<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_28_1910250</id>
	<title>Modeling the Economy As a Physics Problem</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259404380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>University of Utah physicist Tim Garrett has published a study that approaches the economy and its relation to global warming as a physics problem &mdash; and comes to some controversial conclusions:  that rising <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm">carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized</a> unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. The study was panned by economists and was rejected by several journals before its acceptance in the journal <em>Climatic Change</em>. <i>"[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. ... 'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett says. 'I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have.' Garrett treats civilization like a 'heat engine' that 'consumes energy and does "work" in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,' he says. That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, 'each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption,' Garrett says. ... Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>University of Utah physicist Tim Garrett has published a study that approaches the economy and its relation to global warming as a physics problem    and comes to some controversial conclusions : that rising carbon dioxide emissions can not be stabilized unless the world 's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day .
The study was panned by economists and was rejected by several journals before its acceptance in the journal Climatic Change .
" [ Garrett discovered that ] Throughout history , a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world 's accumulated economic productivity , adjusted for inflation .
So it is n't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society 's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions .
... 'I 'm not an economist , and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem, ' Garrett says .
'I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have .
' Garrett treats civilization like a 'heat engine ' that 'consumes energy and does " work " in the form of economic production , which then spurs it to consume more energy, ' he says .
That constant is 9.7 ( plus or minus 0.3 ) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar .
So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history , 'each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption, ' Garrett says .
... Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett 's theory is that conserving energy does n't reduce energy use , but spurs economic growth and more energy use .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>University of Utah physicist Tim Garrett has published a study that approaches the economy and its relation to global warming as a physics problem — and comes to some controversial conclusions:  that rising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.
The study was panned by economists and was rejected by several journals before its acceptance in the journal Climatic Change.
"[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation.
So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions.
... 'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett says.
'I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have.
' Garrett treats civilization like a 'heat engine' that 'consumes energy and does "work" in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,' he says.
That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar.
So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, 'each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption,' Garrett says.
... Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262760</id>
	<title>Re:Jevons Paradox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259522460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, Jevons is mentioned in one of the appendices, and his 1865 paper is in the references.  The author's view is that he is making a stronger and more explicit statement than past authors who have touched on these issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , Jevons is mentioned in one of the appendices , and his 1865 paper is in the references .
The author 's view is that he is making a stronger and more explicit statement than past authors who have touched on these issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, Jevons is mentioned in one of the appendices, and his 1865 paper is in the references.
The author's view is that he is making a stronger and more explicit statement than past authors who have touched on these issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264354</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1259494800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models. As it is, you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior, i.e. psych, an even weaker science.</p></div><p>Lol, obviously then, you haven't seen social sciences, ever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences ' , is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models .
As it is , you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior , i.e .
psych , an even weaker science.Lol , obviously then , you have n't seen social sciences , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models.
As it is, you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior, i.e.
psych, an even weaker science.Lol, obviously then, you haven't seen social sciences, ever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</id>
	<title>Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this, and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions aren't close enough to reality. Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even <i>based</i> on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine. No wonder he's been panned. Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.<br>
<br>
I can see why this gets a run here &ndash; scientists are cool nerds; economists are not &ndash; but in the end it's a guy doing research outside of his field. Sometimes you get <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor\_Ostrom" title="wikipedia.org">tremendous insights</a> [wikipedia.org], but most of the time (as in this case) you don't. <br>
<br>
* I'm not talking about the physiocrats here, okay? <br>
<br>
Disclaimer: I am an economist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this , and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions are n't close enough to reality .
Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that 's not even based on human behaviour : the economy as a heat engine .
No wonder he 's been panned .
Criticise economic models all you like , but at least the modern ones * have a foundation in human behaviour .
I can see why this gets a run here    scientists are cool nerds ; economists are not    but in the end it 's a guy doing research outside of his field .
Sometimes you get tremendous insights [ wikipedia.org ] , but most of the time ( as in this case ) you do n't .
* I 'm not talking about the physiocrats here , okay ?
Disclaimer : I am an economist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this, and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions aren't close enough to reality.
Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine.
No wonder he's been panned.
Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.
I can see why this gets a run here – scientists are cool nerds; economists are not – but in the end it's a guy doing research outside of his field.
Sometimes you get tremendous insights [wikipedia.org], but most of the time (as in this case) you don't.
* I'm not talking about the physiocrats here, okay?
Disclaimer: I am an economist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260004</id>
	<title>Re:This is why My idea of the goods tax works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259491980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might have better luck if you proofed your tax proposals before submitting them to government, but never mind.  More to the point, distance shipped says nothing about carbon emitted.  An ipod that comes on the boat from the China will require substantially less carbon than the ipod that you buy in New York and airmail to your sister in San Francisco for Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might have better luck if you proofed your tax proposals before submitting them to government , but never mind .
More to the point , distance shipped says nothing about carbon emitted .
An ipod that comes on the boat from the China will require substantially less carbon than the ipod that you buy in New York and airmail to your sister in San Francisco for Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might have better luck if you proofed your tax proposals before submitting them to government, but never mind.
More to the point, distance shipped says nothing about carbon emitted.
An ipod that comes on the boat from the China will require substantially less carbon than the ipod that you buy in New York and airmail to your sister in San Francisco for Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258064</id>
	<title>Yes. Energy use is best economic measure</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1259417880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.</p><p>I predict that economic theory in general will move in this direction.</p><p>There are other alternatives to the nuke method however. We could do massive wind and solar,<br>supplemented by ocean wave and geothermal.</p><p>Opponents with a vested interest in the status quo claim these are marginal and intermittent (not core)<br>power sources, but they do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the power balancing you could do<br>with a continent-wide superconducting smart-switching power grid.</p><p>Another, complementary, alternative is that we can back off on our tendency to destroy natural eco-systems and<br>replace them by our own systems,<br>and let some of them (natural systems) thrive, and do some of the work for us. This only works if we support them<br>and harvest them with humility and respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.I predict that economic theory in general will move in this direction.There are other alternatives to the nuke method however .
We could do massive wind and solar,supplemented by ocean wave and geothermal.Opponents with a vested interest in the status quo claim these are marginal and intermittent ( not core ) power sources , but they do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the power balancing you could dowith a continent-wide superconducting smart-switching power grid.Another , complementary , alternative is that we can back off on our tendency to destroy natural eco-systems andreplace them by our own systems,and let some of them ( natural systems ) thrive , and do some of the work for us .
This only works if we support themand harvest them with humility and respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.I predict that economic theory in general will move in this direction.There are other alternatives to the nuke method however.
We could do massive wind and solar,supplemented by ocean wave and geothermal.Opponents with a vested interest in the status quo claim these are marginal and intermittent (not core)power sources, but they do not understand or are deliberately ignoring the power balancing you could dowith a continent-wide superconducting smart-switching power grid.Another, complementary, alternative is that we can back off on our tendency to destroy natural eco-systems andreplace them by our own systems,and let some of them (natural systems) thrive, and do some of the work for us.
This only works if we support themand harvest them with humility and respect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257582</id>
	<title>Take some deep breaths, everything is fine</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1259413080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like static analysis.</p><p>Projecting from current CO2 trends this simplisticly assumes that there are no mechanisms that will absorb more CO2 at higher concentrations. This has already scuppered some earlier climate predictions (IIRC scientists didn't used to take into account how much CO2 algae could really sequester).</p><p>Climate change is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. But I think the idea that we need to choose between a nuclear power station per day or getting rid of industrial civilisation is not to be taken seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like static analysis.Projecting from current CO2 trends this simplisticly assumes that there are no mechanisms that will absorb more CO2 at higher concentrations .
This has already scuppered some earlier climate predictions ( IIRC scientists did n't used to take into account how much CO2 algae could really sequester ) .Climate change is a problem , and it needs to be addressed .
But I think the idea that we need to choose between a nuclear power station per day or getting rid of industrial civilisation is not to be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like static analysis.Projecting from current CO2 trends this simplisticly assumes that there are no mechanisms that will absorb more CO2 at higher concentrations.
This has already scuppered some earlier climate predictions (IIRC scientists didn't used to take into account how much CO2 algae could really sequester).Climate change is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.
But I think the idea that we need to choose between a nuclear power station per day or getting rid of industrial civilisation is not to be taken seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268</id>
	<title>Another implication...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's another implication of that theory, and it's one that conservatives have been arguing for some time now: the end result of the current drive to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the destruction of the worlkd economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's another implication of that theory , and it 's one that conservatives have been arguing for some time now : the end result of the current drive to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the destruction of the worlkd economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's another implication of that theory, and it's one that conservatives have been arguing for some time now: the end result of the current drive to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the destruction of the worlkd economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259886</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>dumbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1259488320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being an atheist does not preclude having supernatural beliefs. It only means one's belief system does not contain a divine being. There is nothing hypocritical about an atheist believing in undiscovered technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being an atheist does not preclude having supernatural beliefs .
It only means one 's belief system does not contain a divine being .
There is nothing hypocritical about an atheist believing in undiscovered technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being an atheist does not preclude having supernatural beliefs.
It only means one's belief system does not contain a divine being.
There is nothing hypocritical about an atheist believing in undiscovered technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265256</id>
	<title>Re:Needs a closer look</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1259503800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK--found it. I was getting a "not responding" on the pdf link before.</p><p>Now to make some sense of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK--found it .
I was getting a " not responding " on the pdf link before.Now to make some sense of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK--found it.
I was getting a "not responding" on the pdf link before.Now to make some sense of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257686</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259414100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am an economist.</p></div><p>Whoops, did not see that. You probably already knew what I just said in the other reply... Also, the "careerists" comment was not directed at you personally, it was more criticizing a popular image.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an economist.Whoops , did not see that .
You probably already knew what I just said in the other reply... Also , the " careerists " comment was not directed at you personally , it was more criticizing a popular image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an economist.Whoops, did not see that.
You probably already knew what I just said in the other reply... Also, the "careerists" comment was not directed at you personally, it was more criticizing a popular image.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266858</id>
	<title>Re:Freejack</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1259518320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah...the wealthy can pay to have the poor make them ecologically friendly products using manual labour and no nasty chemicals.</p><p>It's the middle class that would suffer most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah...the wealthy can pay to have the poor make them ecologically friendly products using manual labour and no nasty chemicals.It 's the middle class that would suffer most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah...the wealthy can pay to have the poor make them ecologically friendly products using manual labour and no nasty chemicals.It's the middle class that would suffer most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260942</id>
	<title>Re:We already knew that</title>
	<author>arethuza</author>
	<datestamp>1259505540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I watched a fascinating documentary last night about the history of the UK over the last 700 thousands years (a special by Time Team on UK Channel 4) which had a lot of fascinating stuff in it. However, one thing that was pointed out was pretty grim: there have been eight separate waves of human habitation in the British Isles - all of the previous seven were completely wiped out by climate changes (glaciation rather than warming, although there have been some pretty dramatic warming events too - 7C in 15 years in one case).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I watched a fascinating documentary last night about the history of the UK over the last 700 thousands years ( a special by Time Team on UK Channel 4 ) which had a lot of fascinating stuff in it .
However , one thing that was pointed out was pretty grim : there have been eight separate waves of human habitation in the British Isles - all of the previous seven were completely wiped out by climate changes ( glaciation rather than warming , although there have been some pretty dramatic warming events too - 7C in 15 years in one case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I watched a fascinating documentary last night about the history of the UK over the last 700 thousands years (a special by Time Team on UK Channel 4) which had a lot of fascinating stuff in it.
However, one thing that was pointed out was pretty grim: there have been eight separate waves of human habitation in the British Isles - all of the previous seven were completely wiped out by climate changes (glaciation rather than warming, although there have been some pretty dramatic warming events too - 7C in 15 years in one case).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259406</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>tbannist</author>
	<datestamp>1259434680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure it's so much standard of living as the amount of support given to new parents.  The United States has, I think, the worst support for parents out of any country in the developed world.  Given that a new mother in the U.S. is only guaranteed to keep her job for up to 12 weeks, and that time is completely unpaid, and that she only gets that protection if she works for a company with at least 50 employees, it appears to be actually financially difficult for the middle class in the United States to have children.</p><p>A new mother faces two undesirable choices: pay expensive child care fees, quit her job and stay home to raise the children.  In either case the mother is probably facing a substancial reduction in disposable income until the child is old enough to participate in the education system.  If we believe economics works, then it's quite obvious why that study would show what you said, particularly in the United States.</p><p>At the low end, a mother loses little in the way of income, at the high end the mother has more resources to support her through the period of reduced income or increased expenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure it 's so much standard of living as the amount of support given to new parents .
The United States has , I think , the worst support for parents out of any country in the developed world .
Given that a new mother in the U.S. is only guaranteed to keep her job for up to 12 weeks , and that time is completely unpaid , and that she only gets that protection if she works for a company with at least 50 employees , it appears to be actually financially difficult for the middle class in the United States to have children.A new mother faces two undesirable choices : pay expensive child care fees , quit her job and stay home to raise the children .
In either case the mother is probably facing a substancial reduction in disposable income until the child is old enough to participate in the education system .
If we believe economics works , then it 's quite obvious why that study would show what you said , particularly in the United States.At the low end , a mother loses little in the way of income , at the high end the mother has more resources to support her through the period of reduced income or increased expenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure it's so much standard of living as the amount of support given to new parents.
The United States has, I think, the worst support for parents out of any country in the developed world.
Given that a new mother in the U.S. is only guaranteed to keep her job for up to 12 weeks, and that time is completely unpaid, and that she only gets that protection if she works for a company with at least 50 employees, it appears to be actually financially difficult for the middle class in the United States to have children.A new mother faces two undesirable choices: pay expensive child care fees, quit her job and stay home to raise the children.
In either case the mother is probably facing a substancial reduction in disposable income until the child is old enough to participate in the education system.
If we believe economics works, then it's quite obvious why that study would show what you said, particularly in the United States.At the low end, a mother loses little in the way of income, at the high end the mother has more resources to support her through the period of reduced income or increased expenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258892</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Toze</author>
	<datestamp>1259427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider the food supply.  The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.</p></div><p>
Disagree.
</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World\_map\_of\_Energy\_consumption\_1961.svg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">(Caloric) energy consumption per capita, 1961</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World\_map\_of\_Energy\_consumption\_2001-2003.svg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">(Caloric) energy consumption per capita, 2001</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
Those maps are considerably more dense, in both the first and third world, in 2001 than in 1961.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the food supply .
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well .
Disagree . ( Caloric ) energy consumption per capita , 1961 [ wikipedia.org ] ( Caloric ) energy consumption per capita , 2001 [ wikipedia.org ] Those maps are considerably more dense , in both the first and third world , in 2001 than in 1961 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the food supply.
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.
Disagree.

(Caloric) energy consumption per capita, 1961 [wikipedia.org] 
(Caloric) energy consumption per capita, 2001 [wikipedia.org]

Those maps are considerably more dense, in both the first and third world, in 2001 than in 1961.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259402</id>
	<title>Collapse</title>
	<author>1336</author>
	<datestamp>1259434500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ghost of Christmas future?<br><a href="http://www.collapsemovie.com/" title="collapsemovie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.collapsemovie.com/</a> [collapsemovie.com]</p><p>So if "Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption." then the trick would be to create conservation/efficiency without spurring economic growth...  so compensate with a tax at the same time?</p><p>e.g. mandate more fuel efficient cars and increase the tax on gasoline at the same time to make the average cost of driving cost/km the same in the future as it does now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ghost of Christmas future ? http : //www.collapsemovie.com/ [ collapsemovie.com ] So if " Energy conservation or efficiency does n't really save energy , but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption .
" then the trick would be to create conservation/efficiency without spurring economic growth... so compensate with a tax at the same time ? e.g .
mandate more fuel efficient cars and increase the tax on gasoline at the same time to make the average cost of driving cost/km the same in the future as it does now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ghost of Christmas future?http://www.collapsemovie.com/ [collapsemovie.com]So if "Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
" then the trick would be to create conservation/efficiency without spurring economic growth...  so compensate with a tax at the same time?e.g.
mandate more fuel efficient cars and increase the tax on gasoline at the same time to make the average cost of driving cost/km the same in the future as it does now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257626</id>
	<title>Freejack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259413440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole thing drives me crazy.  Is man screwing up the earth?  Absolutely, but the solutions the politicians and algoreans are suggesting is pay to play.  You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.<br> <br>

Imagine for a moment that Microsoft was forced to deal with the fact that their software is responsible for ninety-five percent of virus infections, but instead of, Oh I don't know - MAKING THEM BUILD BETTER SOFTWARE - , we simply require that they pay for the tuition of every High School graduate who wants to get a degree in Computer Science.<br> <br>

Freejack.  If this system survives longer than twenty-five years, Al Gore and every other person on the inside will live in secure cities with fresh water, abundant food and toss scraps to the rest of the world to feed the need for compassion.<br> <br>

As for me, I've got my money on the zoo of the future.  Imagine being able to see the extinct Blue Jay, Cardinal, and if you are really lucky an Eagle.<br> <br>

Of course, I could be wrong.<br> <br>

Dateline 1488: William Howell purchases a nice manor in Buckinghamshire, England but has a recurring nightmare that he is living 521 years in the future.  Sucks to be him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thing drives me crazy .
Is man screwing up the earth ?
Absolutely , but the solutions the politicians and algoreans are suggesting is pay to play .
You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it .
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft was forced to deal with the fact that their software is responsible for ninety-five percent of virus infections , but instead of , Oh I do n't know - MAKING THEM BUILD BETTER SOFTWARE - , we simply require that they pay for the tuition of every High School graduate who wants to get a degree in Computer Science .
Freejack. If this system survives longer than twenty-five years , Al Gore and every other person on the inside will live in secure cities with fresh water , abundant food and toss scraps to the rest of the world to feed the need for compassion .
As for me , I 've got my money on the zoo of the future .
Imagine being able to see the extinct Blue Jay , Cardinal , and if you are really lucky an Eagle .
Of course , I could be wrong .
Dateline 1488 : William Howell purchases a nice manor in Buckinghamshire , England but has a recurring nightmare that he is living 521 years in the future .
Sucks to be him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thing drives me crazy.
Is man screwing up the earth?
Absolutely, but the solutions the politicians and algoreans are suggesting is pay to play.
You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft was forced to deal with the fact that their software is responsible for ninety-five percent of virus infections, but instead of, Oh I don't know - MAKING THEM BUILD BETTER SOFTWARE - , we simply require that they pay for the tuition of every High School graduate who wants to get a degree in Computer Science.
Freejack.  If this system survives longer than twenty-five years, Al Gore and every other person on the inside will live in secure cities with fresh water, abundant food and toss scraps to the rest of the world to feed the need for compassion.
As for me, I've got my money on the zoo of the future.
Imagine being able to see the extinct Blue Jay, Cardinal, and if you are really lucky an Eagle.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Dateline 1488: William Howell purchases a nice manor in Buckinghamshire, England but has a recurring nightmare that he is living 521 years in the future.
Sucks to be him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257434</id>
	<title>Mission Accomplished</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1259411460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...unless the world's economy collapses</p></div></blockquote><p>

Mission accomplished, then.  Kudos all around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...unless the world 's economy collapses Mission accomplished , then .
Kudos all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...unless the world's economy collapses

Mission accomplished, then.
Kudos all around.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257468</id>
	<title>not original</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1259411760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."</i>
<p>
This was discovered a LONG time ago - like 1865. It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org">Jevon's Paradox.</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
However, Jevon's (and Garrett) get turned upside down when energy sources deplete and costs for energy steadily increase. Then, the only way you can have economic growth IS through massive conservation, insofar as a society's base usage decreases faster than the net energy in the system does, thereby leaving a margin. This margin allows for "growth". As the system bumps up against depletion rates, the cost spikes and the economy contracts and energy use decreases again below depletion, allowing for more "growth". However, the total area under the growth curve is always decreasing as well - hence it is a "relative" growth. This relative growth needs to be put DIRECTLY into alternative energy systems, or you can kiss technical civilisation goodbye.
</p><p>
The sad part is, if we continue to demand absolute growth, and we do not create MASSIVE energy systems and mitigation systems, we'll drive civilisation right off a cliff. It'll make the movie "The Road" look like a documentary.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett 's theory is that conserving energy does n't reduce energy use , but spurs economic growth and more energy use .
" This was discovered a LONG time ago - like 1865 .
It 's called Jevon 's Paradox .
[ wikipedia.org ] However , Jevon 's ( and Garrett ) get turned upside down when energy sources deplete and costs for energy steadily increase .
Then , the only way you can have economic growth IS through massive conservation , insofar as a society 's base usage decreases faster than the net energy in the system does , thereby leaving a margin .
This margin allows for " growth " .
As the system bumps up against depletion rates , the cost spikes and the economy contracts and energy use decreases again below depletion , allowing for more " growth " .
However , the total area under the growth curve is always decreasing as well - hence it is a " relative " growth .
This relative growth needs to be put DIRECTLY into alternative energy systems , or you can kiss technical civilisation goodbye .
The sad part is , if we continue to demand absolute growth , and we do not create MASSIVE energy systems and mitigation systems , we 'll drive civilisation right off a cliff .
It 'll make the movie " The Road " look like a documentary .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.
"

This was discovered a LONG time ago - like 1865.
It's called Jevon's Paradox.
[wikipedia.org]

However, Jevon's (and Garrett) get turned upside down when energy sources deplete and costs for energy steadily increase.
Then, the only way you can have economic growth IS through massive conservation, insofar as a society's base usage decreases faster than the net energy in the system does, thereby leaving a margin.
This margin allows for "growth".
As the system bumps up against depletion rates, the cost spikes and the economy contracts and energy use decreases again below depletion, allowing for more "growth".
However, the total area under the growth curve is always decreasing as well - hence it is a "relative" growth.
This relative growth needs to be put DIRECTLY into alternative energy systems, or you can kiss technical civilisation goodbye.
The sad part is, if we continue to demand absolute growth, and we do not create MASSIVE energy systems and mitigation systems, we'll drive civilisation right off a cliff.
It'll make the movie "The Road" look like a documentary.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267482</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Models Proved Useless</title>
	<author>MellowTigger</author>
	<datestamp>1259524500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yowza, that's worrying.  You say there's been little to no Antarctic warming for a few years as if that's a good thing.

Me, I see it as all that energy being dumped into a state change: ice into water.  I look at the same information and see an ominous warning signal that global warming is about to take a sudden change for the worse as soon as the state change is complete.

