations we can create, and simulations in there, etc. it holds.

It is interesting to think that an outside universe could be so different it does not hold going up to base reality. But that implies that logic, math, and computability, are different there. That is not very likely, though ultimately unknowable to us.

Literally "a mere shadow of what others think of as reality" implies that that universe has a lot more compute. Therefor with much higher probability you would have evolved directly in their universe, on some tiny pinhead, or in a corner of their universe, not in a simulation they create, no matter how many they create.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hah. I generally respect Robert Wright, but man you can set your watch to him taking time to shit on Stephen Jay Gould in whatever he writes.

</comment><comment><USER14> Well duh.

Yes I realize that comment seems "trite"

What is it that the genome is doing. Look around and see how it is expressing itself.

I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins recently after he went a bit nuts on the whole atheism thing. Not because of the atheism thing but because it distracted him from what he was really about.

The genome is expressing itself, and it is way more than selfish. That thing is regression analysis to a large power. Constantly calculating minimal cost to self preservation and better versions of itself. We can learn a lot.

Personally I think its whole purpose is to build its own God. And the next God and the next... and it is doing it.

(I am a "classical" atheist)

Down votes or up votes, please explain.

<comment><USER15> >That thing is regression analysis to a large power. Constantly calculating minimal cost to self preservation and better versions of itself

Edited:

That doesn't sound very articulate, hence doubtful. Your interpretation is just that, recognizing already known patterns. Does that relate to the evolutionary "purpose" from the title? The implicit idea of order ("better") is largely based on the temporal succession of what, as far as I can tell, is indistinguishable from randomness, because it relies on random mutation and other genetic variation moduli. What existential property this really optimizes for is open.

The crux is, existence itself is hardly a logical property. I mean, "exist to exist" really is not a new revelation. It's philosophically akin to "I think therefore I am", but trivially speaking, that's just the pattern recognition at work.

<comment><USER14> It's highly rational.

Reduce Entropy. Period

<comment><USER15> Doesn't mean you should write your comment by the same principle.

Reducing entropy by growing more complex seems counterintuitive. I don't see rationality in the chaos. I don't even see what your "It" is. Attribution of rational reason to an "it" seems like a short cut leading to a domain error.

Ultimately this leads to discussion about free will and what not, for which a short-lived discussion does indeed not seem to be the right format.

<comment><USER14> Well Hacker News is definitely not the medium for this discussion, I'll grant you that.

It's not clear to me where is a better choice.

Could go for phys.org or stackoverflow I guess, but equally inane.

Nobody likes to talk about metaphysics, which is what this is really about I guess. For good reason I suppose.

Then again, before Darwin and Einstein, everything was very clear.

Right now very rational people are looking into string theory, pilot wave theory, simulated universes and a heck of a lot more.

Meanwhile, we are attempting to build self driving cars, automated systems that tempt us to buy crap we don't need and reduce the planet to a winner takes all philosophy. Nothing about that seems "Human"

Entertain me on why the universe isn't trying to build its own god. Happy to take the discussion elsewhere.

<comment><USER15> I am not going to entertain you on that. Nevermind I can't tell how serious you are because written text loses a lot of context, I'm just not going to tempt you when you introduced the whole idea saying you are tired of atheist arguments. Let's say I am a skeptic and if you make extraordinary claims, they better had been convincing.

I'll give you that "exist to exist", or an autonym god, for lack of a better word, seems to be a logical fix-point, which is notable given the name Y Combinator. At that point I want to quote wikipedia, which would mean I am out of my waters and shouldn't be baiting for someone to correct my ad-hoc interpretation.

All that to say, this argument is trite indeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I very much believe evolution has a higher purpose. Nothing alive would exist if it didn't. It's not nice, though... [1]

Unfortunately, whether it's just physics, a simulation, or aliens, it's bad news in every case, and I don't see myself relating to the view that evolution is beautiful or has any interest whatsoever in moral progress anytime soon.

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of- everythi...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/17/the-goddess-of-everything- else-2/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Mckenna shares thoughts on the nature of time, novetly, consciousness and how we are rapidly evolving technologically as a species at a rate thosands of times faster than any living organism through the power of our imagination, creativity and inventions: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnjsoBF5Ay0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnjsoBF5Ay0)

</comment><comment><USER18> The response from Jerry Coyne, a professor of biology who has literally written the book about evolution, is definitive.

[https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/robert-w...](https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/robert- wright-in-the-nyt-evolution-could-have-a-higher-purpose/)

</comment><comment> awinter-py higher purpose = species survival over individual survival.