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yowza , that 's worrying .
You say there 's been little to no Antarctic warming for a few years as if that 's a good thing .
Me , I see it as all that energy being dumped into a state change : ice into water .
I look at the same information and see an ominous warning signal that global warming is about to take a sudden change for the worse as soon as the state change is complete .
Maybe I 'm just being pessimistic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yowza, that's worrying.
You say there's been little to no Antarctic warming for a few years as if that's a good thing.
Me, I see it as all that energy being dumped into a state change: ice into water.
I look at the same information and see an ominous warning signal that global warming is about to take a sudden change for the worse as soon as the state change is complete.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267984</id>
	<title>Spurious conclusion; two good sources to study...</title>
	<author>beachdog</author>
	<datestamp>1259574420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it is an interesting conclusion, with major logical problems. This finding by itself is not adequate for the appropriate apprehension of the issue before us.</p><p>A quality effort to enumerate the entire energy and CO2 reduction issue is:</p><p><a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/" title="withouthotair.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.withouthotair.com/</a> [withouthotair.com] ; A book by David MacKay</p><p>On the threat "otherwise we have to build 1 atomic power plant per day..."</p><p>I recommend Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline An Ecopragmatist Manifesto". Mr. Brand favors emphasis on nuclear power and a number of other innovative approaches to dealing with the global warming problem.</p><p>The CO2 reduction task will require substantial changes to the American business and social system. We are in a formative phase right now.</p><p>Also, you can visit my "Put carts on the public bus" blog, for charts and dismal economic analyses galore:</p><p><a href="http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is an interesting conclusion , with major logical problems .
This finding by itself is not adequate for the appropriate apprehension of the issue before us.A quality effort to enumerate the entire energy and CO2 reduction issue is : http : //www.withouthotair.com/ [ withouthotair.com ] ; A book by David MacKayOn the threat " otherwise we have to build 1 atomic power plant per day... " I recommend Stewart Brand 's Whole Earth Discipline An Ecopragmatist Manifesto " .
Mr. Brand favors emphasis on nuclear power and a number of other innovative approaches to dealing with the global warming problem.The CO2 reduction task will require substantial changes to the American business and social system .
We are in a formative phase right now.Also , you can visit my " Put carts on the public bus " blog , for charts and dismal economic analyses galore : http : //lessco2essay.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is an interesting conclusion, with major logical problems.
This finding by itself is not adequate for the appropriate apprehension of the issue before us.A quality effort to enumerate the entire energy and CO2 reduction issue is:http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com] ; A book by David MacKayOn the threat "otherwise we have to build 1 atomic power plant per day..."I recommend Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Discipline An Ecopragmatist Manifesto".
Mr. Brand favors emphasis on nuclear power and a number of other innovative approaches to dealing with the global warming problem.The CO2 reduction task will require substantial changes to the American business and social system.
We are in a formative phase right now.Also, you can visit my "Put carts on the public bus" blog, for charts and dismal economic analyses galore:http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259022</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1259428620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, with the current amount of food grown, everyone could eat well.
</p><p>
But feeding everyone in the world isn't as profitable as growing plants, and feeding the output to animals (wasting energy in the process) to sell to rich affluent first worlders.
</p><p>
It's one of the reasons why people starve.  Other reasons why people are starving include war and failed politics.  For example, under the current corrupt ruler jn Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe turned from a net exporter to a net importer of food, as the population starves and the economy collapes in such a way that it invites disbelief to outsiders (one aspect was inflation reaching 10000000000000000000000\% in 2008).
</p><p>
As for the limiting factor on population, the four horsemen doesn't seem to be the main limiting factor.  Instead, the limiting factor, at least in a large part of the world, seems to be affluence.  Children shift from being a blessing to an economic burden.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the food supply .
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well .
Actually , with the current amount of food grown , everyone could eat well .
But feeding everyone in the world is n't as profitable as growing plants , and feeding the output to animals ( wasting energy in the process ) to sell to rich affluent first worlders .
It 's one of the reasons why people starve .
Other reasons why people are starving include war and failed politics .
For example , under the current corrupt ruler jn Zimbabwe , Zimbabwe turned from a net exporter to a net importer of food , as the population starves and the economy collapes in such a way that it invites disbelief to outsiders ( one aspect was inflation reaching 10000000000000000000000 \ % in 2008 ) .
As for the limiting factor on population , the four horsemen does n't seem to be the main limiting factor .
Instead , the limiting factor , at least in a large part of the world , seems to be affluence .
Children shift from being a blessing to an economic burden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the food supply.
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.
Actually, with the current amount of food grown, everyone could eat well.
But feeding everyone in the world isn't as profitable as growing plants, and feeding the output to animals (wasting energy in the process) to sell to rich affluent first worlders.
It's one of the reasons why people starve.
Other reasons why people are starving include war and failed politics.
For example, under the current corrupt ruler jn Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe turned from a net exporter to a net importer of food, as the population starves and the economy collapes in such a way that it invites disbelief to outsiders (one aspect was inflation reaching 10000000000000000000000\% in 2008).
As for the limiting factor on population, the four horsemen doesn't seem to be the main limiting factor.
Instead, the limiting factor, at least in a large part of the world, seems to be affluence.
Children shift from being a blessing to an economic burden.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257454</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>happyemoticon</author>
	<datestamp>1259411640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a very good metaphor. With religion, our actions have no bearing on the existence of metaphysical truths or deities, whereas our actions can have an impact on the state of technology.</p><p>Faith in technology is very different from religious faith. Think of it as a hypothesis. We observe, through reliable historical documents as well as the current state of the world, that in the past non-military technology has improved the condition of the human race. Based on this robust evidence, we might safely conclude that this will continue to be the case, at least in the near future. It's a fairly simple leap of faith, and one grounded in observable reality. In my opinion, if we fail, it will not be because we've already reached a hard limit to human intellectual achievement, but because we've lost faith in technology and incentivizing non-productive economic activity (banking, lawyering, etc).</p><p>Ultimately, the solution will require more than technology. It will require an economy that is capable of being stable when in net equilibrium and population controls and that sort of thing. But to say that we should all just give up because it's insurmountably hard to get people to stop fucking and/or use birth control isn't just pessimistic, it's nihilistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a very good metaphor .
With religion , our actions have no bearing on the existence of metaphysical truths or deities , whereas our actions can have an impact on the state of technology.Faith in technology is very different from religious faith .
Think of it as a hypothesis .
We observe , through reliable historical documents as well as the current state of the world , that in the past non-military technology has improved the condition of the human race .
Based on this robust evidence , we might safely conclude that this will continue to be the case , at least in the near future .
It 's a fairly simple leap of faith , and one grounded in observable reality .
In my opinion , if we fail , it will not be because we 've already reached a hard limit to human intellectual achievement , but because we 've lost faith in technology and incentivizing non-productive economic activity ( banking , lawyering , etc ) .Ultimately , the solution will require more than technology .
It will require an economy that is capable of being stable when in net equilibrium and population controls and that sort of thing .
But to say that we should all just give up because it 's insurmountably hard to get people to stop fucking and/or use birth control is n't just pessimistic , it 's nihilistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a very good metaphor.
With religion, our actions have no bearing on the existence of metaphysical truths or deities, whereas our actions can have an impact on the state of technology.Faith in technology is very different from religious faith.
Think of it as a hypothesis.
We observe, through reliable historical documents as well as the current state of the world, that in the past non-military technology has improved the condition of the human race.
Based on this robust evidence, we might safely conclude that this will continue to be the case, at least in the near future.
It's a fairly simple leap of faith, and one grounded in observable reality.
In my opinion, if we fail, it will not be because we've already reached a hard limit to human intellectual achievement, but because we've lost faith in technology and incentivizing non-productive economic activity (banking, lawyering, etc).Ultimately, the solution will require more than technology.
It will require an economy that is capable of being stable when in net equilibrium and population controls and that sort of thing.
But to say that we should all just give up because it's insurmountably hard to get people to stop fucking and/or use birth control isn't just pessimistic, it's nihilistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265770</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what you are describing is called socialism. it is currently unmantained, and it has yet to produce a stable implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what you are describing is called socialism .
it is currently unmantained , and it has yet to produce a stable implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what you are describing is called socialism.
it is currently unmantained, and it has yet to produce a stable implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259138</id>
	<title>Re:Adjusting for Inflation</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259430300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>so the cost of everyday items now can't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920. Some things that were necessities in 1920 aren't anymore, and some things that are necessities now weren't even invented.</i></p><p>But is the contents of the basket really important, if the basket is truly representative of what you need to live?</p><p>If your timeframe is suitably large, a fine men's suit costs one ounce of gold, and a belt for it costs one once of silver, since Roman times.  Compare against a fiat currency to get a rough measure of the effect of inflationary policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so the cost of everyday items now ca n't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920 .
Some things that were necessities in 1920 are n't anymore , and some things that are necessities now were n't even invented.But is the contents of the basket really important , if the basket is truly representative of what you need to live ? If your timeframe is suitably large , a fine men 's suit costs one ounce of gold , and a belt for it costs one once of silver , since Roman times .
Compare against a fiat currency to get a rough measure of the effect of inflationary policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so the cost of everyday items now can't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920.
Some things that were necessities in 1920 aren't anymore, and some things that are necessities now weren't even invented.But is the contents of the basket really important, if the basket is truly representative of what you need to live?If your timeframe is suitably large, a fine men's suit costs one ounce of gold, and a belt for it costs one once of silver, since Roman times.
Compare against a fiat currency to get a rough measure of the effect of inflationary policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259046</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1259428920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So.... It sounds as if you don't disagree with his methods or conclusions, but rather that this is positioned as a model of the economy.</p><p>If I understand correctly, economists object because this is not what most would consider a valid model of the economy.</p><p>Am I getting this right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So.... It sounds as if you do n't disagree with his methods or conclusions , but rather that this is positioned as a model of the economy.If I understand correctly , economists object because this is not what most would consider a valid model of the economy.Am I getting this right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.... It sounds as if you don't disagree with his methods or conclusions, but rather that this is positioned as a model of the economy.If I understand correctly, economists object because this is not what most would consider a valid model of the economy.Am I getting this right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259124</id>
	<title>Collusion, Corruption</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259430180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this</p></div></blockquote><p>
Just curious to know, does these complicated mathematical models <i>consider<i> factors such as collusion, corruption etc?</i></i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this Just curious to know , does these complicated mathematical models consider factors such as collusion , corruption etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this
Just curious to know, does these complicated mathematical models consider factors such as collusion, corruption etc?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>NixieBunny</author>
	<datestamp>1259412600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy. We live unsustainably. Oil isn't forever. Nukes aren't forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about that , as the end result of * not * cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy .
We live unsustainably .
Oil is n't forever .
Nukes are n't forever .
Enjoy it while it lasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy.
We live unsustainably.
Oil isn't forever.
Nukes aren't forever.
Enjoy it while it lasts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257350</id>
	<title>Link to paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259410620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf" title="springerlink.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf</a> [springerlink.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf [ springerlink.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf [springerlink.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257474</id>
	<title>So its a 'provocative implication' ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1259411820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you say ? you mean,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."</p></div><p>this ?</p><p>and it provocates what, stupidity ? and makes a point of what, trivializing energy conservation ? i heard only a few more stupid things than this in my life.</p><p>lets not conserve energy then. because, it only spurs more growth and more energy use. lets go a mile of civilizational development whereas we could be able to go a mile and a half by conserving energy. yea.</p><p>lets do that, because, well, it is a 'provocative implication' of someone's theory. in another perspective, why conserve, whereas we are all going to die in the end anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you say ?
you mean , " Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett 's theory is that conserving energy does n't reduce energy use , but spurs economic growth and more energy use .
" this ? and it provocates what , stupidity ?
and makes a point of what , trivializing energy conservation ?
i heard only a few more stupid things than this in my life.lets not conserve energy then .
because , it only spurs more growth and more energy use .
lets go a mile of civilizational development whereas we could be able to go a mile and a half by conserving energy .
yea.lets do that , because , well , it is a 'provocative implication ' of someone 's theory .
in another perspective , why conserve , whereas we are all going to die in the end anyway .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you say ?
you mean,"Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.
"this ?and it provocates what, stupidity ?
and makes a point of what, trivializing energy conservation ?
i heard only a few more stupid things than this in my life.lets not conserve energy then.
because, it only spurs more growth and more energy use.
lets go a mile of civilizational development whereas we could be able to go a mile and a half by conserving energy.
yea.lets do that, because, well, it is a 'provocative implication' of someone's theory.
in another perspective, why conserve, whereas we are all going to die in the end anyway ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260296</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly Shocking</title>
	<author>GrahamCox</author>
	<datestamp>1259496960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980</i> <br> <br>
How do you quantify "far more efficient"? The fact is, they're not. A difference of perhaps 25\% to 27\% is not far more efficient. I'm basing that on a typical small European car - maybe the situation with large US built cars looks better than that, but it's still absolutely atrocious. Cars may pollute less, in terms of actual noxious gasses released to the atmosphere, but that doesn't equate to better efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And lame as our cars may be , they are far more efficient than they were in 1980 How do you quantify " far more efficient " ?
The fact is , they 're not .
A difference of perhaps 25 \ % to 27 \ % is not far more efficient .
I 'm basing that on a typical small European car - maybe the situation with large US built cars looks better than that , but it 's still absolutely atrocious .
Cars may pollute less , in terms of actual noxious gasses released to the atmosphere , but that does n't equate to better efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980  
How do you quantify "far more efficient"?
The fact is, they're not.
A difference of perhaps 25\% to 27\% is not far more efficient.
I'm basing that on a typical small European car - maybe the situation with large US built cars looks better than that, but it's still absolutely atrocious.
Cars may pollute less, in terms of actual noxious gasses released to the atmosphere, but that doesn't equate to better efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258092</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259418240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  The wildest assumption is that anything not based on some fundamental law of physics can be modeled at all.  But sure enough, models can work to some degree.  All the other assumptions are just a rationalization of how much effort you want to put into the model vs utility.</p><p>I've screwed up models only to find that using "discovered" assumptions worked better than the intended assumptions.  This guy might be in the same boat.  My odd discovery was when trying to decide whether to accept a stock or cash bonus, I messed up calculating its historical price increase  (out of curiosity).  Instead of modeling percent increase fluctuating over time , I accidentally modeled it as a constant increase with time fluctuating (even going backwards).  Fixing it yielded a less accurate model.  The time varying model jives better with common language: "This stock is worth the same as two years ago."</p><p>Weirdly, it predicted that the stock would be flat for 2000-2010, and it has been.  I should have paid attention to the model and taken the cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The wildest assumption is that anything not based on some fundamental law of physics can be modeled at all .
But sure enough , models can work to some degree .
All the other assumptions are just a rationalization of how much effort you want to put into the model vs utility.I 've screwed up models only to find that using " discovered " assumptions worked better than the intended assumptions .
This guy might be in the same boat .
My odd discovery was when trying to decide whether to accept a stock or cash bonus , I messed up calculating its historical price increase ( out of curiosity ) .
Instead of modeling percent increase fluctuating over time , I accidentally modeled it as a constant increase with time fluctuating ( even going backwards ) .
Fixing it yielded a less accurate model .
The time varying model jives better with common language : " This stock is worth the same as two years ago .
" Weirdly , it predicted that the stock would be flat for 2000-2010 , and it has been .
I should have paid attention to the model and taken the cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The wildest assumption is that anything not based on some fundamental law of physics can be modeled at all.
But sure enough, models can work to some degree.
All the other assumptions are just a rationalization of how much effort you want to put into the model vs utility.I've screwed up models only to find that using "discovered" assumptions worked better than the intended assumptions.
This guy might be in the same boat.
My odd discovery was when trying to decide whether to accept a stock or cash bonus, I messed up calculating its historical price increase  (out of curiosity).
Instead of modeling percent increase fluctuating over time , I accidentally modeled it as a constant increase with time fluctuating (even going backwards).
Fixing it yielded a less accurate model.
The time varying model jives better with common language: "This stock is worth the same as two years ago.
"Weirdly, it predicted that the stock would be flat for 2000-2010, and it has been.
I should have paid attention to the model and taken the cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266216</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>pegacat</author>
	<datestamp>1259512500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true - numerous examples exist of civilisations large and small that have outgrown their resource base and crashed horribly.  In fact, pretty much EVERY SINGLE CIVILISATION before ours has collapsed horribly.  We would be different why?</p><p>(cf Jarad Diamond's book "Collapse" for a role call of civilisations and empires that have gone belly up - not all can be pinned on environmental collapse, but a lot can; just look at the sands of the middle east where the great empires of two thousand years ago were, possibly the Romans, the Maya, definitely the Norse settlements in Greenland and the polynesian settlement of Easter Island, etc. etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true - numerous examples exist of civilisations large and small that have outgrown their resource base and crashed horribly .
In fact , pretty much EVERY SINGLE CIVILISATION before ours has collapsed horribly .
We would be different why ?
( cf Jarad Diamond 's book " Collapse " for a role call of civilisations and empires that have gone belly up - not all can be pinned on environmental collapse , but a lot can ; just look at the sands of the middle east where the great empires of two thousand years ago were , possibly the Romans , the Maya , definitely the Norse settlements in Greenland and the polynesian settlement of Easter Island , etc .
etc. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true - numerous examples exist of civilisations large and small that have outgrown their resource base and crashed horribly.
In fact, pretty much EVERY SINGLE CIVILISATION before ours has collapsed horribly.
We would be different why?
(cf Jarad Diamond's book "Collapse" for a role call of civilisations and empires that have gone belly up - not all can be pinned on environmental collapse, but a lot can; just look at the sands of the middle east where the great empires of two thousand years ago were, possibly the Romans, the Maya, definitely the Norse settlements in Greenland and the polynesian settlement of Easter Island, etc.
etc.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257568</id>
	<title>How about something positive for once?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259412900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a bit confused here. We have all these people screaming we are going to die if we don't stop raping the Earth and the all point to CO2 levels as the end result of raping the Earth. So why aren't we just removing CO2 from the air? I mean we know how to scrub CO2 from the air right? We even know how to convert CO2 to Carbon Monoxide and O...if CO2 levels are so important and we have no way to control the release of CO2...then why don't these governments we pay so many taxes to scrubbing the air already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bit confused here .
We have all these people screaming we are going to die if we do n't stop raping the Earth and the all point to CO2 levels as the end result of raping the Earth .
So why are n't we just removing CO2 from the air ?
I mean we know how to scrub CO2 from the air right ?
We even know how to convert CO2 to Carbon Monoxide and O...if CO2 levels are so important and we have no way to control the release of CO2...then why do n't these governments we pay so many taxes to scrubbing the air already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bit confused here.
We have all these people screaming we are going to die if we don't stop raping the Earth and the all point to CO2 levels as the end result of raping the Earth.
So why aren't we just removing CO2 from the air?
I mean we know how to scrub CO2 from the air right?
We even know how to convert CO2 to Carbon Monoxide and O...if CO2 levels are so important and we have no way to control the release of CO2...then why don't these governments we pay so many taxes to scrubbing the air already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258218</id>
	<title>Re:This is why My idea of the goods tax works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259420220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A tax.  Good one.  Go back and complete microeconomics 101.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A tax .
Good one .
Go back and complete microeconomics 101 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tax.
Good one.
Go back and complete microeconomics 101.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258854</id>
	<title>Re:Not really that surprising...</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1259426760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thepost-WWII period was a golden economic age for a large percentage of the population in the West. Unfortunately, with deregulation from the 1980s onwards exploitation has increased again.</p></div><p>Yeah, like I too, man, think that, like the whole western world came to its peak, man, at Woodstock, back in '69.</p><p>Like far out. Been a huge bummer ride since then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thepost-WWII period was a golden economic age for a large percentage of the population in the West .
Unfortunately , with deregulation from the 1980s onwards exploitation has increased again.Yeah , like I too , man , think that , like the whole western world came to its peak , man , at Woodstock , back in '69.Like far out .
Been a huge bummer ride since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thepost-WWII period was a golden economic age for a large percentage of the population in the West.
Unfortunately, with deregulation from the 1980s onwards exploitation has increased again.Yeah, like I too, man, think that, like the whole western world came to its peak, man, at Woodstock, back in '69.Like far out.
Been a huge bummer ride since then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257306</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat like safer cars</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1259410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can build a safer car, you can't build a smart(er) driver. Humans are the weak link there as stupidity is not limited by economics or safety margins..</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can build a safer car , you ca n't build a smart ( er ) driver .
Humans are the weak link there as stupidity is not limited by economics or safety margins. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can build a safer car, you can't build a smart(er) driver.
Humans are the weak link there as stupidity is not limited by economics or safety margins..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261854</id>
	<title>Re:We already knew that</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1259514900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10,000 years ago the world population was maybe a few million, so it wasn't a big deal.  Now, with around 6.8 billion people on this world to feed, we're dependent on the climate basically staying similar to what it is today to support our population.  Any big change, no matter what causes it - or for that matter, whether it causes warming or cooling, will result in disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10,000 years ago the world population was maybe a few million , so it was n't a big deal .
Now , with around 6.8 billion people on this world to feed , we 're dependent on the climate basically staying similar to what it is today to support our population .
Any big change , no matter what causes it - or for that matter , whether it causes warming or cooling , will result in disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10,000 years ago the world population was maybe a few million, so it wasn't a big deal.
Now, with around 6.8 billion people on this world to feed, we're dependent on the climate basically staying similar to what it is today to support our population.
Any big change, no matter what causes it - or for that matter, whether it causes warming or cooling, will result in disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257236</id>
	<title>Someone, enlighten me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the six-billion-body problem, please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the six-billion-body problem , please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the six-billion-body problem, please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261558</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1259511780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oil won't just "run out" one day, it will gradually become harder and harder to find. We will slowly deplete the "easy" sources of oil, and gradually move on to harder and harder oil.</p> </div><p>Your argument is actually "We will always find an even harder way to squeeze oil out of rocks"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oil wo n't just " run out " one day , it will gradually become harder and harder to find .
We will slowly deplete the " easy " sources of oil , and gradually move on to harder and harder oil .
Your argument is actually " We will always find an even harder way to squeeze oil out of rocks " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oil won't just "run out" one day, it will gradually become harder and harder to find.
We will slowly deplete the "easy" sources of oil, and gradually move on to harder and harder oil.
Your argument is actually "We will always find an even harder way to squeeze oil out of rocks"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263472</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Reporter, to whom do you report?  The hypocrite or fool is staring back at you from your mirror.  Malthusian junk science will never die, but will live on in people like yourself.  You've even got your facts wrong, in service of your theory (a perverted need, actually.)  The world produces more than enough food.  Hunger today is tied to political corruption The world can produce more than enough energy.  That isn't a "problem."  In fact, it's gone on and on, as we raised ourselves from the bushes and campfires.  A--hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Reporter , to whom do you report ?
The hypocrite or fool is staring back at you from your mirror .
Malthusian junk science will never die , but will live on in people like yourself .
You 've even got your facts wrong , in service of your theory ( a perverted need , actually .
) The world produces more than enough food .
Hunger today is tied to political corruption The world can produce more than enough energy .
That is n't a " problem .
" In fact , it 's gone on and on , as we raised ourselves from the bushes and campfires .
A--hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Reporter, to whom do you report?
The hypocrite or fool is staring back at you from your mirror.
Malthusian junk science will never die, but will live on in people like yourself.
You've even got your facts wrong, in service of your theory (a perverted need, actually.
)  The world produces more than enough food.
Hunger today is tied to political corruption The world can produce more than enough energy.
That isn't a "problem.
"  In fact, it's gone on and on, as we raised ourselves from the bushes and campfires.
A--hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257416</id>
	<title>Re:We already knew that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.</p><p>Sorry, but that's the truth.</p><p>And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones. That is all, carry on.</p></div><p>Yeah, right.</p><p>10,000 years ago - give or take - New York City was under the Arctic ice cap.</p><p>And yet we're not cursing Cro-Magnons for not going through the I-feel-good-about-myself mental masturbation and economic disaster of carbon cap-and-trade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate is headed for a crash , and there 's nothing that anybody can do about it.Sorry , but that 's the truth.And one more thing : humans of the future will curse your bones .
That is all , carry on.Yeah , right.10,000 years ago - give or take - New York City was under the Arctic ice cap.And yet we 're not cursing Cro-Magnons for not going through the I-feel-good-about-myself mental masturbation and economic disaster of carbon cap-and-trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.Sorry, but that's the truth.And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones.
That is all, carry on.Yeah, right.10,000 years ago - give or take - New York City was under the Arctic ice cap.And yet we're not cursing Cro-Magnons for not going through the I-feel-good-about-myself mental masturbation and economic disaster of carbon cap-and-trade.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259978</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly Shocking</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1259491020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980.</p></div><p>Not really, the average car was smaller and lighter. It's only the last 3 or 4 years that average mileage has started improving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And lame as our cars may be , they are far more efficient than they were in 1980.Not really , the average car was smaller and lighter .
It 's only the last 3 or 4 years that average mileage has started improving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980.Not really, the average car was smaller and lighter.
It's only the last 3 or 4 years that average mileage has started improving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257618</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259413380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this, and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions aren't close enough to reality. Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine. No wonder he's been panned. Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.</p></div><p>So economists are trying to figure things out from first principles, and having a rather difficult time because their necessary simplifying assumptions could possibly be simplifying away things that actually matter. While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?". He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens"), and doesn't really <em>need</em> a foundation in human behavior. Much like we can know what gravity does, without actually having found a graviton or whatever current theories say we should find.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this , and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions are n't close enough to reality .
Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that 's not even based on human behaviour : the economy as a heat engine .
No wonder he 's been panned .
Criticise economic models all you like , but at least the modern ones * have a foundation in human behaviour.So economists are trying to figure things out from first principles , and having a rather difficult time because their necessary simplifying assumptions could possibly be simplifying away things that actually matter .
While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box , saying " it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past , so what happens if they stay related in the future ? " .
He 's trying to come up with laws ( " this is what happens " ) rather than theories ( " this is why it happens " ) , and does n't really need a foundation in human behavior .
Much like we can know what gravity does , without actually having found a graviton or whatever current theories say we should find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economists routinely use highly complicated mathematical models on stuff like this, and are just as routinely criticised for it because their simplifying assumptions aren't close enough to reality.
Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine.
No wonder he's been panned.
Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.So economists are trying to figure things out from first principles, and having a rather difficult time because their necessary simplifying assumptions could possibly be simplifying away things that actually matter.
While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?".
He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens"), and doesn't really need a foundation in human behavior.
Much like we can know what gravity does, without actually having found a graviton or whatever current theories say we should find.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257766</id>
	<title>Yet more proof</title>
	<author>Murdoc</author>
	<datestamp>1259415060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly what <a href="http://www.technocracy.org/" title="technocracy.org" rel="nofollow">Technocracy</a> [technocracy.org] has been saying for over 80 years. They were the first to "treat the economy like a physics problem", the only difference is that they saw it coming and warned us way back when it was far easier to do something about it. Now, whether we can do something about it without too much pain is in question, but if we can then we have to <a href="http://www.technocracy.ca/" title="technocracy.ca" rel="nofollow">do something about it now</a> [technocracy.ca] while we still can. Like one commenter said here earlier, "The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is \_defined\_". Technocracy has provided a logical answer to this too that is worth checking out. It needs a bit of updating since the movement is so small right now, but the underlying basis for it all is still quite sound. If you want a good scientific way of looking at our economy, and how it relates to our environment, then this is the place to start. I'm glad to see more modern research being done that confirms this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what Technocracy [ technocracy.org ] has been saying for over 80 years .
They were the first to " treat the economy like a physics problem " , the only difference is that they saw it coming and warned us way back when it was far easier to do something about it .
Now , whether we can do something about it without too much pain is in question , but if we can then we have to do something about it now [ technocracy.ca ] while we still can .
Like one commenter said here earlier , " The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is \ _defined \ _ " .
Technocracy has provided a logical answer to this too that is worth checking out .
It needs a bit of updating since the movement is so small right now , but the underlying basis for it all is still quite sound .
If you want a good scientific way of looking at our economy , and how it relates to our environment , then this is the place to start .
I 'm glad to see more modern research being done that confirms this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what Technocracy [technocracy.org] has been saying for over 80 years.
They were the first to "treat the economy like a physics problem", the only difference is that they saw it coming and warned us way back when it was far easier to do something about it.
Now, whether we can do something about it without too much pain is in question, but if we can then we have to do something about it now [technocracy.ca] while we still can.
Like one commenter said here earlier, "The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is \_defined\_".
Technocracy has provided a logical answer to this too that is worth checking out.
It needs a bit of updating since the movement is so small right now, but the underlying basis for it all is still quite sound.
If you want a good scientific way of looking at our economy, and how it relates to our environment, then this is the place to start.
I'm glad to see more modern research being done that confirms this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263222</id>
	<title>Re:We already knew that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259526660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but that's wrong.</p><p>Climategate has shown us that it's all been a fraud. They've been cooking the data to match a warmist agenda, they've been preventing honest scientific inquiry by a subversion of the peer review process, and in the end, they deleted all of the raw data.</p><p>Now we know that climatology is a little like fortune telling, but with less science behind it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but that 's wrong.Climategate has shown us that it 's all been a fraud .
They 've been cooking the data to match a warmist agenda , they 've been preventing honest scientific inquiry by a subversion of the peer review process , and in the end , they deleted all of the raw data.Now we know that climatology is a little like fortune telling , but with less science behind it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but that's wrong.Climategate has shown us that it's all been a fraud.
They've been cooking the data to match a warmist agenda, they've been preventing honest scientific inquiry by a subversion of the peer review process, and in the end, they deleted all of the raw data.Now we know that climatology is a little like fortune telling, but with less science behind it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259738</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259527200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say it with me everybody: correlation does not equal causation.  For a site that likes to masturbate about how smart we all are, we sure have a lot of retards here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say it with me everybody : correlation does not equal causation .
For a site that likes to masturbate about how smart we all are , we sure have a lot of retards here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say it with me everybody: correlation does not equal causation.
For a site that likes to masturbate about how smart we all are, we sure have a lot of retards here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259358</id>
	<title>Anybody found the actual paper?</title>
	<author>treads\_water</author>
	<datestamp>1259433600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just find a bunch of journalists talking about a nameless paper that's online in the Climate Change journal.  It would be nice to be able to actually RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just find a bunch of journalists talking about a nameless paper that 's online in the Climate Change journal .
It would be nice to be able to actually RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just find a bunch of journalists talking about a nameless paper that's online in the Climate Change journal.
It would be nice to be able to actually RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262532</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1259520120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, the better working economic models all accept the simple physical rule "What comes up, must go down."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , the better working economic models all accept the simple physical rule " What comes up , must go down .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, the better working economic models all accept the simple physical rule "What comes up, must go down.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259988</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1259491260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit:  the world is capable of feeding itself several times over.  The reason we don't is because craven politicians and voters in Europe and America won't open up farm trade to the world, and because many third world farm systems are unbelievably inefficient and nothing is done about it.  But food should be a solved problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit : the world is capable of feeding itself several times over .
The reason we do n't is because craven politicians and voters in Europe and America wo n't open up farm trade to the world , and because many third world farm systems are unbelievably inefficient and nothing is done about it .
But food should be a solved problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit:  the world is capable of feeding itself several times over.
The reason we don't is because craven politicians and voters in Europe and America won't open up farm trade to the world, and because many third world farm systems are unbelievably inefficient and nothing is done about it.
But food should be a solved problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257526</id>
	<title>The economy is not a physics problem</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1259412420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not unless you model all the subatomic particles in all the humans making decisions, along with all those in their environment. It was exactly that sort of model -- the Phillips curve, to be precise -- that led economists to believe that inflation and recession were mutually exclusive. They're not, as we discovered in the 1960s.</p><p>And for a physicist, he doesn't seem to be approaching the subject very scientifically, either. He has found a correlation, and on that basis <em>concludes</em> that it's an unvarying constant? Whatever happened to hypothesis forming and testing? Whatever happened to the principle that it isn't science unless there is a model describing why cause and effect are related? Yes, I know physicists sometimes have to cope without those things -- gravitation is a classic example -- but then they recognise that there's a hole in their science and work hard to fix it. The correlation that Garrett has found has nothing like the scientific confidence of gravitation. He's found a correlation? Well, what is the mechanism that causes that correlation, and which bits of it can be changed? Only if none of them can <em>possibly</em> be changed is it a "physical constant", and if it can be changed if "the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day" then clearly it <em>can</em> be changed. Surely, either it is a "simple physical constant" or it isn't?</p><p>The discovery of the correlation looks like interesting work. Unfortunately, it probably won't turn out to be <em>useful</em> work because it's too wrapped up in hysteria and by identifying the correlation coefficient as a "physical constant" Garrett has rejected the very thing that needs to be studied -- how we change it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not unless you model all the subatomic particles in all the humans making decisions , along with all those in their environment .
It was exactly that sort of model -- the Phillips curve , to be precise -- that led economists to believe that inflation and recession were mutually exclusive .
They 're not , as we discovered in the 1960s.And for a physicist , he does n't seem to be approaching the subject very scientifically , either .
He has found a correlation , and on that basis concludes that it 's an unvarying constant ?
Whatever happened to hypothesis forming and testing ?
Whatever happened to the principle that it is n't science unless there is a model describing why cause and effect are related ?
Yes , I know physicists sometimes have to cope without those things -- gravitation is a classic example -- but then they recognise that there 's a hole in their science and work hard to fix it .
The correlation that Garrett has found has nothing like the scientific confidence of gravitation .
He 's found a correlation ?
Well , what is the mechanism that causes that correlation , and which bits of it can be changed ?
Only if none of them can possibly be changed is it a " physical constant " , and if it can be changed if " the world 's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day " then clearly it can be changed .
Surely , either it is a " simple physical constant " or it is n't ? The discovery of the correlation looks like interesting work .
Unfortunately , it probably wo n't turn out to be useful work because it 's too wrapped up in hysteria and by identifying the correlation coefficient as a " physical constant " Garrett has rejected the very thing that needs to be studied -- how we change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not unless you model all the subatomic particles in all the humans making decisions, along with all those in their environment.
It was exactly that sort of model -- the Phillips curve, to be precise -- that led economists to believe that inflation and recession were mutually exclusive.
They're not, as we discovered in the 1960s.And for a physicist, he doesn't seem to be approaching the subject very scientifically, either.
He has found a correlation, and on that basis concludes that it's an unvarying constant?
Whatever happened to hypothesis forming and testing?
Whatever happened to the principle that it isn't science unless there is a model describing why cause and effect are related?
Yes, I know physicists sometimes have to cope without those things -- gravitation is a classic example -- but then they recognise that there's a hole in their science and work hard to fix it.
The correlation that Garrett has found has nothing like the scientific confidence of gravitation.
He's found a correlation?
Well, what is the mechanism that causes that correlation, and which bits of it can be changed?
Only if none of them can possibly be changed is it a "physical constant", and if it can be changed if "the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day" then clearly it can be changed.
Surely, either it is a "simple physical constant" or it isn't?The discovery of the correlation looks like interesting work.
Unfortunately, it probably won't turn out to be useful work because it's too wrapped up in hysteria and by identifying the correlation coefficient as a "physical constant" Garrett has rejected the very thing that needs to be studied -- how we change it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258736</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem. Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion. Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology. A hypocrite, a fool, or both?</i></p><p>The difference is that those people who believe that technology will allow the human race to overcome its limits have been proven right multiple times over the historical record. Those people who believe that $deity will come down and make everything right for us have less of a track record of successes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inevitably , some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem .
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered ( and will be the salvation ) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion .
Often , the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology .
A hypocrite , a fool , or both ? The difference is that those people who believe that technology will allow the human race to overcome its limits have been proven right multiple times over the historical record .
Those people who believe that $ deity will come down and make everything right for us have less of a track record of successes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.
Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology.
A hypocrite, a fool, or both?The difference is that those people who believe that technology will allow the human race to overcome its limits have been proven right multiple times over the historical record.
Those people who believe that $deity will come down and make everything right for us have less of a track record of successes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257240</id>
	<title>weird</title>
	<author>chichilalescu</author>
	<datestamp>1259409360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes sense that the economy is directly related to energy use.<br>It doesn't make sense to maintain ridiculous standards of living ("But I NEED a car! How can I get a girlfriend if I don't have a car?!").<br>On monday I plan to read the actual article, not just the sciencedaily report, because I'm curious about the "1 nuclear plant" per day conclusion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense that the economy is directly related to energy use.It does n't make sense to maintain ridiculous standards of living ( " But I NEED a car !
How can I get a girlfriend if I do n't have a car ? !
" ) .On monday I plan to read the actual article , not just the sciencedaily report , because I 'm curious about the " 1 nuclear plant " per day conclusion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense that the economy is directly related to energy use.It doesn't make sense to maintain ridiculous standards of living ("But I NEED a car!
How can I get a girlfriend if I don't have a car?!
").On monday I plan to read the actual article, not just the sciencedaily report, because I'm curious about the "1 nuclear plant" per day conclusion...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257852</id>
	<title>The Coal Question</title>
	<author>lilfields</author>
	<datestamp>1259415840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the exact same conclusion that (rather famous) economist William Jevons came to in 1865. Jevon's Paradox anyone? You can Google it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the exact same conclusion that ( rather famous ) economist William Jevons came to in 1865 .
Jevon 's Paradox anyone ?
You can Google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the exact same conclusion that (rather famous) economist William Jevons came to in 1865.
Jevon's Paradox anyone?
You can Google it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257356</id>
	<title>Re:Not really that surprising...</title>
	<author>Narcocide</author>
	<datestamp>1259410740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though the intellectual in me has trouble denying the truth in your statement, you can have my Nintendo Wii when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, you damned hippie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though the intellectual in me has trouble denying the truth in your statement , you can have my Nintendo Wii when you pry it from my cold , dead fingers , you damned hippie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though the intellectual in me has trouble denying the truth in your statement, you can have my Nintendo Wii when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, you damned hippie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1259409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.</p></div><p>I think I saw an article fairly recently that suggested that as the standard of living increases past some point, this reverses itself and fertility rates start to go back up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.I think I saw an article fairly recently that suggested that as the standard of living increases past some point , this reverses itself and fertility rates start to go back up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.I think I saw an article fairly recently that suggested that as the standard of living increases past some point, this reverses itself and fertility rates start to go back up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." -Kenneth Boulding</p><p>On a related note, the <a href="http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html" title="census.gov">U.S. Census Bureau World Population Clock</a> [census.gov] just ticked over to 6.8 billion a few minutes ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist .
" -Kenneth BouldingOn a related note , the U.S. Census Bureau World Population Clock [ census.gov ] just ticked over to 6.8 billion a few minutes ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
" -Kenneth BouldingOn a related note, the U.S. Census Bureau World Population Clock [census.gov] just ticked over to 6.8 billion a few minutes ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30268494</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Atheism isn't the 'absence of belief', it's the 'absence of ridiculous beliefs'. I think that yet-to-be-discovered technology is a lot more likely than a yet-to-be-discovered God.</p><p>I think society needs to both restrict population growth and direct surplus energy into productive activities, such as investment in clean sustainable/renewable energy and advanced technologies. We need to use the short-lived burst of easily obtainable energy (read fossil fuels) to allow us to reach a point where we can get by without fossil fuels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Atheism is n't the 'absence of belief ' , it 's the 'absence of ridiculous beliefs' .
I think that yet-to-be-discovered technology is a lot more likely than a yet-to-be-discovered God.I think society needs to both restrict population growth and direct surplus energy into productive activities , such as investment in clean sustainable/renewable energy and advanced technologies .
We need to use the short-lived burst of easily obtainable energy ( read fossil fuels ) to allow us to reach a point where we can get by without fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Atheism isn't the 'absence of belief', it's the 'absence of ridiculous beliefs'.
I think that yet-to-be-discovered technology is a lot more likely than a yet-to-be-discovered God.I think society needs to both restrict population growth and direct surplus energy into productive activities, such as investment in clean sustainable/renewable energy and advanced technologies.
We need to use the short-lived burst of easily obtainable energy (read fossil fuels) to allow us to reach a point where we can get by without fossil fuels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260884</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1259505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy. We live unsustainably. Oil isn't forever. Nukes aren't forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.</p></div><p>Breeder reactors.  Nukes can be forever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about that , as the end result of * not * cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy .
We live unsustainably .
Oil is n't forever .
Nukes are n't forever .
Enjoy it while it lasts.Breeder reactors .
Nukes can be forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy.
We live unsustainably.
Oil isn't forever.
Nukes aren't forever.
Enjoy it while it lasts.Breeder reactors.
Nukes can be forever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258422</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259422500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Global</i> exponential economic growth is impossible, <i>local</i> is very possible, but always at the expense of some other portion of the globe. Until now, the developing nations paid for ours. Now they want it back, and it seems, with a heck of a lot of interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global exponential economic growth is impossible , local is very possible , but always at the expense of some other portion of the globe .
Until now , the developing nations paid for ours .
Now they want it back , and it seems , with a heck of a lot of interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global exponential economic growth is impossible, local is very possible, but always at the expense of some other portion of the globe.
Until now, the developing nations paid for ours.
Now they want it back, and it seems, with a heck of a lot of interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257714</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1259414400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean takes human behavior into account?  Does the average economic model have "x=young children are sometimes mean" as one of the parameters?

</p><p>Economic models don't deal with individual human whims, they deal with statistical extrapolations based on what has been observed to occur.  The fact that a "heat engine" is a suitable analogy in this case is irrelevant.  If it has a higher correlation to the empirical data than other models, then it does a <em>better</em> job of representing human behavior by definition.  (Conversely, if other models purport to be rooted in human behavior, but then humans do something wildly different than what the model suggests, obviously the model is misrepresenting how humans behave.)

</p><p>If you desire to see a more apparent relation with fundamental economic principles, you may want to take this model and start working backwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean takes human behavior into account ?
Does the average economic model have " x = young children are sometimes mean " as one of the parameters ?
Economic models do n't deal with individual human whims , they deal with statistical extrapolations based on what has been observed to occur .
The fact that a " heat engine " is a suitable analogy in this case is irrelevant .
If it has a higher correlation to the empirical data than other models , then it does a better job of representing human behavior by definition .
( Conversely , if other models purport to be rooted in human behavior , but then humans do something wildly different than what the model suggests , obviously the model is misrepresenting how humans behave .
) If you desire to see a more apparent relation with fundamental economic principles , you may want to take this model and start working backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean takes human behavior into account?
Does the average economic model have "x=young children are sometimes mean" as one of the parameters?
Economic models don't deal with individual human whims, they deal with statistical extrapolations based on what has been observed to occur.
The fact that a "heat engine" is a suitable analogy in this case is irrelevant.
If it has a higher correlation to the empirical data than other models, then it does a better job of representing human behavior by definition.
(Conversely, if other models purport to be rooted in human behavior, but then humans do something wildly different than what the model suggests, obviously the model is misrepresenting how humans behave.
)

If you desire to see a more apparent relation with fundamental economic principles, you may want to take this model and start working backwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260110</id>
	<title>Re:Freejack</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1259494020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.</p></div><p>What else do you propose? If you're saying that the wealthy can't pollute more than the poor, you've just eliminated the primary distinction between the rich and the poor. Good luck with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.What else do you propose ?
If you 're saying that the wealthy ca n't pollute more than the poor , you 've just eliminated the primary distinction between the rich and the poor .
Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can polute all you want as long as you pay for it.What else do you propose?
If you're saying that the wealthy can't pollute more than the poor, you've just eliminated the primary distinction between the rich and the poor.
Good luck with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260058</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1259493240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only way I could see to make something like that happen however would be massive regulation of manufacturing to prevent the production of garbage</p></div></blockquote><p>Can you name a single country where massive regulation of manufacturing ever worked as intended? Not even Stalin could get rid of the corruption that massive regulation causes.</p><p>I agree that it's much better to produce longer lasting products, but the reason why industry produces "garbage" isn't because they want to sell the same products to you again. Some analysts have become enamored by this "planned obsolescence" concept, but I don't think it's the reasoning the industry uses.</p><p>In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand. Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is *very* small. People will rather have luxury than quality.</p><p>Look at the current state of the economy: people have been spending left and right, going to the limit on their credit, to buy things they don't need. In that general context, how much support do you think a proposal to spend more carefully, paying more for simpler products that last longer, would get?</p><p>People do not want better products that last longer, they want the latest and shiniest useless throwaway stuff they can get.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way I could see to make something like that happen however would be massive regulation of manufacturing to prevent the production of garbageCan you name a single country where massive regulation of manufacturing ever worked as intended ?
Not even Stalin could get rid of the corruption that massive regulation causes.I agree that it 's much better to produce longer lasting products , but the reason why industry produces " garbage " is n't because they want to sell the same products to you again .
Some analysts have become enamored by this " planned obsolescence " concept , but I do n't think it 's the reasoning the industry uses.In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand .
Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is * very * small .
People will rather have luxury than quality.Look at the current state of the economy : people have been spending left and right , going to the limit on their credit , to buy things they do n't need .
In that general context , how much support do you think a proposal to spend more carefully , paying more for simpler products that last longer , would get ? People do not want better products that last longer , they want the latest and shiniest useless throwaway stuff they can get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way I could see to make something like that happen however would be massive regulation of manufacturing to prevent the production of garbageCan you name a single country where massive regulation of manufacturing ever worked as intended?
Not even Stalin could get rid of the corruption that massive regulation causes.I agree that it's much better to produce longer lasting products, but the reason why industry produces "garbage" isn't because they want to sell the same products to you again.
Some analysts have become enamored by this "planned obsolescence" concept, but I don't think it's the reasoning the industry uses.In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand.
Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is *very* small.
People will rather have luxury than quality.Look at the current state of the economy: people have been spending left and right, going to the limit on their credit, to buy things they don't need.
In that general context, how much support do you think a proposal to spend more carefully, paying more for simpler products that last longer, would get?People do not want better products that last longer, they want the latest and shiniest useless throwaway stuff they can get.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257738</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259414700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's OK. Really.<br>So, THIS GUY got to it first. No reason for sour grapes!!<br>You'll find your way into the game eventually.<br>It's just gonna take some time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/serious</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK. Really.So , THIS GUY got to it first .
No reason for sour grapes !
! You 'll find your way into the game eventually.It 's just gon na take some time .
/serious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK. Really.So, THIS GUY got to it first.
No reason for sour grapes!
!You'll find your way into the game eventually.It's just gonna take some time.
/serious</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258670</id>
	<title>out of his field</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1259424720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett says</p></div></blockquote><p>So, in other words, this guy is commenting on a field about which he has no knowledge, using tools that have no proven relevance or use to the area under discussion.

</p><p>I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that he had a hard time getting his paper published.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'I 'm not an economist , and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem, ' Garrett saysSo , in other words , this guy is commenting on a field about which he has no knowledge , using tools that have no proven relevance or use to the area under discussion .
I 'm shocked -- shocked , I tell you -- that he had a hard time getting his paper published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett saysSo, in other words, this guy is commenting on a field about which he has no knowledge, using tools that have no proven relevance or use to the area under discussion.
I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that he had a hard time getting his paper published.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257450</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.  Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.  Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology.  A hypocrite, a fool, or both?</p></div><p>I think your an idiot for bring up atheism at all. The idea of believing something new will come along to save is believed by the religious just as much (if not more) then by the atheist. Most of my friends are atheist are quite certain that some new technology would arrive in time, if at all. This had NOTHING to do with someone's religious stance, bringing it up just makes you a troll and is likely to cause a flame war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Inevitably , some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem .
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered ( and will be the salvation ) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion .
Often , the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology .
A hypocrite , a fool , or both ? I think your an idiot for bring up atheism at all .
The idea of believing something new will come along to save is believed by the religious just as much ( if not more ) then by the atheist .
Most of my friends are atheist are quite certain that some new technology would arrive in time , if at all .
This had NOTHING to do with someone 's religious stance , bringing it up just makes you a troll and is likely to cause a flame war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.
Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology.
A hypocrite, a fool, or both?I think your an idiot for bring up atheism at all.
The idea of believing something new will come along to save is believed by the religious just as much (if not more) then by the atheist.
Most of my friends are atheist are quite certain that some new technology would arrive in time, if at all.
This had NOTHING to do with someone's religious stance, bringing it up just makes you a troll and is likely to cause a flame war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258942</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>ormondotvos</author>
	<datestamp>1259427960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God has never happened. Technology has.

There, I fixed that for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God has never happened .
Technology has .
There , I fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God has never happened.
Technology has.
There, I fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257964</id>
	<title>Modelling</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1259416920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to model the economy as a physics problem, you will have to factor in a special category for politicians AND companies like the RIAA / MPAA. They would represent either;<br>
<br>
a) the force of resistance to change.<br>
OR<br>
b) the amount of useful work done (which tends towards zero).<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and also factor into this category's equation a loooooooong rate of change time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to model the economy as a physics problem , you will have to factor in a special category for politicians AND companies like the RIAA / MPAA .
They would represent either ; a ) the force of resistance to change .
OR b ) the amount of useful work done ( which tends towards zero ) .
.... and also factor into this category 's equation a loooooooong rate of change time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to model the economy as a physics problem, you will have to factor in a special category for politicians AND companies like the RIAA / MPAA.
They would represent either;