That's why genomes have features in place which, for individuals, can suck -- senescence and cancer being the top 2.

See also conatus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus), a philosophical property whereby a thing tends to improve.

<comment><USER6> Your wiki link ("conatus") suffers from selection bias. We're only likely to see things that are stable.

<comment> awinter-py Stable systems get beaten by their competitors.

It's systems/species that are organized to improve which will tend to survive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Lots of muddled thinking, but some good points and a good start. There are a couple of things in particular that I think are interesting and worth drawing attention to. None of these are religious ideas per se; they are philosophical.

The first is the the idea of telos. Telos in the philosophical sense refers to that toward which something is ordered. It is frequently misunderstood as something identical with conscious intent, but it has nothing to do with such intent per se, only with what may be called the causal structure of a thing. For example, when I say that a heart is ordered toward pumping blood through the circulatory system, I am not speaking of conscious purposes. I am speaking of the way in which the heart is structured and the way it functions and to what end it functions. Indeed, without telos, we could not explain efficient causality. We could not explain why hearts tend to pump blood instead of, say, materializing elephants or playing the Dies Irae of Mozart's requiem. Even biologists who strive to suppress talk of telos inevitably resort to teleological language like "function". Sometimes such terminology is dismissed as only metaphorical, but such dismissals are flippant and do not pass closer examination. After all, if a term is metaphorical, then you have to ask what the metaphor stands for. Deny teleological language and biology ceases to make sense.

The reason teleology has been a difficult thing to digest has largely to do with the mechanistic turn in philosophy that has seeped deeply into ideas about science. Notice how popular debates between atheistic, materialist proponents and theistic, dualist opponents of evolution typically center on the probability of something as complex as life arising without a mind to have caused it. Paley's ghost haunts the discussion. The reason is that both the opponents and proponents of evolution in these debates hold to a mechanistic, Cartesian metaphysics where teleology is conceived of as extrinsically imposed by a divine intellect and now something intrinsic to things in themselves. Of course, the proponent will deny the divine intellect, just as he will deny the immaterial Cartesian mind, but he will not have not escaped the metaphysics altogether. This metaphysics has causes a proliferation of problems in philosophy that admit no solutions.

However, it is a mistake to think that this metaphysics is the old contender. There is a small but vibrant revival of Aristotelean metaphysics under way and with it comes a "revival" of teleology.

<comment><USER19> Sorry, had to run. Errata:

"The first is the idea of telos."

"conceived of as extrinsically imposed by a divine intellect and not something intrinsic to things"

"he will not have escaped"

"This metaphysics has caused a proliferation"

"this metaphysics is the only contender"

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What if we're just a school science experiment for a higher intelligence? Like some kid's ant farm, where we are the ants!

<comment><AUTHOR> Why the downvote? If life & intelligence could be the result as the article states of an alien advanced life-form, then to them we're like a little ant colony they have set in motion. In that context, maybe we're not even that special - maybe we're just a small experiment in someone's educational experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What we call "evolution" is simply the bias towards survival present in self replication.

The bias is present because the genomes that did not exhibit it died out in competition with the ones that did.

The fact that we as humans feel it so profoundly is a testament to the complexity that can emerge from a simple process given enough time.

</comment><comment><USER21> By definition, shouldn't any process have its ends present in potentia at its beginning?

</comment><comment><USER22> Betteridge's law of headlines: Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'.

<comment><USER23> Agreed. Evolution doesn't even have a purpose, let alone a higher one. Also, fusion doesn't have a purpose, nor does gravity.

<comment><USER24> Also agree.

This is a disguised theological idea. I guess some weak version, where god is not in charge of moving each atom, god only makes some initial setup and give a purpose to everything. Replacing god with aliens doesn't make it scientific or more sensible.

This is the power of the Ockham's razor. Just assume no god and no aliens and not whatever. How far can you get with this? Is there an experiment where the no god/alien/whaterver hypothesis fails?

<comment><USER16> I don't see how it's a disguised theological idea, yet you're turning it into one and then arguing against that. It's an argument for a process being treated as an agent even if it's blind. The disagreement there is more philosophical (I currently don't know why most people seem to believe that blind agency is not valid, I imagine it's related to beliefs in free will at some level) and not at all theological, at least, from my perspective.

If anything, gods were likely created to make various observed processes more understandable by giving them agency without going through a bunch of philosophical hoops. I would say that's very reasonable. A lot more reasonable than pretending that the process does nothing and poises no danger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> We're a zoo for a higher intelligence? Joke is on them, reality is a simulation! Turtles.</comment>