a) the force of resistance to change.
OR
b) the amount of useful work done (which tends towards zero).
.... and also factor into this category's equation a loooooooong rate of change time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257824</id>
	<title>We Can Win</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259415600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         It goes without saying that energy use and population go hand in hand. If we apply serious birth control laws we can actually shrink world population and use less and less energy. Sadly nations rarely have any real limits on reproduction as corporations instill nonsense in the population about the glorious nature of the family so that babies will be born and more and more products will be sold.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Let your breakfast cereal company picture real families and the hell that most of them go through and watch what happens to sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It goes without saying that energy use and population go hand in hand .
If we apply serious birth control laws we can actually shrink world population and use less and less energy .
Sadly nations rarely have any real limits on reproduction as corporations instill nonsense in the population about the glorious nature of the family so that babies will be born and more and more products will be sold .
                  Let your breakfast cereal company picture real families and the hell that most of them go through and watch what happens to sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         It goes without saying that energy use and population go hand in hand.
If we apply serious birth control laws we can actually shrink world population and use less and less energy.
Sadly nations rarely have any real limits on reproduction as corporations instill nonsense in the population about the glorious nature of the family so that babies will be born and more and more products will be sold.
                  Let your breakfast cereal company picture real families and the hell that most of them go through and watch what happens to sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257484</id>
	<title>Modelling the Economy as a Physics Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259412000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is these same bullshit approximations using nonsense equations based on wholly incomplete observations of complex systems that gave us marvels like the Drake Equation. One would think these Malthusian jerk asses would have learned by now. I propose we start reducing population by offing the people who write this sort of drivel. <a href="http://www.geni.org/energy/multimedia/slideshows/overheads/tempe\%20plots.5/annualsolarenergy.jpg" title="geni.org" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [geni.org], look at the difference in scale between yearly human energy consumption and solar insulation. Perhaps we should implode the Sun at the same time we kill off the population. Yeah that would work.
<p>
Please do continue measuring tree rings, directly extrapolating tree ring thickness as a proxy for temperature for a thousand years, while discarding the last decades where you actually had accurate temperature measurements as they don't fit the tree ring data. Antropogenic global warming isn't even falsifiable. If temperature rises, its due to global warming. If it falls, it is due to global warming. This is not real science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is these same bullshit approximations using nonsense equations based on wholly incomplete observations of complex systems that gave us marvels like the Drake Equation .
One would think these Malthusian jerk asses would have learned by now .
I propose we start reducing population by offing the people who write this sort of drivel .
Here [ geni.org ] , look at the difference in scale between yearly human energy consumption and solar insulation .
Perhaps we should implode the Sun at the same time we kill off the population .
Yeah that would work .
Please do continue measuring tree rings , directly extrapolating tree ring thickness as a proxy for temperature for a thousand years , while discarding the last decades where you actually had accurate temperature measurements as they do n't fit the tree ring data .
Antropogenic global warming is n't even falsifiable .
If temperature rises , its due to global warming .
If it falls , it is due to global warming .
This is not real science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is these same bullshit approximations using nonsense equations based on wholly incomplete observations of complex systems that gave us marvels like the Drake Equation.
One would think these Malthusian jerk asses would have learned by now.
I propose we start reducing population by offing the people who write this sort of drivel.
Here [geni.org], look at the difference in scale between yearly human energy consumption and solar insulation.
Perhaps we should implode the Sun at the same time we kill off the population.
Yeah that would work.
Please do continue measuring tree rings, directly extrapolating tree ring thickness as a proxy for temperature for a thousand years, while discarding the last decades where you actually had accurate temperature measurements as they don't fit the tree ring data.
Antropogenic global warming isn't even falsifiable.
If temperature rises, its due to global warming.
If it falls, it is due to global warming.
This is not real science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261352</id>
	<title>I'm not enough of an expert to say...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1259509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... whether this model is valid, but I can say this: 1) it isn't exactly intuitively obvious that you can model interactions between the economy and the climate in terms of a heat engine, and 2) attempts by non-climate scientists to work on climate science have a long and fairly sordid history of producing garbage (see Superfreakonomics for an excellent example). So I think there's a lot of room for skepticism here.</p><p>Also, eyerolls at the slap at so-called "soft sciences". First of all, it's just not true that such things "resist the idea of applying math". Economics and sociology are both very math/statistics intensive. Also, economics (as stated in the GP post) is clearly within the realm of human behavior, but you're going to diss attempts to explain it in those terms because you don't like those icky "soft" sciences?</p><p>For what it's worth, I have a BS in physics and an MS in applied physics, so it's not like I'm some squishy "soft scientist". I just think it's silly to look down your nose at other disciplines based on your prejudices about them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... whether this model is valid , but I can say this : 1 ) it is n't exactly intuitively obvious that you can model interactions between the economy and the climate in terms of a heat engine , and 2 ) attempts by non-climate scientists to work on climate science have a long and fairly sordid history of producing garbage ( see Superfreakonomics for an excellent example ) .
So I think there 's a lot of room for skepticism here.Also , eyerolls at the slap at so-called " soft sciences " .
First of all , it 's just not true that such things " resist the idea of applying math " .
Economics and sociology are both very math/statistics intensive .
Also , economics ( as stated in the GP post ) is clearly within the realm of human behavior , but you 're going to diss attempts to explain it in those terms because you do n't like those icky " soft " sciences ? For what it 's worth , I have a BS in physics and an MS in applied physics , so it 's not like I 'm some squishy " soft scientist " .
I just think it 's silly to look down your nose at other disciplines based on your prejudices about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... whether this model is valid, but I can say this: 1) it isn't exactly intuitively obvious that you can model interactions between the economy and the climate in terms of a heat engine, and 2) attempts by non-climate scientists to work on climate science have a long and fairly sordid history of producing garbage (see Superfreakonomics for an excellent example).
So I think there's a lot of room for skepticism here.Also, eyerolls at the slap at so-called "soft sciences".
First of all, it's just not true that such things "resist the idea of applying math".
Economics and sociology are both very math/statistics intensive.
Also, economics (as stated in the GP post) is clearly within the realm of human behavior, but you're going to diss attempts to explain it in those terms because you don't like those icky "soft" sciences?For what it's worth, I have a BS in physics and an MS in applied physics, so it's not like I'm some squishy "soft scientist".
I just think it's silly to look down your nose at other disciplines based on your prejudices about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261542</id>
	<title>Excellent</title>
	<author>Sqreater</author>
	<datestamp>1259511660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally we have someone getting it. Thanks Tim Garrett. Let me point out something that follows naturally: intelligence in a species is pathological. It is intelligence that allows us to create the economies and the natural distortions that result, distortions that must inevitably lead to the collapse of the species. For this reason I don't believe there are intelligent species out there that we will be contacting. Nor will we be around long enough to create all the wonderful scifi futures we seem to take for granted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally we have someone getting it .
Thanks Tim Garrett .
Let me point out something that follows naturally : intelligence in a species is pathological .
It is intelligence that allows us to create the economies and the natural distortions that result , distortions that must inevitably lead to the collapse of the species .
For this reason I do n't believe there are intelligent species out there that we will be contacting .
Nor will we be around long enough to create all the wonderful scifi futures we seem to take for granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally we have someone getting it.
Thanks Tim Garrett.
Let me point out something that follows naturally: intelligence in a species is pathological.
It is intelligence that allows us to create the economies and the natural distortions that result, distortions that must inevitably lead to the collapse of the species.
For this reason I don't believe there are intelligent species out there that we will be contacting.
Nor will we be around long enough to create all the wonderful scifi futures we seem to take for granted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257550</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259412660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kind of like the end result of stopping a  car just before a cliff is that the scenery no longer changes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like the end result of stopping a car just before a cliff is that the scenery no longer changes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like the end result of stopping a  car just before a cliff is that the scenery no longer changes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263550</id>
	<title>Re:Needs a closer look</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1259486820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf" title="springerlink.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf</a> [springerlink.com]</p><p>You must not have searched very hard.  It's right on his website which you can find by Googling his name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf [ springerlink.com ] You must not have searched very hard .
It 's right on his website which you can find by Googling his name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/fulltext.pdf [springerlink.com]You must not have searched very hard.
It's right on his website which you can find by Googling his name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258056</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259417820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a valid approach because the various stock prices and other economic variables can be<br>treated as your microstates. Once you can count microstates you have statistical mechanics<br>and all its thermodynamical implications. The amazing thing about statistical physics is its<br>generality - ideal gases, quarks, neurons, magnets obey similar equations. I realise that you<br>are an economist and that you want to defend your field but you cannot just wildly state<br>a disparaging view of statistical physics with no arguments. Markov chains, brownian motion -<br>all that is economics as much as it is physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a valid approach because the various stock prices and other economic variables can betreated as your microstates .
Once you can count microstates you have statistical mechanicsand all its thermodynamical implications .
The amazing thing about statistical physics is itsgenerality - ideal gases , quarks , neurons , magnets obey similar equations .
I realise that youare an economist and that you want to defend your field but you can not just wildly statea disparaging view of statistical physics with no arguments .
Markov chains , brownian motion -all that is economics as much as it is physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a valid approach because the various stock prices and other economic variables can betreated as your microstates.
Once you can count microstates you have statistical mechanicsand all its thermodynamical implications.
The amazing thing about statistical physics is itsgenerality - ideal gases, quarks, neurons, magnets obey similar equations.
I realise that youare an economist and that you want to defend your field but you cannot just wildly statea disparaging view of statistical physics with no arguments.
Markov chains, brownian motion -all that is economics as much as it is physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257302</id>
	<title>Re:solution from the 50's-80's</title>
	<author>ksemlerK</author>
	<datestamp>1259410020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All out nuclear war would largely limit damage from the initial detonation and fallout to the <a href="http://www.survivalring.org/cd-targets.php" title="survivalring.org" rel="nofollow">northern hemisphere</a> [survivalring.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>All out nuclear war would largely limit damage from the initial detonation and fallout to the northern hemisphere [ survivalring.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All out nuclear war would largely limit damage from the initial detonation and fallout to the northern hemisphere [survivalring.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257560</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1259412780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably the answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably the answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Puff\_Of\_Hot\_Air</author>
	<datestamp>1259409360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kind of missing the point of the article. The population is a function of the energy consumption which directly correlates to the economy. Ergo; reducing the population will lead to decreased energy consumption, and a collapse in the economy. This is the fundemental problem here, economic growth is directly tied to energy usage. The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is \_defined\_. Sobering research indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of missing the point of the article .
The population is a function of the energy consumption which directly correlates to the economy .
Ergo ; reducing the population will lead to decreased energy consumption , and a collapse in the economy .
This is the fundemental problem here , economic growth is directly tied to energy usage .
The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is \ _defined \ _ .
Sobering research indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of missing the point of the article.
The population is a function of the energy consumption which directly correlates to the economy.
Ergo; reducing the population will lead to decreased energy consumption, and a collapse in the economy.
This is the fundemental problem here, economic growth is directly tied to energy usage.
The only way out is a radical reform of the fundemental way our economy is \_defined\_.
Sobering research indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257394</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat like safer cars</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1259411160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This fits with an observation by insurance companies (or at least mine, USAA) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin.  We still end up with about as many crashes (but injuries are less).</p></div><p>That was predicted by sociologists, but turns out not to be the case.
</p><p>The mileage-adjusted accident death rate of automobiles has dropped significantly with the added safety features.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This fits with an observation by insurance companies ( or at least mine , USAA ) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin .
We still end up with about as many crashes ( but injuries are less ) .That was predicted by sociologists , but turns out not to be the case .
The mileage-adjusted accident death rate of automobiles has dropped significantly with the added safety features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This fits with an observation by insurance companies (or at least mine, USAA) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin.
We still end up with about as many crashes (but injuries are less).That was predicted by sociologists, but turns out not to be the case.
The mileage-adjusted accident death rate of automobiles has dropped significantly with the added safety features.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30281208</id>
	<title>Re:Adjusting for Inflation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet it's the best estimation we've got. So, we can't just rule it out, we just need to qualify our answers. This means that popular news sources will misrepresent it, a proper journal paper should mention it, or at least assume the reader understands this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet it 's the best estimation we 've got .
So , we ca n't just rule it out , we just need to qualify our answers .
This means that popular news sources will misrepresent it , a proper journal paper should mention it , or at least assume the reader understands this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet it's the best estimation we've got.
So, we can't just rule it out, we just need to qualify our answers.
This means that popular news sources will misrepresent it, a proper journal paper should mention it, or at least assume the reader understands this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260508</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>top\_down</author>
	<datestamp>1259500260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?". He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens")</p></div><p>A correlation is not a law dude. You are setting yourself up for a black swan. Once you find a correlation ('this is what happens') you try to figure out the causal relation ("this is why it happens") if any so that you know how and when you can extrapolate. Don't assume things will stay the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box , saying " it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past , so what happens if they stay related in the future ? " .
He 's trying to come up with laws ( " this is what happens " ) rather than theories ( " this is why it happens " ) A correlation is not a law dude .
You are setting yourself up for a black swan .
Once you find a correlation ( 'this is what happens ' ) you try to figure out the causal relation ( " this is why it happens " ) if any so that you know how and when you can extrapolate .
Do n't assume things will stay the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> While this guy seems to be looking at the economy as a black box, saying "it looks like this input and this output have always been related in the past, so what happens if they stay related in the future?".
He's trying to come up with laws ("this is what happens") rather than theories ("this is why it happens")A correlation is not a law dude.
You are setting yourself up for a black swan.
Once you find a correlation ('this is what happens') you try to figure out the causal relation ("this is why it happens") if any so that you know how and when you can extrapolate.
Don't assume things will stay the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260484</id>
	<title>Bollocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bollocks. In the middle ages there were 150 holy days (holidays) a year. Little work was done.</p><p>Before incandescent lights, when the sun went down, you went to bed.</p><p>Winter time farming ends mid autumn when you put silage out on the fields and fuck off home.</p><p>And now how many people here complain of 80-hour weeks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks .
In the middle ages there were 150 holy days ( holidays ) a year .
Little work was done.Before incandescent lights , when the sun went down , you went to bed.Winter time farming ends mid autumn when you put silage out on the fields and fuck off home.And now how many people here complain of 80-hour weeks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks.
In the middle ages there were 150 holy days (holidays) a year.
Little work was done.Before incandescent lights, when the sun went down, you went to bed.Winter time farming ends mid autumn when you put silage out on the fields and fuck off home.And now how many people here complain of 80-hour weeks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267316</id>
	<title>Re:Climate Models Proved Useless</title>
	<author>budfields</author>
	<datestamp>1259522580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, why are you pointing to two sources that do not remotely support your claims? The first source does NOT mention any "1930s level of global temperatures," nor does it mention any "recent fall" in temperatures.

The second source says basically the opposite of what you claim.

You need to become a more adept liar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , why are you pointing to two sources that do not remotely support your claims ?
The first source does NOT mention any " 1930s level of global temperatures , " nor does it mention any " recent fall " in temperatures .
The second source says basically the opposite of what you claim .
You need to become a more adept liar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, why are you pointing to two sources that do not remotely support your claims?
The first source does NOT mention any "1930s level of global temperatures," nor does it mention any "recent fall" in temperatures.
The second source says basically the opposite of what you claim.
You need to become a more adept liar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259254</id>
	<title>link to paper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259432100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a link to the actual paper<br>http://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a link to the actual paperhttp : //www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a link to the actual paperhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/9476j57g1t07vhn2/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266380</id>
	<title>Interesting!  but...</title>
	<author>riprjak</author>
	<datestamp>1259514300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the map is not the landscape.</p><p>This is a compelling model in that it significantly differs from the form of modelling used in Macro economic forecasting, which makes it useful for debate.</p><p>This is still, however, a process model that grossly simplifies the system and is therefore subject to the same limitations as all models; that they are not reality.  You can use them to determine relative weightings between different situations but cannot use them to predict the future.</p><p>I applaud the concept of introducing different modelling techniques into economic (indeed any) debate; but do not make the mistake of drawing long term conclusions from the results of any one technique, no matter how appealing.</p><p>The sad thing is that Academic publication is so insular that a paper such as this did not get play in economic journals...  in the same way that an economists take on super symmetry would never get published in a physics journal.  The mono-disciplinary goggles that most journals apply is the real danger to progress in almost every field of science.  It is more important that we consider the merits of the views and arguments of those who disagree with us than wrap ourselves in a comforting blanket of people who agree with us completely, as they do not inform us.</p><p>Just my $0.02.<br>err!<br>jak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the map is not the landscape.This is a compelling model in that it significantly differs from the form of modelling used in Macro economic forecasting , which makes it useful for debate.This is still , however , a process model that grossly simplifies the system and is therefore subject to the same limitations as all models ; that they are not reality .
You can use them to determine relative weightings between different situations but can not use them to predict the future.I applaud the concept of introducing different modelling techniques into economic ( indeed any ) debate ; but do not make the mistake of drawing long term conclusions from the results of any one technique , no matter how appealing.The sad thing is that Academic publication is so insular that a paper such as this did not get play in economic journals... in the same way that an economists take on super symmetry would never get published in a physics journal .
The mono-disciplinary goggles that most journals apply is the real danger to progress in almost every field of science .
It is more important that we consider the merits of the views and arguments of those who disagree with us than wrap ourselves in a comforting blanket of people who agree with us completely , as they do not inform us.Just my $ 0.02.err ! jak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the map is not the landscape.This is a compelling model in that it significantly differs from the form of modelling used in Macro economic forecasting, which makes it useful for debate.This is still, however, a process model that grossly simplifies the system and is therefore subject to the same limitations as all models; that they are not reality.
You can use them to determine relative weightings between different situations but cannot use them to predict the future.I applaud the concept of introducing different modelling techniques into economic (indeed any) debate; but do not make the mistake of drawing long term conclusions from the results of any one technique, no matter how appealing.The sad thing is that Academic publication is so insular that a paper such as this did not get play in economic journals...  in the same way that an economists take on super symmetry would never get published in a physics journal.
The mono-disciplinary goggles that most journals apply is the real danger to progress in almost every field of science.
It is more important that we consider the merits of the views and arguments of those who disagree with us than wrap ourselves in a comforting blanket of people who agree with us completely, as they do not inform us.Just my $0.02.err!jak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258474</id>
	<title>Needs a closer look</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1259422980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the fuzziness of his source data, a claimed sigma of 1.5\% for his magic constant is strong evidence of a fatal flaw in his model. It needs a much closer look.</p><p>I couldn't find a copy of the actual paper. If anyone knows where to find it, please let us know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the fuzziness of his source data , a claimed sigma of 1.5 \ % for his magic constant is strong evidence of a fatal flaw in his model .
It needs a much closer look.I could n't find a copy of the actual paper .
If anyone knows where to find it , please let us know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the fuzziness of his source data, a claimed sigma of 1.5\% for his magic constant is strong evidence of a fatal flaw in his model.
It needs a much closer look.I couldn't find a copy of the actual paper.
If anyone knows where to find it, please let us know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257178</id>
	<title>solution from the 50's-80's</title>
	<author>dario\_moreno</author>
	<datestamp>1259408760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Global thermonuclear war : 80\% less economic output in developed countries, a nuclear winter, and a selection of the fittest specimens of the human race plus a few Pygmeas, Tibetans, Polynesians, Swedes and Swiss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global thermonuclear war : 80 \ % less economic output in developed countries , a nuclear winter , and a selection of the fittest specimens of the human race plus a few Pygmeas , Tibetans , Polynesians , Swedes and Swiss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Global thermonuclear war : 80\% less economic output in developed countries, a nuclear winter, and a selection of the fittest specimens of the human race plus a few Pygmeas, Tibetans, Polynesians, Swedes and Swiss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257412</id>
	<title>One nuclear power plant a day</title>
	<author>dominion</author>
	<datestamp>1259411340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day."</p><p>I don't have a problem with this.  Let's get building.</p><p>Eventually we'll turn towards the sun, and nuclear will only be our failsafe, but I have no problem with it filling in the gaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day .
" I do n't have a problem with this .
Let 's get building.Eventually we 'll turn towards the sun , and nuclear will only be our failsafe , but I have no problem with it filling in the gaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day.
"I don't have a problem with this.
Let's get building.Eventually we'll turn towards the sun, and nuclear will only be our failsafe, but I have no problem with it filling in the gaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259084</id>
	<title>Milliwatt is a power unit not energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A physicist, who uses power and energy as synonyms is really trustworthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A physicist , who uses power and energy as synonyms is really trustworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A physicist, who uses power and energy as synonyms is really trustworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262962</id>
	<title>Units</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1259524380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar.</p></div><p>Even moreso than the implications for energy conservation is the actual units of his "constant".  This implies that having each dollar in circulation requires a constant expenditure of energy.  That is, without constant energy production and consumption, we would not even have an economy, or trade.  Growth in the economy, or in trade, is directly correlated to growth in energy production.  Decline in energy production would then theoretically lead to collapse of economic growth.</p><p>Unlike others, I find this unit to be surprisingly small.  If you compare it to the price of renewable energy, for example, a 200 watt solar panel costs around $600, yet according to the constant supports $20,000/year of economic activity.  This shows the extreme disconnect between the money economy and the physical economy.</p><p>I wonder how well this constant holds up under extreme circumstances, such as the productive capacity of a single person on a desert island or that of a single family of subsistence farmers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That constant is 9.7 ( plus or minus 0.3 ) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar.Even moreso than the implications for energy conservation is the actual units of his " constant " .
This implies that having each dollar in circulation requires a constant expenditure of energy .
That is , without constant energy production and consumption , we would not even have an economy , or trade .
Growth in the economy , or in trade , is directly correlated to growth in energy production .
Decline in energy production would then theoretically lead to collapse of economic growth.Unlike others , I find this unit to be surprisingly small .
If you compare it to the price of renewable energy , for example , a 200 watt solar panel costs around $ 600 , yet according to the constant supports $ 20,000/year of economic activity .
This shows the extreme disconnect between the money economy and the physical economy.I wonder how well this constant holds up under extreme circumstances , such as the productive capacity of a single person on a desert island or that of a single family of subsistence farmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar.Even moreso than the implications for energy conservation is the actual units of his "constant".
This implies that having each dollar in circulation requires a constant expenditure of energy.
That is, without constant energy production and consumption, we would not even have an economy, or trade.
Growth in the economy, or in trade, is directly correlated to growth in energy production.
Decline in energy production would then theoretically lead to collapse of economic growth.Unlike others, I find this unit to be surprisingly small.
If you compare it to the price of renewable energy, for example, a 200 watt solar panel costs around $600, yet according to the constant supports $20,000/year of economic activity.
This shows the extreme disconnect between the money economy and the physical economy.I wonder how well this constant holds up under extreme circumstances, such as the productive capacity of a single person on a desert island or that of a single family of subsistence farmers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258970</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Monsuco</author>
	<datestamp>1259428200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider the food supply.  The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.  So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.  Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%.  The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%:  we return to the original problem.</p></div><p>That is in no way the problem. Where do you see starvation? Various parts of Africa, North Korea, and a few other locations. Many of these starving countries are not nearly as populated as the USA or Europe and have more fertile land. Why do they starve? Why does North Korea have a food shortage when South Korea is fine? In both these cases high population is a ridiculous excuse. In Africa, political instability and warfare results in the destruction of crops. In North Korea the socialist regime will not allow for people to grow crops. Some places like Hong Kong are extremely crowded, but still rarely suffer from starvation due to the ability to buy food from less crowded areas. Even poor countries such as India have managed to largely eliminate starvation through use of modernizing their agricultural system and liberalizing trade. Anywhere in the world you see mass starvation it is nearly always the result of either warfare or government intervention in the economy. A lack of places to grow food is a ridiculous explanation. Even poverty doesn't cause starvation. In the USA, arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation, but obesity. People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity. Our only problem is <b>too much</b> food. Then again, someone below poverty line here lives a lifestyle that many in Africa would consider to be extremely luxurious.
</p><p>
We have plenty of space to grow food, and with advancing crop production techniques this will be even less of a problem. Theoretically it would be possible to fit the entire population of the world inside the state of Texas and still have a lower population per square mile than New York City.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the food supply .
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well .
So , scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production .
Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20 \ % .
The population , enjoying this additional food , now grows by an additonal 20 \ % : we return to the original problem.That is in no way the problem .
Where do you see starvation ?
Various parts of Africa , North Korea , and a few other locations .
Many of these starving countries are not nearly as populated as the USA or Europe and have more fertile land .
Why do they starve ?
Why does North Korea have a food shortage when South Korea is fine ?
In both these cases high population is a ridiculous excuse .
In Africa , political instability and warfare results in the destruction of crops .
In North Korea the socialist regime will not allow for people to grow crops .
Some places like Hong Kong are extremely crowded , but still rarely suffer from starvation due to the ability to buy food from less crowded areas .
Even poor countries such as India have managed to largely eliminate starvation through use of modernizing their agricultural system and liberalizing trade .
Anywhere in the world you see mass starvation it is nearly always the result of either warfare or government intervention in the economy .
A lack of places to grow food is a ridiculous explanation .
Even poverty does n't cause starvation .
In the USA , arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation , but obesity .
People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity .
Our only problem is too much food .
Then again , someone below poverty line here lives a lifestyle that many in Africa would consider to be extremely luxurious .
We have plenty of space to grow food , and with advancing crop production techniques this will be even less of a problem .
Theoretically it would be possible to fit the entire population of the world inside the state of Texas and still have a lower population per square mile than New York City .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the food supply.
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.
So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.
Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%.
The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%:  we return to the original problem.That is in no way the problem.
Where do you see starvation?
Various parts of Africa, North Korea, and a few other locations.
Many of these starving countries are not nearly as populated as the USA or Europe and have more fertile land.
Why do they starve?
Why does North Korea have a food shortage when South Korea is fine?
In both these cases high population is a ridiculous excuse.
In Africa, political instability and warfare results in the destruction of crops.
In North Korea the socialist regime will not allow for people to grow crops.
Some places like Hong Kong are extremely crowded, but still rarely suffer from starvation due to the ability to buy food from less crowded areas.
Even poor countries such as India have managed to largely eliminate starvation through use of modernizing their agricultural system and liberalizing trade.
Anywhere in the world you see mass starvation it is nearly always the result of either warfare or government intervention in the economy.
A lack of places to grow food is a ridiculous explanation.
Even poverty doesn't cause starvation.
In the USA, arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation, but obesity.
People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity.
Our only problem is too much food.
Then again, someone below poverty line here lives a lifestyle that many in Africa would consider to be extremely luxurious.
We have plenty of space to grow food, and with advancing crop production techniques this will be even less of a problem.
Theoretically it would be possible to fit the entire population of the world inside the state of Texas and still have a lower population per square mile than New York City.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259000</id>
	<title>Re:This is why My idea of the goods tax works</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259428440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides, what does it matter? The idea is that nations that tax is there to dissuade nations from allowing pollution. The real trick is to implement it SLOWLY, so that damage to the economy does not occur, but instead encourages <b>ALL</b> nations and <b>ALL</b> business to work at lowering the CO2 in their area. Otherwise, we are going to see more of what is occurring; Oil companies going to Brazil, India, China, and Russia where they can emit at will and then import the item with ZERO impact. In fact, if America's current energy bill goes through, I am betting that the southwest will import Electricity from MEXICO with NO POLLUTION CONTROL and medium level CO2 emitting coal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , what does it matter ?
The idea is that nations that tax is there to dissuade nations from allowing pollution .
The real trick is to implement it SLOWLY , so that damage to the economy does not occur , but instead encourages ALL nations and ALL business to work at lowering the CO2 in their area .
Otherwise , we are going to see more of what is occurring ; Oil companies going to Brazil , India , China , and Russia where they can emit at will and then import the item with ZERO impact .
In fact , if America 's current energy bill goes through , I am betting that the southwest will import Electricity from MEXICO with NO POLLUTION CONTROL and medium level CO2 emitting coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, what does it matter?
The idea is that nations that tax is there to dissuade nations from allowing pollution.
The real trick is to implement it SLOWLY, so that damage to the economy does not occur, but instead encourages ALL nations and ALL business to work at lowering the CO2 in their area.
Otherwise, we are going to see more of what is occurring; Oil companies going to Brazil, India, China, and Russia where they can emit at will and then import the item with ZERO impact.
In fact, if America's current energy bill goes through, I am betting that the southwest will import Electricity from MEXICO with NO POLLUTION CONTROL and medium level CO2 emitting coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257188</id>
	<title>Issac Newton had a wonderful model for our economy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259408820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It involved an apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It involved an apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It involved an apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259838</id>
	<title>When you can model ....</title>
	<author>HW\_Hack</author>
	<datestamp>1259486880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Greed - corruption - abuse of power - poor management - and wankin' off share holders. You might have a useful simulation.</p><p>Good luck with that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greed - corruption - abuse of power - poor management - and wankin ' off share holders .
You might have a useful simulation.Good luck with that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greed - corruption - abuse of power - poor management - and wankin' off share holders.
You might have a useful simulation.Good luck with that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258732</id>
	<title>Sorry but you cannot mix Physics and Economics</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1259425380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as they are not the same thing. One is a natural science and the other is a social science.</p><p>It also does not take into account that since 1999 temperatures are dropping instead of rising. While global warming skeptics claim it proves it is a hoax, it could also be that due to people taking corrective actions to reduce their carbon footprint since 1999, it caused a reversal in global warming, but we are still in danger unless we convert at least 90\% of our energy sources to green energy and green technology.</p><p>I reject the notion that greenhouse gasses are evil, and must be removed. I do agree that too much of them lead to higher temps and too little of it leads to lower temps. What we need to do is find the right balances of greenhouse gases in our environment, not seek to remove them all, least it lead to an ice age. The people claiming a removal of all greenhouse gases are being stupid, as it would lead to an ice age, and then be the opposite of global warming, global cooling.</p><p>I am more concerned about the eventual <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat\_death\_of\_the\_universe" title="wikipedia.org">"heat death" of the universe</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as they are not the same thing .
One is a natural science and the other is a social science.It also does not take into account that since 1999 temperatures are dropping instead of rising .
While global warming skeptics claim it proves it is a hoax , it could also be that due to people taking corrective actions to reduce their carbon footprint since 1999 , it caused a reversal in global warming , but we are still in danger unless we convert at least 90 \ % of our energy sources to green energy and green technology.I reject the notion that greenhouse gasses are evil , and must be removed .
I do agree that too much of them lead to higher temps and too little of it leads to lower temps .
What we need to do is find the right balances of greenhouse gases in our environment , not seek to remove them all , least it lead to an ice age .
The people claiming a removal of all greenhouse gases are being stupid , as it would lead to an ice age , and then be the opposite of global warming , global cooling.I am more concerned about the eventual " heat death " of the universe [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as they are not the same thing.
One is a natural science and the other is a social science.It also does not take into account that since 1999 temperatures are dropping instead of rising.
While global warming skeptics claim it proves it is a hoax, it could also be that due to people taking corrective actions to reduce their carbon footprint since 1999, it caused a reversal in global warming, but we are still in danger unless we convert at least 90\% of our energy sources to green energy and green technology.I reject the notion that greenhouse gasses are evil, and must be removed.
I do agree that too much of them lead to higher temps and too little of it leads to lower temps.
What we need to do is find the right balances of greenhouse gases in our environment, not seek to remove them all, least it lead to an ice age.
The people claiming a removal of all greenhouse gases are being stupid, as it would lead to an ice age, and then be the opposite of global warming, global cooling.I am more concerned about the eventual "heat death" of the universe [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257260</id>
	<title>Hardly Shocking</title>
	<author>Lawrence\_Bird</author>
	<datestamp>1259409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its long been known that energy consumption is highly correlated with economic output/growth.  And I don't see how it is provactive to claim that conserving energy results in more being used (in the long run).  Are not virtually *all* of our modern day appliances far more efficient than they were 10, 20, 40 years ago?  And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980.  So even though we have 'conserved' through large gains in efficiency we are still using energy at a record clip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its long been known that energy consumption is highly correlated with economic output/growth .
And I do n't see how it is provactive to claim that conserving energy results in more being used ( in the long run ) .
Are not virtually * all * of our modern day appliances far more efficient than they were 10 , 20 , 40 years ago ?
And lame as our cars may be , they are far more efficient than they were in 1980 .
So even though we have 'conserved ' through large gains in efficiency we are still using energy at a record clip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its long been known that energy consumption is highly correlated with economic output/growth.
And I don't see how it is provactive to claim that conserving energy results in more being used (in the long run).
Are not virtually *all* of our modern day appliances far more efficient than they were 10, 20, 40 years ago?
And lame as our cars may be, they are far more efficient than they were in 1980.
So even though we have 'conserved' through large gains in efficiency we are still using energy at a record clip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265386</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1259505840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand. Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is *very* small. People will rather have luxury than quality.</p></div><p>This is true. And that, my friend, is where regulation comes in. I did say "massive regulation of manufacturing". That does not have to be a bad thing. Equating regulation of manufacturing with a stalinist economy is just plain wrong. I know this is an american site, and as such most suggestions of regulation will be viewed in a bad light, but rules are needed in a world that is slowly going to shit. All I'm suggesting is that a set of rules is produced that is beneficial to consumers. To take a leaf out of Opportunist's book as per above, why not implement minimum standards for televisions? Yes people will want to buy a shiny new TV that's better than their old set. They look in the shop window, see enormous prices, they KNOW that any and all of these has a warranty of only 1 year, so they buy the cheapest one. How would they make their decision if they see 2 shiny TV's, one with a 1 year warranty and costs 700 quid, and one with a ten year warranty that costs a grand? Enforcing a minimum standard through regulation does not in any way interfere with competition, and competition is what capitalism is all about. Capitalism will not destroy the world, if it has a framework within which it is forced to operate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand .
Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is * very * small .
People will rather have luxury than quality.This is true .
And that , my friend , is where regulation comes in .
I did say " massive regulation of manufacturing " .
That does not have to be a bad thing .
Equating regulation of manufacturing with a stalinist economy is just plain wrong .
I know this is an american site , and as such most suggestions of regulation will be viewed in a bad light , but rules are needed in a world that is slowly going to shit .
All I 'm suggesting is that a set of rules is produced that is beneficial to consumers .
To take a leaf out of Opportunist 's book as per above , why not implement minimum standards for televisions ?
Yes people will want to buy a shiny new TV that 's better than their old set .
They look in the shop window , see enormous prices , they KNOW that any and all of these has a warranty of only 1 year , so they buy the cheapest one .
How would they make their decision if they see 2 shiny TV 's , one with a 1 year warranty and costs 700 quid , and one with a ten year warranty that costs a grand ?
Enforcing a minimum standard through regulation does not in any way interfere with competition , and competition is what capitalism is all about .
Capitalism will not destroy the world , if it has a framework within which it is forced to operate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a free society the industry will produce what the people demand.
Unfortunately the market for sturdier products is *very* small.
People will rather have luxury than quality.This is true.
And that, my friend, is where regulation comes in.
I did say "massive regulation of manufacturing".
That does not have to be a bad thing.
Equating regulation of manufacturing with a stalinist economy is just plain wrong.
I know this is an american site, and as such most suggestions of regulation will be viewed in a bad light, but rules are needed in a world that is slowly going to shit.
All I'm suggesting is that a set of rules is produced that is beneficial to consumers.
To take a leaf out of Opportunist's book as per above, why not implement minimum standards for televisions?
Yes people will want to buy a shiny new TV that's better than their old set.
They look in the shop window, see enormous prices, they KNOW that any and all of these has a warranty of only 1 year, so they buy the cheapest one.
How would they make their decision if they see 2 shiny TV's, one with a 1 year warranty and costs 700 quid, and one with a ten year warranty that costs a grand?
Enforcing a minimum standard through regulation does not in any way interfere with competition, and competition is what capitalism is all about.
Capitalism will not destroy the world, if it has a framework within which it is forced to operate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260090</id>
	<title>Re:This is why My idea of the goods tax works</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1259493660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kyoto is all about carbon credits and trading and forests because the European Union believed it was the only way to get the US on board. A traditional EU treaty would simply have given each country targets for CO2 emissions without allowing carbon credit trade or counting trees. Then as evaluations came in, most of the countries wouldn't have met the goal entirely but would have come some way towards it, and they would have all the excuses about helping the third world and reforestation and stuff, and they would have had a stern warning to do better next time. Then new goals would have been set and so on. That would have been closer to command economy, and it likely would have worked (at least in so far that "worked" means that year-over-year emissions would be on a steady decline).</p><p>Instead Kyoto became a big sham where you can get carbon credits for building coal-fired brick factories in Bangladesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kyoto is all about carbon credits and trading and forests because the European Union believed it was the only way to get the US on board .
A traditional EU treaty would simply have given each country targets for CO2 emissions without allowing carbon credit trade or counting trees .
Then as evaluations came in , most of the countries would n't have met the goal entirely but would have come some way towards it , and they would have all the excuses about helping the third world and reforestation and stuff , and they would have had a stern warning to do better next time .
Then new goals would have been set and so on .
That would have been closer to command economy , and it likely would have worked ( at least in so far that " worked " means that year-over-year emissions would be on a steady decline ) .Instead Kyoto became a big sham where you can get carbon credits for building coal-fired brick factories in Bangladesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kyoto is all about carbon credits and trading and forests because the European Union believed it was the only way to get the US on board.
A traditional EU treaty would simply have given each country targets for CO2 emissions without allowing carbon credit trade or counting trees.
Then as evaluations came in, most of the countries wouldn't have met the goal entirely but would have come some way towards it, and they would have all the excuses about helping the third world and reforestation and stuff, and they would have had a stern warning to do better next time.
Then new goals would have been set and so on.
That would have been closer to command economy, and it likely would have worked (at least in so far that "worked" means that year-over-year emissions would be on a steady decline).Instead Kyoto became a big sham where you can get carbon credits for building coal-fired brick factories in Bangladesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265010</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259500980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@Muros: Only problem with what you are suggesting is that it is also an evolutionary dead-end. If items last longer there will be very little need to "improve" them, leading to a reduction in innovation in design, leading to a loss in thought-leadership, eventually leading to stagnation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ Muros : Only problem with what you are suggesting is that it is also an evolutionary dead-end .
If items last longer there will be very little need to " improve " them , leading to a reduction in innovation in design , leading to a loss in thought-leadership , eventually leading to stagnation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@Muros: Only problem with what you are suggesting is that it is also an evolutionary dead-end.
If items last longer there will be very little need to "improve" them, leading to a reduction in innovation in design, leading to a loss in thought-leadership, eventually leading to stagnation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261188</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be the Higgs boson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be the Higgs boson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be the Higgs boson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257284</id>
	<title>Jevons Paradox</title>
	<author>Arkange</author>
	<datestamp>1259409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like Jevons Paradox.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like Jevons Paradox.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons \ _paradox [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like Jevons Paradox.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259778</id>
	<title>Have to disagree with you on one part</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1259485740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem. Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion. Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology. A hypocrite, a fool, or both?"</i> <br> <br>

Scientists and engineers have a long and detailed history of coming up with creative solutions to complex problems. Religion, on the other hand, places the burden of the final proof on the far side of death, and has no real track record of delivering on their promises.<br> <br>

These things are not equivalent at all. Not even close.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Inevitably , some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem .
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered ( and will be the salvation ) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion .
Often , the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology .
A hypocrite , a fool , or both ?
" Scientists and engineers have a long and detailed history of coming up with creative solutions to complex problems .
Religion , on the other hand , places the burden of the final proof on the far side of death , and has no real track record of delivering on their promises .
These things are not equivalent at all .
Not even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.
Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology.
A hypocrite, a fool, or both?
"  

Scientists and engineers have a long and detailed history of coming up with creative solutions to complex problems.
Religion, on the other hand, places the burden of the final proof on the far side of death, and has no real track record of delivering on their promises.
These things are not equivalent at all.
Not even close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259570</id>
	<title>Climate Models Proved Useless</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1259437740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Earth isn't following the climate models, it missed the memo.  Truth is we're at 1930s level of average global temperatures with the recent fall.</p><p><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html" title="spiegel.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html</a> [spiegel.de]</p><p>It's time to start listening to real geophysicists and not "climatologists", whatever the hell those are.  I didn't see degree in that field offered when I began my physics degree.  The truth is that while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, it's 0.5\% of the land mass there while the other 99.5\% of Antarctica has been *cooling* since the 1960s.  That's real science, folks.  <a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml" title="agu.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml</a> [agu.org]</p><p>"The sea levels are rising!".  The sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years, and for most of that at a rate of over a meter per 200 years, thankfully it's slowed down the past 2,000 years!</p><p>"Carbon dioxide levels are at record high, it's a dangerous greenhouse gas!".  The dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is water vapor, its effect far outweigh the effects of all other greenhouse gases combined!  Carbon dioxide is reactive, it increases after the earth warms.  horse.  cart.  Warm some soda pop the the stove and see what happens.  Carbon dioxide levels about the pan increase!</p><p>Note how the world leaders are rushing to get climate protocols in place before the real truth gets out, that the earth is cooling in response to Sun output at record low in last three years compared to last 50+ years.  Solar output at record high in late 90s.  Sun driving climate, what a shocker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Earth is n't following the climate models , it missed the memo .
Truth is we 're at 1930s level of average global temperatures with the recent fall.http : //www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [ spiegel.de ] It 's time to start listening to real geophysicists and not " climatologists " , whatever the hell those are .
I did n't see degree in that field offered when I began my physics degree .
The truth is that while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed , it 's 0.5 \ % of the land mass there while the other 99.5 \ % of Antarctica has been * cooling * since the 1960s .
That 's real science , folks .
http : //www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml [ agu.org ] " The sea levels are rising ! " .
The sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years , and for most of that at a rate of over a meter per 200 years , thankfully it 's slowed down the past 2,000 years !
" Carbon dioxide levels are at record high , it 's a dangerous greenhouse gas ! " .
The dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is water vapor , its effect far outweigh the effects of all other greenhouse gases combined !
Carbon dioxide is reactive , it increases after the earth warms .
horse. cart .
Warm some soda pop the the stove and see what happens .
Carbon dioxide levels about the pan increase ! Note how the world leaders are rushing to get climate protocols in place before the real truth gets out , that the earth is cooling in response to Sun output at record low in last three years compared to last 50 + years .
Solar output at record high in late 90s .
Sun driving climate , what a shocker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Earth isn't following the climate models, it missed the memo.
Truth is we're at 1930s level of average global temperatures with the recent fall.http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [spiegel.de]It's time to start listening to real geophysicists and not "climatologists", whatever the hell those are.
I didn't see degree in that field offered when I began my physics degree.
The truth is that while the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, it's 0.5\% of the land mass there while the other 99.5\% of Antarctica has been *cooling* since the 1960s.
That's real science, folks.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JD009094.shtml [agu.org]"The sea levels are rising!".
The sea levels have been rising for over 10,000 years, and for most of that at a rate of over a meter per 200 years, thankfully it's slowed down the past 2,000 years!
"Carbon dioxide levels are at record high, it's a dangerous greenhouse gas!".
The dominant greenhouse gas on planet earth is water vapor, its effect far outweigh the effects of all other greenhouse gases combined!
Carbon dioxide is reactive, it increases after the earth warms.
horse.  cart.
Warm some soda pop the the stove and see what happens.
Carbon dioxide levels about the pan increase!Note how the world leaders are rushing to get climate protocols in place before the real truth gets out, that the earth is cooling in response to Sun output at record low in last three years compared to last 50+ years.
Solar output at record high in late 90s.
Sun driving climate, what a shocker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270</id>
	<title>Not really that surprising...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.</p></div><p>While I can't speak to the validity of the underlying theory as such, a conclusion like this doesn't really come as a shock. The 20th century saw an steady stream of "labor-saving" inventions that are now part of our daily lives, but we don't have more leisure time than our ancestors -- in many cases, we actually have less -- because all of that liberated time was promptly consumed by new forms of work.</p><p>Sooner or later, we're going to have to come to terms with our now obsolete species-wide obsession with material acquisition. It made sense before we developed tools and civilization: grab all you can while it's abundant because scarcity is the norm. Now that we have all we actually need and then some, we're just killing ourselves with the byproducts of our superfluous production.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett 's theory is that conserving energy does n't reduce energy use , but spurs economic growth and more energy use.While I ca n't speak to the validity of the underlying theory as such , a conclusion like this does n't really come as a shock .
The 20th century saw an steady stream of " labor-saving " inventions that are now part of our daily lives , but we do n't have more leisure time than our ancestors -- in many cases , we actually have less -- because all of that liberated time was promptly consumed by new forms of work.Sooner or later , we 're going to have to come to terms with our now obsolete species-wide obsession with material acquisition .
It made sense before we developed tools and civilization : grab all you can while it 's abundant because scarcity is the norm .
Now that we have all we actually need and then some , we 're just killing ourselves with the byproducts of our superfluous production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use.While I can't speak to the validity of the underlying theory as such, a conclusion like this doesn't really come as a shock.
The 20th century saw an steady stream of "labor-saving" inventions that are now part of our daily lives, but we don't have more leisure time than our ancestors -- in many cases, we actually have less -- because all of that liberated time was promptly consumed by new forms of work.Sooner or later, we're going to have to come to terms with our now obsolete species-wide obsession with material acquisition.
It made sense before we developed tools and civilization: grab all you can while it's abundant because scarcity is the norm.
Now that we have all we actually need and then some, we're just killing ourselves with the byproducts of our superfluous production.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257308</id>
	<title>Massive fail</title>
	<author>Logic Worshipper</author>
	<datestamp>1259410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human's are not machines.  We make choices, and those choices affect the things around us.  We don't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior.  In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain (assuming the brain operates on a quantum level), so this whole study is bullshit.  Physics can't be used to predict the choices humans will make.  Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior.  Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it, and economics is one science that studies human behavior.  The one thing I know about this life is that you cannot apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate.  Humans are irrational.  Physics is rational.  Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive, massive, FAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human 's are not machines .
We make choices , and those choices affect the things around us .
We do n't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior .
In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain ( assuming the brain operates on a quantum level ) , so this whole study is bullshit .
Physics ca n't be used to predict the choices humans will make .
Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior .
Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it , and economics is one science that studies human behavior .
The one thing I know about this life is that you can not apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate .
Humans are irrational .
Physics is rational .
Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive , massive , FAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human's are not machines.
We make choices, and those choices affect the things around us.
We don't yet have the understanding of physics necessary to use it predict human behavior.
In fact our current understanding of physics precludes the idea that physics can predict the human brain (assuming the brain operates on a quantum level), so this whole study is bullshit.
Physics can't be used to predict the choices humans will make.
Politics is complicated game played as part of human behavior.
Some people study human behavior in an effort to predict or manipulate it, and economics is one science that studies human behavior.
The one thing I know about this life is that you cannot apply the laws of physics to human behavior and expect humans to cooperate.
Humans are irrational.
Physics is rational.
Attempting to apply the rationality of physics to irrational humans leads to nothing but massive, massive, FAIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262508</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1259519940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." -Kenneth Boulding***</p><p>Absolutely.</p><p>And conversely, if your only modeling tool is an exponential equation, every trend looks like a catastrophe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * " Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist .
" -Kenneth Boulding * * * Absolutely.And conversely , if your only modeling tool is an exponential equation , every trend looks like a catastrophe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
" -Kenneth Boulding***Absolutely.And conversely, if your only modeling tool is an exponential equation, every trend looks like a catastrophe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1259419920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, reform of the way the economy is defined is needed. A collapse in "economic growth" need not necessarily lead to a drastic decrease in living standards. Vast amounts of energy are used in the world today to produce items with a lifetime far shorter than they could be. High quality engineering and craftsmanship could, at a slightly higher cost, produce items (furniture, cars, refrigerators, whatever) with lifetimes of many decades instead of a few years. Yeah, so there would be a lot less employment available as a result, both directly in manufacturing and indirectly in waste recycling, but people wouldn't need to buy as much either, so you could conceivably achieve shorter working hours and lessened energy/materials consumption (lessened economic activity) with little effect on people's quality of life. I'd even say it would be a better quality of life if everybody had to work less.
The only way I could see to make something like that happen however would be massive regulation of manufacturing to prevent the production of garbage. I don't believe the problem with econmic activity is the use of resources, I think it is more a matter of how much we just waste. Leaving a light bulb turned on overnight is nothing compared to the amount of energy used to create all the plastic rubbish in landfills around the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , reform of the way the economy is defined is needed .
A collapse in " economic growth " need not necessarily lead to a drastic decrease in living standards .
Vast amounts of energy are used in the world today to produce items with a lifetime far shorter than they could be .
High quality engineering and craftsmanship could , at a slightly higher cost , produce items ( furniture , cars , refrigerators , whatever ) with lifetimes of many decades instead of a few years .
Yeah , so there would be a lot less employment available as a result , both directly in manufacturing and indirectly in waste recycling , but people would n't need to buy as much either , so you could conceivably achieve shorter working hours and lessened energy/materials consumption ( lessened economic activity ) with little effect on people 's quality of life .
I 'd even say it would be a better quality of life if everybody had to work less .
The only way I could see to make something like that happen however would be massive regulation of manufacturing to prevent the production of garbage .
I do n't believe the problem with econmic activity is the use of resources , I think it is more a matter of how much we just waste .
Leaving a light bulb turned on overnight is nothing compared to the amount of energy used to create all the plastic rubbish in landfills around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, reform of the way the economy is defined is needed.
A collapse in "economic growth" need not necessarily lead to a drastic decrease in living standards.
Vast amounts of energy are used in the world today to produce items with a lifetime far shorter than they could be.
High quality engineering and craftsmanship could, at a slightly higher cost, produce items (furniture, cars, refrigerators, whatever) with lifetimes of many decades instead of a few years.
Yeah, so there would be a lot less employment available as a result, both directly in manufacturing and indirectly in waste recycling, but people wouldn't need to buy as much either, so you could conceivably achieve shorter working hours and lessened energy/materials consumption (lessened economic activity) with little effect on people's quality of life.
I'd even say it would be a better quality of life if everybody had to work less.
The only way I could see to make something like that happen however would be massive regulation of manufacturing to prevent the production of garbage.
I don't believe the problem with econmic activity is the use of resources, I think it is more a matter of how much we just waste.
Leaving a light bulb turned on overnight is nothing compared to the amount of energy used to create all the plastic rubbish in landfills around the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259788</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Energy use is best economic measure</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259485980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.</p></div><p>Not all work is created equal. For example, feeding people is very energy intensive. Every joule of energy burned by a human in a developed society probably required somewhere around two to three more orders of magnitude of various forms of energy (including solar energy for growing the crop). Meanwhile the energy cost of developing a new computer algorithm can be vastly dwarfed by the efficiency savings of that algorithm.<br> <br>

The dollar value of a good or service is generally a much better measure than its energy cost. First, the energy cost is generally a small part of the cost. Sure you have some stuff like aluminum smelting or passenger jets which are pretty much limited by energy costs. But on the other hand, there are a host of activities that have values far in excess of their energy cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.Not all work is created equal .
For example , feeding people is very energy intensive .
Every joule of energy burned by a human in a developed society probably required somewhere around two to three more orders of magnitude of various forms of energy ( including solar energy for growing the crop ) .
Meanwhile the energy cost of developing a new computer algorithm can be vastly dwarfed by the efficiency savings of that algorithm .
The dollar value of a good or service is generally a much better measure than its energy cost .
First , the energy cost is generally a small part of the cost .
Sure you have some stuff like aluminum smelting or passenger jets which are pretty much limited by energy costs .
But on the other hand , there are a host of activities that have values far in excess of their energy cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is the amount of work we are putting in to things we want to do or want to have happen.Not all work is created equal.
For example, feeding people is very energy intensive.
Every joule of energy burned by a human in a developed society probably required somewhere around two to three more orders of magnitude of various forms of energy (including solar energy for growing the crop).
Meanwhile the energy cost of developing a new computer algorithm can be vastly dwarfed by the efficiency savings of that algorithm.
The dollar value of a good or service is generally a much better measure than its energy cost.
First, the energy cost is generally a small part of the cost.
Sure you have some stuff like aluminum smelting or passenger jets which are pretty much limited by energy costs.
But on the other hand, there are a host of activities that have values far in excess of their energy cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258124</id>
	<title>great, why don't they start with ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259418900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..modelling the flow of credit on the stock market as a physics problem, and have some kind of control flow, instead of modelling it like a balloon as they do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><blockquote><div><p>global warming as a physics problem</p></div></blockquote><p> yeah, and responsible global leadership as an ethical problem.</p><p>I'm starting to think China is the right place to be - I'd prefer the 1-child policy over the exterminate mankind philosophy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..modelling the flow of credit on the stock market as a physics problem , and have some kind of control flow , instead of modelling it like a balloon as they do ...global warming as a physics problem yeah , and responsible global leadership as an ethical problem.I 'm starting to think China is the right place to be - I 'd prefer the 1-child policy over the exterminate mankind philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..modelling the flow of credit on the stock market as a physics problem, and have some kind of control flow, instead of modelling it like a balloon as they do ...global warming as a physics problem yeah, and responsible global leadership as an ethical problem.I'm starting to think China is the right place to be - I'd prefer the 1-child policy over the exterminate mankind philosophy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258042</id>
	<title>you said 'your'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259417700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and that's the classic response of someone who justifies himself as superior somehow to most humans.<br>I find that it's the people who label humanity's problems as 'our' problems, that actually really care and aren't just looking out for #1, and by our, you should always mean 'as many as possible'. Also, if we make an effort to educate and inspire children to solve the big problems, and think of the world as a reflection on them, their wider community as a reflection on them, and their home as a reflection of them (like concentric circles), they could make more of a difference. I do believe in the '1 child' policy however!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and that 's the classic response of someone who justifies himself as superior somehow to most humans.I find that it 's the people who label humanity 's problems as 'our ' problems , that actually really care and are n't just looking out for # 1 , and by our , you should always mean 'as many as possible' .
Also , if we make an effort to educate and inspire children to solve the big problems , and think of the world as a reflection on them , their wider community as a reflection on them , and their home as a reflection of them ( like concentric circles ) , they could make more of a difference .
I do believe in the '1 child ' policy however !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and that's the classic response of someone who justifies himself as superior somehow to most humans.I find that it's the people who label humanity's problems as 'our' problems, that actually really care and aren't just looking out for #1, and by our, you should always mean 'as many as possible'.
Also, if we make an effort to educate and inspire children to solve the big problems, and think of the world as a reflection on them, their wider community as a reflection on them, and their home as a reflection of them (like concentric circles), they could make more of a difference.
I do believe in the '1 child' policy however!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257744</id>
	<title>Define conservative.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259414760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on which conservatives you mean. Most conservatives I know, myself included I'm ashamed to say, think of economic activity in the mindset of capitalism, socialism, and the hybrid systems the exist around the World. I would think, that the younger and more creative generation would think of something a bit more useful and environmentaly favorable. In other words, if you expand economic activity beyond those limited paradigms, I think the World's economy, whatever it ends up to be, will do just fine.<p>I'm too old and stuck with my brain washing to think of anything better myself, but I have faith in the younger folks to take us in a direction that will improve life here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on which conservatives you mean .
Most conservatives I know , myself included I 'm ashamed to say , think of economic activity in the mindset of capitalism , socialism , and the hybrid systems the exist around the World .
I would think , that the younger and more creative generation would think of something a bit more useful and environmentaly favorable .
In other words , if you expand economic activity beyond those limited paradigms , I think the World 's economy , whatever it ends up to be , will do just fine.I 'm too old and stuck with my brain washing to think of anything better myself , but I have faith in the younger folks to take us in a direction that will improve life here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on which conservatives you mean.
Most conservatives I know, myself included I'm ashamed to say, think of economic activity in the mindset of capitalism, socialism, and the hybrid systems the exist around the World.
I would think, that the younger and more creative generation would think of something a bit more useful and environmentaly favorable.
In other words, if you expand economic activity beyond those limited paradigms, I think the World's economy, whatever it ends up to be, will do just fine.I'm too old and stuck with my brain washing to think of anything better myself, but I have faith in the younger folks to take us in a direction that will improve life here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257960</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>localman</author>
	<datestamp>1259416860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that exactly the \_opposite\_ of what this theory states?</p><p>The author specifies that efficiency in fact spurs \_more\_ economic growth.  Unsurprising, since our entire society from the dawn of crop cultivation has been based on our ability to get things done more efficiently, thus freeing up time and energy for other work and discoveries.  So if you want to grow the economy, work on... economy.</p><p>What is somewhat surprising is that the efficiencies gained seem to be immediately taken up by new forms of consumption, so there is never any decrease in resource usage, just a growth in what we accomplish with our endless accelerating depletion of those resources.</p><p>An interesting and somewhat troubling thought.  In the end we are likely not above nature and a painful equilibrium will be found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that exactly the \ _opposite \ _ of what this theory states ? The author specifies that efficiency in fact spurs \ _more \ _ economic growth .
Unsurprising , since our entire society from the dawn of crop cultivation has been based on our ability to get things done more efficiently , thus freeing up time and energy for other work and discoveries .
So if you want to grow the economy , work on... economy.What is somewhat surprising is that the efficiencies gained seem to be immediately taken up by new forms of consumption , so there is never any decrease in resource usage , just a growth in what we accomplish with our endless accelerating depletion of those resources.An interesting and somewhat troubling thought .
In the end we are likely not above nature and a painful equilibrium will be found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that exactly the \_opposite\_ of what this theory states?The author specifies that efficiency in fact spurs \_more\_ economic growth.
Unsurprising, since our entire society from the dawn of crop cultivation has been based on our ability to get things done more efficiently, thus freeing up time and energy for other work and discoveries.
So if you want to grow the economy, work on... economy.What is somewhat surprising is that the efficiencies gained seem to be immediately taken up by new forms of consumption, so there is never any decrease in resource usage, just a growth in what we accomplish with our endless accelerating depletion of those resources.An interesting and somewhat troubling thought.
In the end we are likely not above nature and a painful equilibrium will be found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</id>
	<title>Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1259408340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have to stop somewhere. At six billion or six trillion. It has to happen. The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation. Its not that hard to imagine, it happens all the time.</p><p>Or we can learn to regulate our population, as the Chinese are trying to do. Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility. But have China and India gone too far for this to work? I am sure the US nearly did, because you have to wear high birth rates and high energy consumption at the same time for a while (the 1950s) for it to work. The same peak would put the energy consumption of 10 billion USA or AU people in China alone.</p><p>Don't ask me for help. I'll be starting a farm on Ganymede.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to stop somewhere .
At six billion or six trillion .
It has to happen .
The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation .
Its not that hard to imagine , it happens all the time.Or we can learn to regulate our population , as the Chinese are trying to do .
Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility .
But have China and India gone too far for this to work ?
I am sure the US nearly did , because you have to wear high birth rates and high energy consumption at the same time for a while ( the 1950s ) for it to work .
The same peak would put the energy consumption of 10 billion USA or AU people in China alone.Do n't ask me for help .
I 'll be starting a farm on Ganymede .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to stop somewhere.
At six billion or six trillion.
It has to happen.
The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation.
Its not that hard to imagine, it happens all the time.Or we can learn to regulate our population, as the Chinese are trying to do.
Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.
But have China and India gone too far for this to work?
I am sure the US nearly did, because you have to wear high birth rates and high energy consumption at the same time for a while (the 1950s) for it to work.
The same peak would put the energy consumption of 10 billion USA or AU people in China alone.Don't ask me for help.
I'll be starting a farm on Ganymede.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259864</id>
	<title>Re:We already knew that</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259487600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.</p></div><p>Ok, whatever. I prefer my facts be facts, truth be true, and not some pompous ass's blathering.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones. That is all, carry on.</p></div><p>Too bad. Since you've established that we can't do anything about it, then my suggestion to these disgruntled future generations is "Grow up".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate is headed for a crash , and there 's nothing that anybody can do about it.Ok , whatever .
I prefer my facts be facts , truth be true , and not some pompous ass 's blathering.And one more thing : humans of the future will curse your bones .
That is all , carry on.Too bad .
Since you 've established that we ca n't do anything about it , then my suggestion to these disgruntled future generations is " Grow up " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.Ok, whatever.
I prefer my facts be facts, truth be true, and not some pompous ass's blathering.And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones.
That is all, carry on.Too bad.
Since you've established that we can't do anything about it, then my suggestion to these disgruntled future generations is "Grow up".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257242</id>
	<title>Simple Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Embrace Communism and ditch capitalism.  That's right boys and girls, capitalism is the cause of global warming and communism removes all incentive to destroy the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embrace Communism and ditch capitalism .
That 's right boys and girls , capitalism is the cause of global warming and communism removes all incentive to destroy the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embrace Communism and ditch capitalism.
That's right boys and girls, capitalism is the cause of global warming and communism removes all incentive to destroy the environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266846</id>
	<title>The Philips curve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259518200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An engineer showed a relationship between inflation and unemployment. It worked for a few years and then it did not. Short term predictions do not hold for the long term as Long Term Capital Management showed us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An engineer showed a relationship between inflation and unemployment .
It worked for a few years and then it did not .
Short term predictions do not hold for the long term as Long Term Capital Management showed us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An engineer showed a relationship between inflation and unemployment.
It worked for a few years and then it did not.
Short term predictions do not hold for the long term as Long Term Capital Management showed us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260072</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>praksys</author>
	<datestamp>1259493360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing lasts forever, which is why there is no way to live sustainably. It's an entirely useless concept.</p><p>Enjoy what you have while it lasts, and make sure you have something lined up to replace it when it's gone. Are you concerned that one day there won't be anything else to follow up with? Tough. That day is certain to come because nothing lasts forever, including the human species.</p><p>Future generations will look back at us with scorn and wonder why we chose to be less when we could have been more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing lasts forever , which is why there is no way to live sustainably .
It 's an entirely useless concept.Enjoy what you have while it lasts , and make sure you have something lined up to replace it when it 's gone .
Are you concerned that one day there wo n't be anything else to follow up with ?
Tough. That day is certain to come because nothing lasts forever , including the human species.Future generations will look back at us with scorn and wonder why we chose to be less when we could have been more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing lasts forever, which is why there is no way to live sustainably.
It's an entirely useless concept.Enjoy what you have while it lasts, and make sure you have something lined up to replace it when it's gone.
Are you concerned that one day there won't be anything else to follow up with?
Tough. That day is certain to come because nothing lasts forever, including the human species.Future generations will look back at us with scorn and wonder why we chose to be less when we could have been more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266668</id>
	<title>Climate Change run by Deniers?</title>
	<author>slaingod</author>
	<datestamp>1259516700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thought I had read that Climate Change was now run by the global climate change deniers.  Makes sense that they would publish an article that is easy to denounce, even if it does support 'global warming'.</p><p>I have never been a fan of 'global warming' as a phrase since it is easy to make statements like 'last fall was the coolest since X' as an anecdotal evidence that it isn't real.  The point is that there is more energy in the environment, which tends to increase the variability of the climate, bigger storms, hotter summers, colder winters, over multi-year scales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought I had read that Climate Change was now run by the global climate change deniers .
Makes sense that they would publish an article that is easy to denounce , even if it does support 'global warming'.I have never been a fan of 'global warming ' as a phrase since it is easy to make statements like 'last fall was the coolest since X ' as an anecdotal evidence that it is n't real .
The point is that there is more energy in the environment , which tends to increase the variability of the climate , bigger storms , hotter summers , colder winters , over multi-year scales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought I had read that Climate Change was now run by the global climate change deniers.
Makes sense that they would publish an article that is easy to denounce, even if it does support 'global warming'.I have never been a fan of 'global warming' as a phrase since it is easy to make statements like 'last fall was the coolest since X' as an anecdotal evidence that it isn't real.
The point is that there is more energy in the environment, which tends to increase the variability of the climate, bigger storms, hotter summers, colder winters, over multi-year scales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257390</id>
	<title>modeling felonious fabrication as an 'economy'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that would be what appears to have transpired.</p><p>no matter, the lights are coming up all over now, so it will soon be easy to establish who 'owns'/owes what/anything.</p><p>it's been said that the greatest fear of the so-called rich, is that the so-called poor, will rise up &amp; eat them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that would be what appears to have transpired.no matter , the lights are coming up all over now , so it will soon be easy to establish who 'owns'/owes what/anything.it 's been said that the greatest fear of the so-called rich , is that the so-called poor , will rise up &amp; eat them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that would be what appears to have transpired.no matter, the lights are coming up all over now, so it will soon be easy to establish who 'owns'/owes what/anything.it's been said that the greatest fear of the so-called rich, is that the so-called poor, will rise up &amp; eat them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257266</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1259409540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can regulate our population all we want - others won't, and we'll just be a diminishing share.  It's scary how much despite our intelligence, we are like cultures in a dish.  We reproduce to consume all the available resources, adapt to live with diminishing resources, contend for resources with the other colonies in our dish.  There will be perfectly rational and equitable geopolitical justifications for the resource wars of the 21st century. Ultimately Malthus wins.  Of the 6 billion humans we have now a third of them are starving.  It's hard to imagine getting to 6 trillion.
</p><p>Unlike the culture, we can escape the dish.  That is probably the best outcome we can hope for though it does nothing for those who remain behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can regulate our population all we want - others wo n't , and we 'll just be a diminishing share .
It 's scary how much despite our intelligence , we are like cultures in a dish .
We reproduce to consume all the available resources , adapt to live with diminishing resources , contend for resources with the other colonies in our dish .
There will be perfectly rational and equitable geopolitical justifications for the resource wars of the 21st century .
Ultimately Malthus wins .
Of the 6 billion humans we have now a third of them are starving .
It 's hard to imagine getting to 6 trillion .
Unlike the culture , we can escape the dish .
That is probably the best outcome we can hope for though it does nothing for those who remain behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can regulate our population all we want - others won't, and we'll just be a diminishing share.
It's scary how much despite our intelligence, we are like cultures in a dish.
We reproduce to consume all the available resources, adapt to live with diminishing resources, contend for resources with the other colonies in our dish.
There will be perfectly rational and equitable geopolitical justifications for the resource wars of the 21st century.
Ultimately Malthus wins.
Of the 6 billion humans we have now a third of them are starving.
It's hard to imagine getting to 6 trillion.
Unlike the culture, we can escape the dish.
That is probably the best outcome we can hope for though it does nothing for those who remain behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258404</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing causal relationships</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259422320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not news. The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!</p></div><p>You clearly do not run a business that requires energy consumption to operate. Since the first person harnessed an ox for their plough, energy consumption drives wealth production.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not news .
The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy , not vice versa ! You clearly do not run a business that requires energy consumption to operate .
Since the first person harnessed an ox for their plough , energy consumption drives wealth production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not news.
The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!You clearly do not run a business that requires energy consumption to operate.
Since the first person harnessed an ox for their plough, energy consumption drives wealth production.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252</id>
	<title>Adjusting for Inflation</title>
	<author>Shadyman</author>
	<datestamp>1259409420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that you can't adjust for inflation too far back, because the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer\_basket" title="wikipedia.org">"basket of goods and services"</a> [wikipedia.org] that inflation is measured upon changes every now and then, so the cost of everyday items now can't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920. Some things that were necessities in 1920 aren't anymore, and some things that are necessities now weren't even invented. The most you're going to get is a very rough estimation of what the dollar was worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that you ca n't adjust for inflation too far back , because the " basket of goods and services " [ wikipedia.org ] that inflation is measured upon changes every now and then , so the cost of everyday items now ca n't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920 .
Some things that were necessities in 1920 are n't anymore , and some things that are necessities now were n't even invented .
The most you 're going to get is a very rough estimation of what the dollar was worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that you can't adjust for inflation too far back, because the "basket of goods and services" [wikipedia.org] that inflation is measured upon changes every now and then, so the cost of everyday items now can't really be measured against the cost of items in 1920.
Some things that were necessities in 1920 aren't anymore, and some things that are necessities now weren't even invented.
The most you're going to get is a very rough estimation of what the dollar was worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332</id>
	<title>This is why My idea of the goods tax works</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259410440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and other solutions does not. Basically, tax all goods at point of consumption (retail tax) with a CO2 tax based on WHERE ASSEMBLED AND PRIMARY SUB-COMPONENT come from, combined with the CO2 to get there (the further away a good is from consumption should incur a heavier tax due to shipping). Any other solution, esp. the command economy that is being pushed by EU under Kyoto is doomed to fail. It is the ONLY solution that I have seen that will involve all countries, businesses and nearly all ppl.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and other solutions does not .
Basically , tax all goods at point of consumption ( retail tax ) with a CO2 tax based on WHERE ASSEMBLED AND PRIMARY SUB-COMPONENT come from , combined with the CO2 to get there ( the further away a good is from consumption should incur a heavier tax due to shipping ) .
Any other solution , esp .
the command economy that is being pushed by EU under Kyoto is doomed to fail .
It is the ONLY solution that I have seen that will involve all countries , businesses and nearly all ppl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and other solutions does not.
Basically, tax all goods at point of consumption (retail tax) with a CO2 tax based on WHERE ASSEMBLED AND PRIMARY SUB-COMPONENT come from, combined with the CO2 to get there (the further away a good is from consumption should incur a heavier tax due to shipping).
Any other solution, esp.
the command economy that is being pushed by EU under Kyoto is doomed to fail.
It is the ONLY solution that I have seen that will involve all countries, businesses and nearly all ppl.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261426</id>
	<title>Good Link</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1259510580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now *this* is an interesting take on things...good link!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now * this * is an interesting take on things...good link !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now *this* is an interesting take on things...good link!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260820</id>
	<title>Re:solution from the 50's-80's</title>
	<author>arethuza</author>
	<datestamp>1259504160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know which forecasts you saw for the after effects of a nuclear war, but the predictions for countries like the UK were pretty grim - population dropping from the 50 million level (for the 60s &amp; 70s) down to 5 million or so. I would guess that would be something like a 99.999\% drop in economic output as the survivors wouldn't be doing anything other than trying to find enough to eat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which forecasts you saw for the after effects of a nuclear war , but the predictions for countries like the UK were pretty grim - population dropping from the 50 million level ( for the 60s &amp; 70s ) down to 5 million or so .
I would guess that would be something like a 99.999 \ % drop in economic output as the survivors would n't be doing anything other than trying to find enough to eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which forecasts you saw for the after effects of a nuclear war, but the predictions for countries like the UK were pretty grim - population dropping from the 50 million level (for the 60s &amp; 70s) down to 5 million or so.
I would guess that would be something like a 99.999\% drop in economic output as the survivors wouldn't be doing anything other than trying to find enough to eat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258470</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259422980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if that standard increases past the point where you have to care for your kids and can hand them off to some nanny or something. Else women (yeah, yeah, equality... believe in it if you want, it's just no reality) are faced with the choice: Career or kids.</p><p>Ever tried getting a job as a woman? I had to sit through interviews as well (interviews here include one mandatory person from the employees, don't ask), and yes, the question "do you plan to have kids?" was asked. Despite it being not considered a "permissible" question during job interviews (same applies to questions about sexual preferences, religion or similar personal stuff). The idea is simple: We have mandatory maternity leave for up to 3 years. And after that, the woman (or man, if he decides to stay home... dunno if it was ever used) has the RIGHT to get her job back.</p><p>Now which employer would risk that? You have to hire someone when she gets pregnant, train him/her, then kick them out after 3 years and reemploy someone who has been out of the loop for 3 years. Might work in a "fries with that" job, but try it in an ever shifting world like antivirus analysis. Being ONE year away means you basically start over...</p><p>So her choice is career OR kids. Both is basically impossible, unless she happens to find that one man who is willing to terminate his career for the kids.</p><p>And now ask again why women have a hard time getting top level positions. Either they sacrifice their family for it or they won't go there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if that standard increases past the point where you have to care for your kids and can hand them off to some nanny or something .
Else women ( yeah , yeah , equality... believe in it if you want , it 's just no reality ) are faced with the choice : Career or kids.Ever tried getting a job as a woman ?
I had to sit through interviews as well ( interviews here include one mandatory person from the employees , do n't ask ) , and yes , the question " do you plan to have kids ?
" was asked .
Despite it being not considered a " permissible " question during job interviews ( same applies to questions about sexual preferences , religion or similar personal stuff ) .
The idea is simple : We have mandatory maternity leave for up to 3 years .
And after that , the woman ( or man , if he decides to stay home... dunno if it was ever used ) has the RIGHT to get her job back.Now which employer would risk that ?
You have to hire someone when she gets pregnant , train him/her , then kick them out after 3 years and reemploy someone who has been out of the loop for 3 years .
Might work in a " fries with that " job , but try it in an ever shifting world like antivirus analysis .
Being ONE year away means you basically start over...So her choice is career OR kids .
Both is basically impossible , unless she happens to find that one man who is willing to terminate his career for the kids.And now ask again why women have a hard time getting top level positions .
Either they sacrifice their family for it or they wo n't go there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if that standard increases past the point where you have to care for your kids and can hand them off to some nanny or something.
Else women (yeah, yeah, equality... believe in it if you want, it's just no reality) are faced with the choice: Career or kids.Ever tried getting a job as a woman?
I had to sit through interviews as well (interviews here include one mandatory person from the employees, don't ask), and yes, the question "do you plan to have kids?
" was asked.
Despite it being not considered a "permissible" question during job interviews (same applies to questions about sexual preferences, religion or similar personal stuff).
The idea is simple: We have mandatory maternity leave for up to 3 years.
And after that, the woman (or man, if he decides to stay home... dunno if it was ever used) has the RIGHT to get her job back.Now which employer would risk that?
You have to hire someone when she gets pregnant, train him/her, then kick them out after 3 years and reemploy someone who has been out of the loop for 3 years.
Might work in a "fries with that" job, but try it in an ever shifting world like antivirus analysis.
Being ONE year away means you basically start over...So her choice is career OR kids.
Both is basically impossible, unless she happens to find that one man who is willing to terminate his career for the kids.And now ask again why women have a hard time getting top level positions.
Either they sacrifice their family for it or they won't go there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368</id>
	<title>Reversing causal relationships</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1259410860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation.</p> </div><p>No.
</p><p>Data also shows that there is a correlation between the number of teddy bears that children own and how wealthy their parents are.  Does owning teddy bears cause a child's parents to be wealthy?
</p><p>The more prosperous an economy is, the more things that the people buy.  Including energy.  This is not news.  <i>The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!</i>
</p><p>Correlation is not causation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Garrett discovered that ] Throughout history , a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world 's accumulated economic productivity , adjusted for inflation .
No . Data also shows that there is a correlation between the number of teddy bears that children own and how wealthy their parents are .
Does owning teddy bears cause a child 's parents to be wealthy ?
The more prosperous an economy is , the more things that the people buy .
Including energy .
This is not news .
The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy , not vice versa !
Correlation is not causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation.
No.
Data also shows that there is a correlation between the number of teddy bears that children own and how wealthy their parents are.
Does owning teddy bears cause a child's parents to be wealthy?
The more prosperous an economy is, the more things that the people buy.
Including energy.
This is not news.
The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!
Correlation is not causation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257946</id>
	<title>that's one contextual viewpoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259416800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, sure if you look at humanity's growth over the last century there has been a jump, but it's already at the top of the curve I think. I believe there will be a green boom and it will be the last of the great booms as it rushes to find the optimum way of sutainability. There's no point bringing everything to a snails pace just when we have arguably the most important of the next booms - the sutainibility boom. I do believe policies like the China 1 child policy are helpful to justifying our future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , sure if you look at humanity 's growth over the last century there has been a jump , but it 's already at the top of the curve I think .
I believe there will be a green boom and it will be the last of the great booms as it rushes to find the optimum way of sutainability .
There 's no point bringing everything to a snails pace just when we have arguably the most important of the next booms - the sutainibility boom .
I do believe policies like the China 1 child policy are helpful to justifying our future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, sure if you look at humanity's growth over the last century there has been a jump, but it's already at the top of the curve I think.
I believe there will be a green boom and it will be the last of the great booms as it rushes to find the optimum way of sutainability.
There's no point bringing everything to a snails pace just when we have arguably the most important of the next booms - the sutainibility boom.
I do believe policies like the China 1 child policy are helpful to justifying our future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257806</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259415420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%: we return to the original problem.</p></div><p>You can have exponential growth in resources through technology and exponential growth in population without the rates being identical: If you increase food production by 20\% and increase population by 15\%, you're closer to a solution than you were when you started.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20 \ % .
The population , enjoying this additional food , now grows by an additonal 20 \ % : we return to the original problem.You can have exponential growth in resources through technology and exponential growth in population without the rates being identical : If you increase food production by 20 \ % and increase population by 15 \ % , you 're closer to a solution than you were when you started .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%.
The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%: we return to the original problem.You can have exponential growth in resources through technology and exponential growth in population without the rates being identical: If you increase food production by 20\% and increase population by 15\%, you're closer to a solution than you were when you started.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259102</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259429820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy. We live unsustainably. Oil isn't forever. Nukes aren't forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.</p></div><p>Oil won't just "run out" one day, it will gradually become harder and harder to find. We will slowly deplete the "easy" sources of oil, and gradually move on to harder and harder oil. Demand for cheap oil will force the markets into finding new ways to get it to us. At the start of the century it was believed that we only had a decade or two's worth of oil left, now we believe we have substantially more. We are now able to drill in the oceans, in the remotest areas of Alaska, in the politically unstable middle east. In Siberia, and deep into the ground in places like Texas, or all around South America, Mexico (the biggest source of foreign oil for the USA is Mexico) or Canada (another surprisingly large source).
</p><p>
Heck even when gas hit its peak, it was still cheaper to buy a gallon of gas than a gallon of water in bottles. Water can be obtained from rivers and lakes, oil requires discovering a well, jumping through legal hoops, drilling deep into the ground, erecting a pump, pumping it out often into a pipeline, transporting it across the country or across the world to a refinery, going through more regulation, refining it, shipping the gas to a station, and putting safety equipment in place so you won't blow yourself up pumping it (and it faces a rather large tax normally). We bitch about the need for alternatives if a gallon of gas tops a couple bucks. That gallon will still take you between 20 and 50 miles, pretty nice compared to walking.
</p><p>
At some point, a few hundred years in the future, oil will become expensive. We won't run out, rather we will just keep moving on to harder and harder wells. Eventually oil's price will exceed that of some other source of energy. At this point oil use will fade while this new energy source will usurp it. There is no need to try to artificially force the market to adopt a politically motivated alternative now, when it will naturally adopt one eventually when it is most efficient for it to do so. The economy likely will do better at adjusting to global warming then governments will at preventing it. Some areas will benefit, some will be hurt, but overall it looks much cheaper to endure it than to fight it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about that , as the end result of * not * cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy .
We live unsustainably .
Oil is n't forever .
Nukes are n't forever .
Enjoy it while it lasts.Oil wo n't just " run out " one day , it will gradually become harder and harder to find .
We will slowly deplete the " easy " sources of oil , and gradually move on to harder and harder oil .
Demand for cheap oil will force the markets into finding new ways to get it to us .
At the start of the century it was believed that we only had a decade or two 's worth of oil left , now we believe we have substantially more .
We are now able to drill in the oceans , in the remotest areas of Alaska , in the politically unstable middle east .
In Siberia , and deep into the ground in places like Texas , or all around South America , Mexico ( the biggest source of foreign oil for the USA is Mexico ) or Canada ( another surprisingly large source ) .
Heck even when gas hit its peak , it was still cheaper to buy a gallon of gas than a gallon of water in bottles .
Water can be obtained from rivers and lakes , oil requires discovering a well , jumping through legal hoops , drilling deep into the ground , erecting a pump , pumping it out often into a pipeline , transporting it across the country or across the world to a refinery , going through more regulation , refining it , shipping the gas to a station , and putting safety equipment in place so you wo n't blow yourself up pumping it ( and it faces a rather large tax normally ) .
We bitch about the need for alternatives if a gallon of gas tops a couple bucks .
That gallon will still take you between 20 and 50 miles , pretty nice compared to walking .
At some point , a few hundred years in the future , oil will become expensive .
We wo n't run out , rather we will just keep moving on to harder and harder wells .
Eventually oil 's price will exceed that of some other source of energy .
At this point oil use will fade while this new energy source will usurp it .
There is no need to try to artificially force the market to adopt a politically motivated alternative now , when it will naturally adopt one eventually when it is most efficient for it to do so .
The economy likely will do better at adjusting to global warming then governments will at preventing it .
Some areas will benefit , some will be hurt , but overall it looks much cheaper to endure it than to fight it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy.
We live unsustainably.
Oil isn't forever.
Nukes aren't forever.
Enjoy it while it lasts.Oil won't just "run out" one day, it will gradually become harder and harder to find.
We will slowly deplete the "easy" sources of oil, and gradually move on to harder and harder oil.
Demand for cheap oil will force the markets into finding new ways to get it to us.
At the start of the century it was believed that we only had a decade or two's worth of oil left, now we believe we have substantially more.
We are now able to drill in the oceans, in the remotest areas of Alaska, in the politically unstable middle east.
In Siberia, and deep into the ground in places like Texas, or all around South America, Mexico (the biggest source of foreign oil for the USA is Mexico) or Canada (another surprisingly large source).
Heck even when gas hit its peak, it was still cheaper to buy a gallon of gas than a gallon of water in bottles.
Water can be obtained from rivers and lakes, oil requires discovering a well, jumping through legal hoops, drilling deep into the ground, erecting a pump, pumping it out often into a pipeline, transporting it across the country or across the world to a refinery, going through more regulation, refining it, shipping the gas to a station, and putting safety equipment in place so you won't blow yourself up pumping it (and it faces a rather large tax normally).
We bitch about the need for alternatives if a gallon of gas tops a couple bucks.
That gallon will still take you between 20 and 50 miles, pretty nice compared to walking.
At some point, a few hundred years in the future, oil will become expensive.
We won't run out, rather we will just keep moving on to harder and harder wells.
Eventually oil's price will exceed that of some other source of energy.
At this point oil use will fade while this new energy source will usurp it.
There is no need to try to artificially force the market to adopt a politically motivated alternative now, when it will naturally adopt one eventually when it is most efficient for it to do so.
The economy likely will do better at adjusting to global warming then governments will at preventing it.
Some areas will benefit, some will be hurt, but overall it looks much cheaper to endure it than to fight it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261244</id>
	<title>AGW a complete fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259508960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He must have missed the email which revealed that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete fraud:</p><p>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34550</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He must have missed the email which revealed that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete fraud : http : //www.humanevents.com/article.php ? id = 34550</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He must have missed the email which revealed that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a complete fraud:http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34550</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258834</id>
	<title>Re:This is why My idea of the goods tax works</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1259426520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you tax "CO2 Consumption", what do you do with the revenues received by government as a result of the tax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you tax " CO2 Consumption " , what do you do with the revenues received by government as a result of the tax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you tax "CO2 Consumption", what do you do with the revenues received by government as a result of the tax?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263442</id>
	<title>Re:Not really that surprising...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I have your things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I have your things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I have your things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257690</id>
	<title>Re:Massive fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259414160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the interactions of the human neurons can be understood thought classical physics. The quantum effects that occur within your cells is negligible. Additionally even if they where somehow completely controlled by quantum interactions (Again they're not) you could still predict groups of people and societies as the quantum effects will pushed towards noise and the average expect value will peak. Even for individuals they could be modled as a probability function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the interactions of the human neurons can be understood thought classical physics .
The quantum effects that occur within your cells is negligible .
Additionally even if they where somehow completely controlled by quantum interactions ( Again they 're not ) you could still predict groups of people and societies as the quantum effects will pushed towards noise and the average expect value will peak .
Even for individuals they could be modled as a probability function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the interactions of the human neurons can be understood thought classical physics.
The quantum effects that occur within your cells is negligible.
Additionally even if they where somehow completely controlled by quantum interactions (Again they're not) you could still predict groups of people and societies as the quantum effects will pushed towards noise and the average expect value will peak.
Even for individuals they could be modled as a probability function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30271954</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing causal relationships</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1259607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that number is a measure of how smart/determined humans are to improve their standard of living.  As energy becomes more plentiful, more becomes possible with the same level of effort/skill.  The trend has been for energy to become more and more plentiful because of human ingenuity.  Alternative energy sources are the only way to mitigate the finiteness of the resources we have used thusfar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that number is a measure of how smart/determined humans are to improve their standard of living .
As energy becomes more plentiful , more becomes possible with the same level of effort/skill .
The trend has been for energy to become more and more plentiful because of human ingenuity .
Alternative energy sources are the only way to mitigate the finiteness of the resources we have used thusfar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that number is a measure of how smart/determined humans are to improve their standard of living.
As energy becomes more plentiful, more becomes possible with the same level of effort/skill.
The trend has been for energy to become more and more plentiful because of human ingenuity.
Alternative energy sources are the only way to mitigate the finiteness of the resources we have used thusfar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258116</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing causal relationships</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1259418660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!</p></div><p>Surely you meant to say "causation" rather than correlation.  So I'll run with that.</p><p>Do you seriously believe that modern wealth comes from something other than energy production and consumption?  What do you do for a living?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy , not vice versa ! Surely you meant to say " causation " rather than correlation .
So I 'll run with that.Do you seriously believe that modern wealth comes from something other than energy production and consumption ?
What do you do for a living ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correlation is that being wealthy means buying more energy, not vice versa!Surely you meant to say "causation" rather than correlation.
So I'll run with that.Do you seriously believe that modern wealth comes from something other than energy production and consumption?
What do you do for a living?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262734</id>
	<title>Where are the "skeptics" when you need them?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1259522100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I examine this proposition now using statistics for the combination of world energy
production a (Annual Energy Review 2006) and real global economic production
P (United Nations 2007) (expressed here in fixed 1990 US dollars) for the 36 year
interval between 1970 to 2005 for which these statistics are currently available.<br>...<br>Of course it is possible that this observed result only holds over the 36-year
period for which global energy consumption statistics are available, but it is expected
theoretically; the period examined covers over half of total historical growth in a
and C, and two thirds of P; and, the observational uncertainty is small enough to
plausibly reflect errors or noise in historical data.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I examine this proposition now using statistics for the combination of world energy production a ( Annual Energy Review 2006 ) and real global economic production P ( United Nations 2007 ) ( expressed here in fixed 1990 US dollars ) for the 36 year interval between 1970 to 2005 for which these statistics are currently available....Of course it is possible that this observed result only holds over the 36-year period for which global energy consumption statistics are available , but it is expected theoretically ; the period examined covers over half of total historical growth in a and C , and two thirds of P ; and , the observational uncertainty is small enough to plausibly reflect errors or noise in historical data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I examine this proposition now using statistics for the combination of world energy
production a (Annual Energy Review 2006) and real global economic production
P (United Nations 2007) (expressed here in fixed 1990 US dollars) for the 36 year
interval between 1970 to 2005 for which these statistics are currently available....Of course it is possible that this observed result only holds over the 36-year
period for which global energy consumption statistics are available, but it is expected
theoretically; the period examined covers over half of total historical growth in a
and C, and two thirds of P; and, the observational uncertainty is small enough to
plausibly reflect errors or noise in historical data.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257456</id>
	<title>Re:Not really that surprising...</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1259411700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but we don't have more leisure time than our ancestors</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
How far back are you talking about? If it's the 19th century, then you're
definitely wrong. We have huge swaths of leisure time compared with our
19th century ancestors. If it's the first half of the 20th century, then
the economies in the West were still fairly unregulated although better than previously, and a lot of people were still more overworked than most of us are now. If you mean by ancestors your parents or grandparents, then you'd probably be right. The
post-WWII period was a golden economic age for a large percentage of the population in the West. Unfortunately, with deregulation from the 1980s onwards exploitation has increased again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but we do n't have more leisure time than our ancestors How far back are you talking about ?
If it 's the 19th century , then you 're definitely wrong .
We have huge swaths of leisure time compared with our 19th century ancestors .
If it 's the first half of the 20th century , then the economies in the West were still fairly unregulated although better than previously , and a lot of people were still more overworked than most of us are now .
If you mean by ancestors your parents or grandparents , then you 'd probably be right .
The post-WWII period was a golden economic age for a large percentage of the population in the West .
Unfortunately , with deregulation from the 1980s onwards exploitation has increased again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but we don't have more leisure time than our ancestors

How far back are you talking about?
If it's the 19th century, then you're
definitely wrong.
We have huge swaths of leisure time compared with our
19th century ancestors.
If it's the first half of the 20th century, then
the economies in the West were still fairly unregulated although better than previously, and a lot of people were still more overworked than most of us are now.
If you mean by ancestors your parents or grandparents, then you'd probably be right.
The
post-WWII period was a golden economic age for a large percentage of the population in the West.
Unfortunately, with deregulation from the 1980s onwards exploitation has increased again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259858</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259487300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the research of this article missed the boat, but getting to something you said.<p><div class="quote"><p>Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine. No wonder he's been panned. Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.</p></div><p>Why do you think your observation is relevant? A lot of the old theory completely ignores human behavior. And it works to an extent (just as this paper works to an extent). Sure people rarely make what are traditionally considered optimal decisions, but that's irrelevant to a lot of economics. Macroeconomics, because of its scale seems to be the least dependent on human behavior.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the research of this article missed the boat , but getting to something you said.Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that 's not even based on human behaviour : the economy as a heat engine .
No wonder he 's been panned .
Criticise economic models all you like , but at least the modern ones * have a foundation in human behaviour.Why do you think your observation is relevant ?
A lot of the old theory completely ignores human behavior .
And it works to an extent ( just as this paper works to an extent ) .
Sure people rarely make what are traditionally considered optimal decisions , but that 's irrelevant to a lot of economics .
Macroeconomics , because of its scale seems to be the least dependent on human behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the research of this article missed the boat, but getting to something you said.Then along comes this bloke and uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour: the economy as a heat engine.
No wonder he's been panned.
Criticise economic models all you like, but at least the modern ones* have a foundation in human behaviour.Why do you think your observation is relevant?
A lot of the old theory completely ignores human behavior.
And it works to an extent (just as this paper works to an extent).
Sure people rarely make what are traditionally considered optimal decisions, but that's irrelevant to a lot of economics.
Macroeconomics, because of its scale seems to be the least dependent on human behavior.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260718</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Paradigma11</author>
	<datestamp>1259502780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us already nature does not sustain us." Tertullian (300 A.D).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are burdensome to the world , the resources are scarcely adequate for us already nature does not sustain us .
" Tertullian ( 300 A.D ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us already nature does not sustain us.
" Tertullian (300 A.D).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259304</id>
	<title>When will these morons learn...</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1259432640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that Economics is all about people and culture and NOT about money and resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that Economics is all about people and culture and NOT about money and resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that Economics is all about people and culture and NOT about money and resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257472</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop using it's when you mean ITS. Please stop using "begs the question" when you mean "raise the question".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop using it 's when you mean ITS .
Please stop using " begs the question " when you mean " raise the question " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop using it's when you mean ITS.
Please stop using "begs the question" when you mean "raise the question".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257294</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Stop" is such a beautiful euphemism for what is essentially death. A lot of death.</p><p>We can't stop population growth<br>It will eventually stop of it's own (or so we hope) but probably not before world population doubles once more<br>With the current output we don't have enough food to keep everyone alive, and we're FAR short of what everyone would like to eat (never mind the fact that people generally want more than just food) (we did 10 years ago, I know, today, we don't, thank you "anti-co2" biofuels advocates, who managed to seriously increase both co2 AND hunger)<br>The statement above is ignoring the disconnect between where hunger is and where agricultural production is plentiful, and the energy for transit that requires. This to attract attention to the fact that just having sufficient total food is not enough, you need transit infrastructure, and the energy to run it.</p><p>So "stop somewhere" begs the question :</p><p><i>Who gets to die, and who gets to live, and what makes you think the rest of the world will accept that answer without a fight ?</i></p><p>Of course, unless that question is answered satisfactorily for everyone involved (including those asked to die), you're right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation. Its not that hard to imagine, it happens all the time.</p></div><p>Which is probably how this whole evolution thing is supposed to work in the first place. Needless to say, no matter how atheist someone is, he or she will stress the need to intervene.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stop " is such a beautiful euphemism for what is essentially death .
A lot of death.We ca n't stop population growthIt will eventually stop of it 's own ( or so we hope ) but probably not before world population doubles once moreWith the current output we do n't have enough food to keep everyone alive , and we 're FAR short of what everyone would like to eat ( never mind the fact that people generally want more than just food ) ( we did 10 years ago , I know , today , we do n't , thank you " anti-co2 " biofuels advocates , who managed to seriously increase both co2 AND hunger ) The statement above is ignoring the disconnect between where hunger is and where agricultural production is plentiful , and the energy for transit that requires .
This to attract attention to the fact that just having sufficient total food is not enough , you need transit infrastructure , and the energy to run it.So " stop somewhere " begs the question : Who gets to die , and who gets to live , and what makes you think the rest of the world will accept that answer without a fight ? Of course , unless that question is answered satisfactorily for everyone involved ( including those asked to die ) , you 're right : The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation .
Its not that hard to imagine , it happens all the time.Which is probably how this whole evolution thing is supposed to work in the first place .
Needless to say , no matter how atheist someone is , he or she will stress the need to intervene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stop" is such a beautiful euphemism for what is essentially death.
A lot of death.We can't stop population growthIt will eventually stop of it's own (or so we hope) but probably not before world population doubles once moreWith the current output we don't have enough food to keep everyone alive, and we're FAR short of what everyone would like to eat (never mind the fact that people generally want more than just food) (we did 10 years ago, I know, today, we don't, thank you "anti-co2" biofuels advocates, who managed to seriously increase both co2 AND hunger)The statement above is ignoring the disconnect between where hunger is and where agricultural production is plentiful, and the energy for transit that requires.
This to attract attention to the fact that just having sufficient total food is not enough, you need transit infrastructure, and the energy to run it.So "stop somewhere" begs the question :Who gets to die, and who gets to live, and what makes you think the rest of the world will accept that answer without a fight ?Of course, unless that question is answered satisfactorily for everyone involved (including those asked to die), you're right :The Heinlein fan in me says this will happen with war and starvation.
Its not that hard to imagine, it happens all the time.Which is probably how this whole evolution thing is supposed to work in the first place.
Needless to say, no matter how atheist someone is, he or she will stress the need to intervene.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257906</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259416500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Conservative have also been arguing there is no problem.
This <a href="http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/" title="thedailymash.co.uk">article</a> [thedailymash.co.uk] about the CSU hack "fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservative have also been arguing there is no problem .
This article [ thedailymash.co.uk ] about the CSU hack " fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservative have also been arguing there is no problem.
This article [thedailymash.co.uk] about the CSU hack "fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259236</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259431800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean by forever? W.R.T. nukes, lets agree that forever occurs sometime after the Sun enters its giant phase. Then nukes do last forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean by forever ?
W.R.T. nukes , lets agree that forever occurs sometime after the Sun enters its giant phase .
Then nukes do last forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean by forever?
W.R.T. nukes, lets agree that forever occurs sometime after the Sun enters its giant phase.
Then nukes do last forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258182</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259419860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour"</i>
<br> <br>
The laws of physics do not depend on human behaviour. But I agree, I don't see how the heat model gives us any insight into the tradgedy of the commons, others have done a much better job in that department.
<br> <br>
<i>"in the end it's a guy doing research outside of his field."</i>
<br> <br>
Yes but he deserves credit for "doing research" properly. Unlike the vast majority of psuedo-skeptical climate bloggers and think-tanks this guy has submitted his ideas to peer-review. Is there a better way to get into a new field?
<br> <br>
Disclaimer: IANAE</htmltext>
<tokenext>" uses a model that 's not even based on human behaviour " The laws of physics do not depend on human behaviour .
But I agree , I do n't see how the heat model gives us any insight into the tradgedy of the commons , others have done a much better job in that department .
" in the end it 's a guy doing research outside of his field .
" Yes but he deserves credit for " doing research " properly .
Unlike the vast majority of psuedo-skeptical climate bloggers and think-tanks this guy has submitted his ideas to peer-review .
Is there a better way to get into a new field ?
Disclaimer : IANAE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"uses a model that's not even based on human behaviour"
 
The laws of physics do not depend on human behaviour.
But I agree, I don't see how the heat model gives us any insight into the tradgedy of the commons, others have done a much better job in that department.
"in the end it's a guy doing research outside of his field.
"
 
Yes but he deserves credit for "doing research" properly.
Unlike the vast majority of psuedo-skeptical climate bloggers and think-tanks this guy has submitted his ideas to peer-review.
Is there a better way to get into a new field?
Disclaimer: IANAE</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259146</id>
	<title>Re:weird</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1259430480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On monday I plan to read the actual article, not just the sciencedaily report, because I'm curious about the "1 nuclear plant" per day conclusion...</p></div><p>FTA,</p><blockquote><div><p>"The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day."</p></div></blockquote><p>He not saying we should or shouldn't build the nuclear plants, he using them as an easy to visualize analogy to represent how monumental the problem of replacing enough carbon emitting energy sources to maintain the status quo would be. I don't think we could build a plants a day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On monday I plan to read the actual article , not just the sciencedaily report , because I 'm curious about the " 1 nuclear plant " per day conclusion...FTA , " The problem is that , in order to stabilize emissions , not even reduce them , we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year .
That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day .
" He not saying we should or should n't build the nuclear plants , he using them as an easy to visualize analogy to represent how monumental the problem of replacing enough carbon emitting energy sources to maintain the status quo would be .
I do n't think we could build a plants a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On monday I plan to read the actual article, not just the sciencedaily report, because I'm curious about the "1 nuclear plant" per day conclusion...FTA,"The problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year.
That comes out to almost one new nuclear power plant per day.
"He not saying we should or shouldn't build the nuclear plants, he using them as an easy to visualize analogy to represent how monumental the problem of replacing enough carbon emitting energy sources to maintain the status quo would be.
I don't think we could build a plants a day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261440</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>OutOfMyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1259510640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While certain groups may have higher fertility with an increased standard of living, I don't think that is true of populations as a whole.</p><p>Currently, a big driver for reducing fertility is educating girls and women. This is thought to increase their own control over their lives and thus enable them to choose to have fewer children but a more cynical view is that as their earning power grows, so it makes less sense for the family to keep them at home in the kitchen. The opportunity cost of large families is felt directly. Only in families where a woman's earnings are irrelevant is there likely to be high fertility.</p><p>It is hard to know how this changing workforce fits into Garratt's model. These new working women presumably increase energy consumption now, but their reduced fertility reduces it in the future.</p><p>Some people are forecasting that world population will stabilise through this effect with no other action being taken -- sorry, can't find a link quickly, but there are plenty about fertility reducing to replacement level in eg the richer states in India.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While certain groups may have higher fertility with an increased standard of living , I do n't think that is true of populations as a whole.Currently , a big driver for reducing fertility is educating girls and women .
This is thought to increase their own control over their lives and thus enable them to choose to have fewer children but a more cynical view is that as their earning power grows , so it makes less sense for the family to keep them at home in the kitchen .
The opportunity cost of large families is felt directly .
Only in families where a woman 's earnings are irrelevant is there likely to be high fertility.It is hard to know how this changing workforce fits into Garratt 's model .
These new working women presumably increase energy consumption now , but their reduced fertility reduces it in the future.Some people are forecasting that world population will stabilise through this effect with no other action being taken -- sorry , ca n't find a link quickly , but there are plenty about fertility reducing to replacement level in eg the richer states in India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While certain groups may have higher fertility with an increased standard of living, I don't think that is true of populations as a whole.Currently, a big driver for reducing fertility is educating girls and women.
This is thought to increase their own control over their lives and thus enable them to choose to have fewer children but a more cynical view is that as their earning power grows, so it makes less sense for the family to keep them at home in the kitchen.
The opportunity cost of large families is felt directly.
Only in families where a woman's earnings are irrelevant is there likely to be high fertility.It is hard to know how this changing workforce fits into Garratt's model.
These new working women presumably increase energy consumption now, but their reduced fertility reduces it in the future.Some people are forecasting that world population will stabilise through this effect with no other action being taken -- sorry, can't find a link quickly, but there are plenty about fertility reducing to replacement level in eg the richer states in India.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257642</id>
	<title>Misses the obvious</title>
	<author>lewis2</author>
	<datestamp>1259413560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Building the equivalent of a nuclear plant every day is not as high a bar as it might seem. The equivalent of might some day mean harvesting a banana peal to toss into Mr. Fusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Building the equivalent of a nuclear plant every day is not as high a bar as it might seem .
The equivalent of might some day mean harvesting a banana peal to toss into Mr. Fusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building the equivalent of a nuclear plant every day is not as high a bar as it might seem.
The equivalent of might some day mean harvesting a banana peal to toss into Mr. Fusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</id>
	<title>Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259410080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Physicist Tim Garret is correct when he observes "<b>that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use</b>".  That is another way of saying that society grows and expands up to the constraints of the system.
<p>
When we conserve energy, we can and do use the saved energy for other activities.  "conservation" is not really conservation if we promptly use the saved energy for another activity.
</p><p>
Consider the food supply.  The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.  So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.  Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%.  The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%:  we return to the original problem.
</p><p>
In the long run, the 4 horsemen will eventually impose their own solution on humankind.  Many people will die in the process.
</p><p>
Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.  Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.  Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology.  A hypocrite, a fool, or both?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Physicist Tim Garret is correct when he observes " that conserving energy does n't reduce energy use , but spurs economic growth and more energy use " .
That is another way of saying that society grows and expands up to the constraints of the system .
When we conserve energy , we can and do use the saved energy for other activities .
" conservation " is not really conservation if we promptly use the saved energy for another activity .
Consider the food supply .
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well .
So , scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production .
Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20 \ % .
The population , enjoying this additional food , now grows by an additonal 20 \ % : we return to the original problem .
In the long run , the 4 horsemen will eventually impose their own solution on humankind .
Many people will die in the process .
Inevitably , some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem .
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered ( and will be the salvation ) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion .
Often , the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology .
A hypocrite , a fool , or both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physicist Tim Garret is correct when he observes "that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use".
That is another way of saying that society grows and expands up to the constraints of the system.
When we conserve energy, we can and do use the saved energy for other activities.
"conservation" is not really conservation if we promptly use the saved energy for another activity.
Consider the food supply.
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.
So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.
Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%.
The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%:  we return to the original problem.
In the long run, the 4 horsemen will eventually impose their own solution on humankind.
Many people will die in the process.
Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.
Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.
Often, the same Slashdotter who is atheist does not hestitate to believe in yet-to-be discovered technology.
A hypocrite, a fool, or both?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259442</id>
	<title>We're screwed.</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259435580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading the actual paper was like a breath of fresh air, this guy is on to something. It also forecasts doom and gloom.. mind you, so do all the other models? It doesn't really matter what theoretical model we use to account for the empircal data flowing already, the outcome is the same: We are screwed. Our elders have thrown a party and paid for it by mortgaging our future.<br> <br>
Mr Kurzweil hurry up with that uploading stuff, I don't want to be in meatspace when the shit hits the fan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the actual paper was like a breath of fresh air , this guy is on to something .
It also forecasts doom and gloom.. mind you , so do all the other models ?
It does n't really matter what theoretical model we use to account for the empircal data flowing already , the outcome is the same : We are screwed .
Our elders have thrown a party and paid for it by mortgaging our future .
Mr Kurzweil hurry up with that uploading stuff , I do n't want to be in meatspace when the shit hits the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the actual paper was like a breath of fresh air, this guy is on to something.
It also forecasts doom and gloom.. mind you, so do all the other models?
It doesn't really matter what theoretical model we use to account for the empircal data flowing already, the outcome is the same: We are screwed.
Our elders have thrown a party and paid for it by mortgaging our future.
Mr Kurzweil hurry up with that uploading stuff, I don't want to be in meatspace when the shit hits the fan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258318</id>
	<title>Re:Reversing causal relationships</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you sir, are a major idiot. go, "buy" energy. from god, i suppose. with dollars.<br>and stop spreading school knowledge you obviously are missing the context to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you sir , are a major idiot .
go , " buy " energy .
from god , i suppose .
with dollars.and stop spreading school knowledge you obviously are missing the context to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you sir, are a major idiot.
go, "buy" energy.
from god, i suppose.
with dollars.and stop spreading school knowledge you obviously are missing the context to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257506</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259412180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly do you base your statement that this is a bad model? Or do you object to something different and unique? Personally, I would like to see more about what this guy has before nuking it.<br> <br>
One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models. As it is, you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior, i.e. psych, an even weaker science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly do you base your statement that this is a bad model ?
Or do you object to something different and unique ?
Personally , I would like to see more about what this guy has before nuking it .
One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences ' , is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models .
As it is , you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior , i.e .
psych , an even weaker science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly do you base your statement that this is a bad model?
Or do you object to something different and unique?
Personally, I would like to see more about what this guy has before nuking it.
One issue that I have seen in soft 'Sciences', is that they resist the idea of applying real math and other science to their models.
As it is, you just got done saying that economics counts on human behavior, i.e.
psych, an even weaker science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261568</id>
	<title>Physics and economic models</title>
	<author>Waveguide04</author>
	<datestamp>1259511900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a very interesting take on physicists and economic modeling, take a listen to this lecture by Tom Whyntie of the LHC given at the Royal Institute.

<a href="http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&amp;id=897" title="rigb.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&amp;id=897</a> [rigb.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a very interesting take on physicists and economic modeling , take a listen to this lecture by Tom Whyntie of the LHC given at the Royal Institute .
http : //www.rigb.org/contentControl ? action = displayEvent&amp;id = 897 [ rigb.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a very interesting take on physicists and economic modeling, take a listen to this lecture by Tom Whyntie of the LHC given at the Royal Institute.
http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&amp;id=897 [rigb.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259380</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1259434140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note the last line in the article: "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization."<br><br>We have politicians in power at the state, national and international levels who all think they can make a difference. They believe they possess the coercive powers to change human nature and to force their citizens/subjects to do what the so-called experts believe to be necessary.<br><br>Needless to say, it is the nature of humans to resist. Elementary school principals know this; despots, petty despots, and would-be despots are ignorant of human nature. No matter how many hundreds of millions of us they kill, we will still reseist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note the last line in the article : " Ultimately , it 's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization .
" We have politicians in power at the state , national and international levels who all think they can make a difference .
They believe they possess the coercive powers to change human nature and to force their citizens/subjects to do what the so-called experts believe to be necessary.Needless to say , it is the nature of humans to resist .
Elementary school principals know this ; despots , petty despots , and would-be despots are ignorant of human nature .
No matter how many hundreds of millions of us they kill , we will still reseist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note the last line in the article: "Ultimately, it's not clear that policy decisions have the capacity to change the future course of civilization.
"We have politicians in power at the state, national and international levels who all think they can make a difference.
They believe they possess the coercive powers to change human nature and to force their citizens/subjects to do what the so-called experts believe to be necessary.Needless to say, it is the nature of humans to resist.
Elementary school principals know this; despots, petty despots, and would-be despots are ignorant of human nature.
No matter how many hundreds of millions of us they kill, we will still reseist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264602</id>
	<title>Re:Yes. Energy use is best economic measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259496960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are also huge inefficiencies in what we consume today which could be eliminated to reduce how much energy we use. Business has tended more and more towards the razor blade model of products where some key part has to be replaced on a regular basis.  Products have way too much packaging.  Cars should last longer than 10 years, be repairable by any garage, and much smaller.  Operating systems should not get slower and fill your hard disk with junk over time.  Recycling should be made simpler.  Quality should be promoted as a factor in purchases rather than just price.  Companies that use planned obsolescence should be driven out of business.  Medical devices should be built to standards rather than custom designed for customer lock-in.  Programming languages should not be perverted to create developer lock-in (compare the portability of iPhone OSX, Android, and Maemo.)  Shampoos and soaps should not have gelling agents that make you use more and should be sold in their natural concentrations rather than diluted.  Much of our productivity and energy use is totally wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are also huge inefficiencies in what we consume today which could be eliminated to reduce how much energy we use .
Business has tended more and more towards the razor blade model of products where some key part has to be replaced on a regular basis .
Products have way too much packaging .
Cars should last longer than 10 years , be repairable by any garage , and much smaller .
Operating systems should not get slower and fill your hard disk with junk over time .
Recycling should be made simpler .
Quality should be promoted as a factor in purchases rather than just price .
Companies that use planned obsolescence should be driven out of business .
Medical devices should be built to standards rather than custom designed for customer lock-in .
Programming languages should not be perverted to create developer lock-in ( compare the portability of iPhone OSX , Android , and Maemo .
) Shampoos and soaps should not have gelling agents that make you use more and should be sold in their natural concentrations rather than diluted .
Much of our productivity and energy use is totally wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are also huge inefficiencies in what we consume today which could be eliminated to reduce how much energy we use.
Business has tended more and more towards the razor blade model of products where some key part has to be replaced on a regular basis.
Products have way too much packaging.
Cars should last longer than 10 years, be repairable by any garage, and much smaller.
Operating systems should not get slower and fill your hard disk with junk over time.
Recycling should be made simpler.
Quality should be promoted as a factor in purchases rather than just price.
Companies that use planned obsolescence should be driven out of business.
Medical devices should be built to standards rather than custom designed for customer lock-in.
Programming languages should not be perverted to create developer lock-in (compare the portability of iPhone OSX, Android, and Maemo.
)  Shampoos and soaps should not have gelling agents that make you use more and should be sold in their natural concentrations rather than diluted.
Much of our productivity and energy use is totally wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257428</id>
	<title>Re:Massive fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And your little foot-stomping rant has *what* to do with the article again?</p><p>Kevin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And your little foot-stomping rant has * what * to do with the article again ? Kevin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And your little foot-stomping rant has *what* to do with the article again?Kevin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258578</id>
	<title>Re:Adjusting for Inflation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259423820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's simply a math problem. It's been done for the US dollar back to around 1780. Other currencies, other times are just more math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's simply a math problem .
It 's been done for the US dollar back to around 1780 .
Other currencies , other times are just more math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's simply a math problem.
It's been done for the US dollar back to around 1780.
Other currencies, other times are just more math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257994</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Daishiman</author>
	<datestamp>1259417160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I would say it's because economics is nowhere close to being a hard science, and the work of the most important economists in this decade has been shown to be completely fraudulent in their incapacity to foresee the financial crises that we face today.</p><p>Late 1990s: everyone was all rah-rah about the economic upturn of the dot-coms. A few people in the industry do note that it won't last forever since nothing of value was actually being created and companies were being made with no business plan. The economist's response? ignore the criticsa dn talk about how the Dow will go on better than ever.</p><p>Early 2000s: housing prices begin to rise beyond what is easily within the reach of the average consumer. A few people note that a housing market can't be sustained on purchases considered "investements" with no intention of being used a living spaces. Mainstream economists disregard this little fact until we have a housing bubble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I would say it 's because economics is nowhere close to being a hard science , and the work of the most important economists in this decade has been shown to be completely fraudulent in their incapacity to foresee the financial crises that we face today.Late 1990s : everyone was all rah-rah about the economic upturn of the dot-coms .
A few people in the industry do note that it wo n't last forever since nothing of value was actually being created and companies were being made with no business plan .
The economist 's response ?
ignore the criticsa dn talk about how the Dow will go on better than ever.Early 2000s : housing prices begin to rise beyond what is easily within the reach of the average consumer .
A few people note that a housing market ca n't be sustained on purchases considered " investements " with no intention of being used a living spaces .
Mainstream economists disregard this little fact until we have a housing bubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I would say it's because economics is nowhere close to being a hard science, and the work of the most important economists in this decade has been shown to be completely fraudulent in their incapacity to foresee the financial crises that we face today.Late 1990s: everyone was all rah-rah about the economic upturn of the dot-coms.
A few people in the industry do note that it won't last forever since nothing of value was actually being created and companies were being made with no business plan.
The economist's response?
ignore the criticsa dn talk about how the Dow will go on better than ever.Early 2000s: housing prices begin to rise beyond what is easily within the reach of the average consumer.
A few people note that a housing market can't be sustained on purchases considered "investements" with no intention of being used a living spaces.
Mainstream economists disregard this little fact until we have a housing bubble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262056</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>ItsJustAPseudonym</author>
	<datestamp>1259516520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article: "Throughout history, a simple physical 'constant' -- an unchanging mathematical value -- links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation."<br>
<br>
Accumulated economic productivity?  Like, for the whole population?  In that case, a world with a lesser population would require less economic productivity.  Thus, there would not necessarily be an economic collapse because of a lesser population.<br>
<br>
In any case, I definitely agree with you on the concept of a redefinition of the economy.  One thing at least that would change, if there were a stable world population: Home-building would decrease radically from our current levels.  On the other hand, REPAIR services would increase radically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Throughout history , a simple physical 'constant ' -- an unchanging mathematical value -- links global energy use to the world 's accumulated economic productivity , adjusted for inflation .
" Accumulated economic productivity ?
Like , for the whole population ?
In that case , a world with a lesser population would require less economic productivity .
Thus , there would not necessarily be an economic collapse because of a lesser population .
In any case , I definitely agree with you on the concept of a redefinition of the economy .
One thing at least that would change , if there were a stable world population : Home-building would decrease radically from our current levels .
On the other hand , REPAIR services would increase radically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "Throughout history, a simple physical 'constant' -- an unchanging mathematical value -- links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation.
"

Accumulated economic productivity?
Like, for the whole population?
In that case, a world with a lesser population would require less economic productivity.
Thus, there would not necessarily be an economic collapse because of a lesser population.
In any case, I definitely agree with you on the concept of a redefinition of the economy.
One thing at least that would change, if there were a stable world population: Home-building would decrease radically from our current levels.
On the other hand, REPAIR services would increase radically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259012</id>
	<title>How does this differ from the history of life?</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1259428560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well. So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.</i></p><p><i>Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%: we return to the original problem.</i></p><p>And how is this different from the situation that has faced all life since life began?</p><p>Humanity has had centuries of "vacation" from the "living condition".  And still has it, because food production increases are still outpacing population growth.</p><p><i>Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.</i></p><p>Given that technology is on a faster exponential than population growth, that's a reasonable expectation.  Will it go on "forever"?  Seems unlikely - unless something changes in cosmology.</p><p>But at this point we're approaching the "event horizon" of "the singulaity" - which I define as "The time when technology is advancing so fast that, by the time ANY science fiction writer has fleshed his new-and-plausible technological idea out in to a manuscript, it has already been implemented, productized, and deployed."</p><p>At that time even plausible speculation on the future becomes something beyond merely human capacity.  (Fortunately, what's driving the accelleartion is non-human computation capability augmenting human tasks.  Given that plausible speculation about the future is such a task it may yet continue.  B-) )</p><p><i>Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.</i></p><p>The same claim can (and repeatedly has) been made about believing in the products of the scientific method.  Again, how is yours different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the food supply .
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well .
So , scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20 \ % .
The population , enjoying this additional food , now grows by an additonal 20 \ % : we return to the original problem.And how is this different from the situation that has faced all life since life began ? Humanity has had centuries of " vacation " from the " living condition " .
And still has it , because food production increases are still outpacing population growth.Inevitably , some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.Given that technology is on a faster exponential than population growth , that 's a reasonable expectation .
Will it go on " forever " ?
Seems unlikely - unless something changes in cosmology.But at this point we 're approaching the " event horizon " of " the singulaity " - which I define as " The time when technology is advancing so fast that , by the time ANY science fiction writer has fleshed his new-and-plausible technological idea out in to a manuscript , it has already been implemented , productized , and deployed .
" At that time even plausible speculation on the future becomes something beyond merely human capacity .
( Fortunately , what 's driving the accelleartion is non-human computation capability augmenting human tasks .
Given that plausible speculation about the future is such a task it may yet continue .
B- ) ) Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered ( and will be the salvation ) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.The same claim can ( and repeatedly has ) been made about believing in the products of the scientific method .
Again , how is yours different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the food supply.
The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well.
So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production.Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20\%.
The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20\%: we return to the original problem.And how is this different from the situation that has faced all life since life began?Humanity has had centuries of "vacation" from the "living condition".
And still has it, because food production increases are still outpacing population growth.Inevitably, some Slashdotter will claim that yet-to-be discovered technology will always provide a fix for the problem.Given that technology is on a faster exponential than population growth, that's a reasonable expectation.
Will it go on "forever"?
Seems unlikely - unless something changes in cosmology.But at this point we're approaching the "event horizon" of "the singulaity" - which I define as "The time when technology is advancing so fast that, by the time ANY science fiction writer has fleshed his new-and-plausible technological idea out in to a manuscript, it has already been implemented, productized, and deployed.
"At that time even plausible speculation on the future becomes something beyond merely human capacity.
(Fortunately, what's driving the accelleartion is non-human computation capability augmenting human tasks.
Given that plausible speculation about the future is such a task it may yet continue.
B-) )Believing that yet-to-be discovered technology will be discovered (and will be the salvation) is exactly equivalent to believing the numerous claims of religion.The same claim can (and repeatedly has) been made about believing in the products of the scientific method.
Again, how is yours different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259902</id>
	<title>Re:Another implication...</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1259488800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nukes may not be forever, but neither is the sun, nuke are definitely for long enough though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nukes may not be forever , but neither is the sun , nuke are definitely for long enough though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nukes may not be forever, but neither is the sun, nuke are definitely for long enough though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257864</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1259415960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen, I don't want to belittle economics as a science, but it seems to be one that, outside of the hard mathematical problems, sorely lacks predictive power. I have nothing but respect for the long economics studies, for the introduction of game theory as a field unto itself thanks in no small part to some very clever economists. But I have a problem with the fact that it's anybody's guess whether or not anything really works.</p><p>Stimulus? Bailouts? *shrug* Trickle down effect? I mean, as a liberal and a libertarian, I have to pick and choose my battles on which economic policies I favor, but typically it's based on the liberal or libertarian philosophies that I've personally debated with myself about. Very rarely do I think to myself, "Oh, there was a study that showed 'X' doesn't work as an economic policy."</p><p>And part of that, yes, is that economics is something inherently untestable, especially macroeconomics. You can test game theory on a college campus all you want, but the real world seems to be a crapshoot.</p><p>Now here comes a physicist who proposes a testable model that makes predictions about human energy use and economic output that should be retroactive. So rather than seriously evaluate it, you come onto Slashdot to dismiss it. Rather than let it be reviewed, studied, and counter-examples found, you dismiss it outright.</p><p>Do you see why Slashdotters don't think of economics as "real science" now? Because, as far as a lot of people are concerned, right or wrong, you're no better than creationists. A lot of what economists say comes out like "it's magic."</p><p>At least I can watch a video of Feynman explain something simple or complex and reason my way through it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen , I do n't want to belittle economics as a science , but it seems to be one that , outside of the hard mathematical problems , sorely lacks predictive power .
I have nothing but respect for the long economics studies , for the introduction of game theory as a field unto itself thanks in no small part to some very clever economists .
But I have a problem with the fact that it 's anybody 's guess whether or not anything really works.Stimulus ?
Bailouts ? * shrug * Trickle down effect ?
I mean , as a liberal and a libertarian , I have to pick and choose my battles on which economic policies I favor , but typically it 's based on the liberal or libertarian philosophies that I 've personally debated with myself about .
Very rarely do I think to myself , " Oh , there was a study that showed 'X ' does n't work as an economic policy .
" And part of that , yes , is that economics is something inherently untestable , especially macroeconomics .
You can test game theory on a college campus all you want , but the real world seems to be a crapshoot.Now here comes a physicist who proposes a testable model that makes predictions about human energy use and economic output that should be retroactive .
So rather than seriously evaluate it , you come onto Slashdot to dismiss it .
Rather than let it be reviewed , studied , and counter-examples found , you dismiss it outright.Do you see why Slashdotters do n't think of economics as " real science " now ?
Because , as far as a lot of people are concerned , right or wrong , you 're no better than creationists .
A lot of what economists say comes out like " it 's magic .
" At least I can watch a video of Feynman explain something simple or complex and reason my way through it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen, I don't want to belittle economics as a science, but it seems to be one that, outside of the hard mathematical problems, sorely lacks predictive power.
I have nothing but respect for the long economics studies, for the introduction of game theory as a field unto itself thanks in no small part to some very clever economists.
But I have a problem with the fact that it's anybody's guess whether or not anything really works.Stimulus?
Bailouts? *shrug* Trickle down effect?
I mean, as a liberal and a libertarian, I have to pick and choose my battles on which economic policies I favor, but typically it's based on the liberal or libertarian philosophies that I've personally debated with myself about.
Very rarely do I think to myself, "Oh, there was a study that showed 'X' doesn't work as an economic policy.
"And part of that, yes, is that economics is something inherently untestable, especially macroeconomics.
You can test game theory on a college campus all you want, but the real world seems to be a crapshoot.Now here comes a physicist who proposes a testable model that makes predictions about human energy use and economic output that should be retroactive.
So rather than seriously evaluate it, you come onto Slashdot to dismiss it.
Rather than let it be reviewed, studied, and counter-examples found, you dismiss it outright.Do you see why Slashdotters don't think of economics as "real science" now?
Because, as far as a lot of people are concerned, right or wrong, you're no better than creationists.
A lot of what economists say comes out like "it's magic.
"At least I can watch a video of Feynman explain something simple or complex and reason my way through it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263244</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>jonathan.b.adams</author>
	<datestamp>1259526840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days "conservation" is more likely to be an expensive and inefficient political bone tossed both to those with treehugger leanings to secure their votes and the researchers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and all-too-necessary finger-waggers to eat up Keynes' "idle money" and promote more opportunities for taxation through maintained velocity and what they still, somehow, call "economic growth." </p><p>It seems to be a truism among these people that any and all energy consumption is inefficient to the point that it demands improvement. Unfortunately, resolving that inefficiency is frequently, if not usually, not economically viable. Thus, Uncle Sugar and his Tabernacle of the Holy Printing Press must step in and stimulate it. But dear Uncle has his own goals, and one of those is economic growth. </p><p>In other words, the assumption that humans consume the energy they have saved \_may\_ only be correct insofar as we live in a centrally influenced, if not managed, economy that relies upon both appeasement of the people who demand improvements that are not economically warranted as well as the perception of economic growth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days " conservation " is more likely to be an expensive and inefficient political bone tossed both to those with treehugger leanings to secure their votes and the researchers , suppliers , manufacturers , distributors , and all-too-necessary finger-waggers to eat up Keynes ' " idle money " and promote more opportunities for taxation through maintained velocity and what they still , somehow , call " economic growth .
" It seems to be a truism among these people that any and all energy consumption is inefficient to the point that it demands improvement .
Unfortunately , resolving that inefficiency is frequently , if not usually , not economically viable .
Thus , Uncle Sugar and his Tabernacle of the Holy Printing Press must step in and stimulate it .
But dear Uncle has his own goals , and one of those is economic growth .
In other words , the assumption that humans consume the energy they have saved \ _may \ _ only be correct insofar as we live in a centrally influenced , if not managed , economy that relies upon both appeasement of the people who demand improvements that are not economically warranted as well as the perception of economic growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days "conservation" is more likely to be an expensive and inefficient political bone tossed both to those with treehugger leanings to secure their votes and the researchers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and all-too-necessary finger-waggers to eat up Keynes' "idle money" and promote more opportunities for taxation through maintained velocity and what they still, somehow, call "economic growth.
" It seems to be a truism among these people that any and all energy consumption is inefficient to the point that it demands improvement.
Unfortunately, resolving that inefficiency is frequently, if not usually, not economically viable.
Thus, Uncle Sugar and his Tabernacle of the Holy Printing Press must step in and stimulate it.
But dear Uncle has his own goals, and one of those is economic growth.
In other words, the assumption that humans consume the energy they have saved \_may\_ only be correct insofar as we live in a centrally influenced, if not managed, economy that relies upon both appeasement of the people who demand improvements that are not economically warranted as well as the perception of economic growth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264302</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But with all that free time on our hands, what are we meant to do?  I think we'll see a population explosion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But with all that free time on our hands , what are we meant to do ?
I think we 'll see a population explosion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But with all that free time on our hands, what are we meant to do?
I think we'll see a population explosion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30268094</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>w1z7ard</author>
	<datestamp>1259575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just the availability of cheap food that leads to higher obesity among the poor. The quality of cheap food (eg. fast food, bread, rice, and questionable canned food) is likely the true cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just the availability of cheap food that leads to higher obesity among the poor .
The quality of cheap food ( eg .
fast food , bread , rice , and questionable canned food ) is likely the true cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just the availability of cheap food that leads to higher obesity among the poor.
The quality of cheap food (eg.
fast food, bread, rice, and questionable canned food) is likely the true cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257340</id>
	<title>Missing point</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259410560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So more expending means more more energy and more global warming? That didnt took into account the huge expendings that means try to reduce global warming. Is an ok analogy if we dont care about it (or say that is a hoax, a trap or a government/scientist evil plot), and dont take any measure. But once you start taking measures, expendings go up, and energy output (should) go down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So more expending means more more energy and more global warming ?
That didnt took into account the huge expendings that means try to reduce global warming .
Is an ok analogy if we dont care about it ( or say that is a hoax , a trap or a government/scientist evil plot ) , and dont take any measure .
But once you start taking measures , expendings go up , and energy output ( should ) go down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So more expending means more more energy and more global warming?
That didnt took into account the huge expendings that means try to reduce global warming.
Is an ok analogy if we dont care about it (or say that is a hoax, a trap or a government/scientist evil plot), and dont take any measure.
But once you start taking measures, expendings go up, and energy output (should) go down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257648</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259413560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Physical economics" (seeing economics through the eyes of physics) is nothing new. However:</p><p>Where it falls flat is in assuming that the model can be self contained, which it is not. Statisticians will go on at length at the nature of the residual terms in modelling. <i>The economy is modlled using statistics.</i></p><p>That said, I like maths. Microeconomics is right up his street, and things like game theory/equilibrium theory/linear programming, where the distinction between maths and econ. is very weak, do open themselves to purely abstract economic ideas.</p><p>(If only Slashdotters would see that not all economists are rah-rah "inflation/budget/trade" talking careerists economics would get a lot less crap slung at them... my economics department was almost an all Linux house who were LaTeX adherents and used Vim or Emacs. Some of the guys indeed got first degrees in physics or stats or maths or whatever.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Physical economics " ( seeing economics through the eyes of physics ) is nothing new .
However : Where it falls flat is in assuming that the model can be self contained , which it is not .
Statisticians will go on at length at the nature of the residual terms in modelling .
The economy is modlled using statistics.That said , I like maths .
Microeconomics is right up his street , and things like game theory/equilibrium theory/linear programming , where the distinction between maths and econ .
is very weak , do open themselves to purely abstract economic ideas .
( If only Slashdotters would see that not all economists are rah-rah " inflation/budget/trade " talking careerists economics would get a lot less crap slung at them... my economics department was almost an all Linux house who were LaTeX adherents and used Vim or Emacs .
Some of the guys indeed got first degrees in physics or stats or maths or whatever .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Physical economics" (seeing economics through the eyes of physics) is nothing new.
However:Where it falls flat is in assuming that the model can be self contained, which it is not.
Statisticians will go on at length at the nature of the residual terms in modelling.
The economy is modlled using statistics.That said, I like maths.
Microeconomics is right up his street, and things like game theory/equilibrium theory/linear programming, where the distinction between maths and econ.
is very weak, do open themselves to purely abstract economic ideas.
(If only Slashdotters would see that not all economists are rah-rah "inflation/budget/trade" talking careerists economics would get a lot less crap slung at them... my economics department was almost an all Linux house who were LaTeX adherents and used Vim or Emacs.
Some of the guys indeed got first degrees in physics or stats or maths or whatever.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261446</id>
	<title>This is the thing</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1259510700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our society is predicated on the idea that the economy can grow at some rate... forever. The trouble is that there are only two ways to grow the economy. You can either 1) get more workers or 2) increase productivity of your existing workforce. And the trouble with this is that there's only so much room for new people, and productivity can't be increased without limits either. So one way or another, either due to lack of labor or insufficient resource inputs... the economy is going to have to stop growing at some point. And I'm not sure anyone knows how that will affect society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our society is predicated on the idea that the economy can grow at some rate... forever. The trouble is that there are only two ways to grow the economy .
You can either 1 ) get more workers or 2 ) increase productivity of your existing workforce .
And the trouble with this is that there 's only so much room for new people , and productivity ca n't be increased without limits either .
So one way or another , either due to lack of labor or insufficient resource inputs... the economy is going to have to stop growing at some point .
And I 'm not sure anyone knows how that will affect society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our society is predicated on the idea that the economy can grow at some rate... forever. The trouble is that there are only two ways to grow the economy.
You can either 1) get more workers or 2) increase productivity of your existing workforce.
And the trouble with this is that there's only so much room for new people, and productivity can't be increased without limits either.
So one way or another, either due to lack of labor or insufficient resource inputs... the economy is going to have to stop growing at some point.
And I'm not sure anyone knows how that will affect society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257378</id>
	<title>Re:Its a population crunch</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1259410980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.</p></div><p>I think I saw an article fairly recently that suggested that as the standard of living increases past some point, this reverses itself and fertility rates start to go back up.</p></div><p>Yes, that was in the news, but when you actually look at the data, the evidence for an upturn in fertility at very high affluence levels is not statistically significant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.I think I saw an article fairly recently that suggested that as the standard of living increases past some point , this reverses itself and fertility rates start to go back up.Yes , that was in the news , but when you actually look at the data , the evidence for an upturn in fertility at very high affluence levels is not statistically significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in the last 30 years there has been a recognition that high standards of living reduce fertility.I think I saw an article fairly recently that suggested that as the standard of living increases past some point, this reverses itself and fertility rates start to go back up.Yes, that was in the news, but when you actually look at the data, the evidence for an upturn in fertility at very high affluence levels is not statistically significant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272</id>
	<title>We already knew that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259409540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.</p><p>Sorry, but that's the truth.</p><p>And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones. That is all, carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate is headed for a crash , and there 's nothing that anybody can do about it.Sorry , but that 's the truth.And one more thing : humans of the future will curse your bones .
That is all , carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate is headed for a crash, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.Sorry, but that's the truth.And one more thing: humans of the future will curse your bones.
That is all, carry on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260430</id>
	<title>That's not a physical model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a physical model. Where are the CAUSATION mechanisms? Without that, it's just fitting curves and therefore quite unlike GCMs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a physical model .
Where are the CAUSATION mechanisms ?
Without that , it 's just fitting curves and therefore quite unlike GCMs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a physical model.
Where are the CAUSATION mechanisms?
Without that, it's just fitting curves and therefore quite unlike GCMs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257658</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259413680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one reason why many scientists loathe economists is their "who does not belong to our circle has no right to say anything about our work" attitude, which, unfortunately, even seems to be culturally ingrained with them. Call it arrogance, if you want. I call it bullying.</p><p>If such behaviour were justifiable, then I'd love to open a chair for Alchemy. What? In conflict with thermodynamics? In conflict with chemistry? But what do the Physicists and Chemists know? They are, after all, not Alchemists.</p><p>Bah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one reason why many scientists loathe economists is their " who does not belong to our circle has no right to say anything about our work " attitude , which , unfortunately , even seems to be culturally ingrained with them .
Call it arrogance , if you want .
I call it bullying.If such behaviour were justifiable , then I 'd love to open a chair for Alchemy .
What ? In conflict with thermodynamics ?
In conflict with chemistry ?
But what do the Physicists and Chemists know ?
They are , after all , not Alchemists.Bah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one reason why many scientists loathe economists is their "who does not belong to our circle has no right to say anything about our work" attitude, which, unfortunately, even seems to be culturally ingrained with them.
Call it arrogance, if you want.
I call it bullying.If such behaviour were justifiable, then I'd love to open a chair for Alchemy.
What? In conflict with thermodynamics?
In conflict with chemistry?
But what do the Physicists and Chemists know?
They are, after all, not Alchemists.Bah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257180</id>
	<title>Somewhat like safer cars</title>
	<author>mangastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1259408760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use</p></div></blockquote><p>This fits with an observation by insurance companies (or at least mine, USAA) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin.  We still end up with about as many crashes (but injuries are less).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>conserving energy does n't reduce energy use , but spurs economic growth and more energy useThis fits with an observation by insurance companies ( or at least mine , USAA ) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin .
We still end up with about as many crashes ( but injuries are less ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy useThis fits with an observation by insurance companies (or at least mine, USAA) that building safer cars results in people continuing to drive them to their preferred safety margin.
We still end up with about as many crashes (but injuries are less).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259294</id>
	<title>Re:Society Expands Up to Constraints of the System</title>
	<author>JimToo</author>
	<datestamp>1259432520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God will fix it. Up until that stage I thought (and still think) you have a good point. Funny thing is that efficiency improvements causing increased consumption is nothing new, so I am not sure why this is such a surprising conclusion. As for god, I think those of us who are here and can actually effect the physical world have a better shot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God will fix it .
Up until that stage I thought ( and still think ) you have a good point .
Funny thing is that efficiency improvements causing increased consumption is nothing new , so I am not sure why this is such a surprising conclusion .
As for god , I think those of us who are here and can actually effect the physical world have a better shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God will fix it.
Up until that stage I thought (and still think) you have a good point.
Funny thing is that efficiency improvements causing increased consumption is nothing new, so I am not sure why this is such a surprising conclusion.
As for god, I think those of us who are here and can actually effect the physical world have a better shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259958</id>
	<title>Re:We already knew that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my god! the sky is falling!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god !
the sky is falling !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god!
the sky is falling!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259602</id>
	<title>Re:Somewhat like safer cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259524800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The mileage-adjusted accident death rate of automobiles </p></div><p>Why would you mileage adjust?  Driving more miles (choosing to drive in less favorable conditions -- bad weather, darkness, sleepiness)  is one of those parameters adjusted by drivers in their attempt to drive the safety level back down to the same level.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mileage-adjusted accident death rate of automobiles Why would you mileage adjust ?
Driving more miles ( choosing to drive in less favorable conditions -- bad weather , darkness , sleepiness ) is one of those parameters adjusted by drivers in their attempt to drive the safety level back down to the same level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mileage-adjusted accident death rate of automobiles Why would you mileage adjust?
Driving more miles (choosing to drive in less favorable conditions -- bad weather, darkness, sleepiness)  is one of those parameters adjusted by drivers in their attempt to drive the safety level back down to the same level.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257482</id>
	<title>Re:Gee wizz..</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1259412000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, if an actual scientist had just come along and made the entire premise of my profession irrelevant, I'd be pretty hacked off too.  You're taking it pretty well, actually, and yes, I will have fries with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if an actual scientist had just come along and made the entire premise of my profession irrelevant , I 'd be pretty hacked off too .
You 're taking it pretty well , actually , and yes , I will have fries with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if an actual scientist had just come along and made the entire premise of my profession irrelevant, I'd be pretty hacked off too.
You're taking it pretty well, actually, and yes, I will have fries with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30268094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30271954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30281208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30268494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_28_1910250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30281208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30271954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30266216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30268094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30268494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258196
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265770
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260058
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30264602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30258474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30265256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30263550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30262760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30267482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_28_1910250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30261558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30259902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30260072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_28_1910250.30257550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
