@dannym3141,
tl;dr is always the risk when trying to also provide actual backing to something complicated, I understand the temptation, but by skipping over what I've said you've not understood me.

On the IPCC scenario, I used the RCP4.5 scenario, the one that is most widely quoted by them as their best estimate. It also the estimate they use when comparing model projections to observations, and the observations track well within it's error margins, albeit on the lower end of the RCP4.5 spectrum.
The IPCC says on temperatures by scenario in Chapter 12 of AR5:
global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5). Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5
My sighting of 1.5C for 'best' from IPCC is derived from classing the 4.5 scenario as their best guess and I disagree with you that I'm materially misrepresenting or understanding them on it.

You also said:
... let us not pretend that the IPCC are above the skepticism...
Then later
I don't apologise for not reading the entire thread
I understand the thread is long, if you go back though you'll find I've made numerous references to additional peer-review journal articles backing and corroborating claims from the IPCC to make sure I'm not just cherry picking what might have been a politicized summary or assessment. So forgive, me but when you conclude with :
when you've cherry picked one quarter of a conclusion from one source
You are simply put, flat wrong.

Would you mind weighing in with your own position rather than a simply sitting on the fence calling us both too far on either side? I've been here refuting the notion that the scientific evidence tells us we face catastrophe prior to 2100, and even from some posters claims, catastrophe by 2050. I'm merely taking the stance that the science's best guess as approximated in IPCC RCP4.5, we aren't facing catastrophic collapse worthy of an action movie by 2100. I've said multiple times up thread we are facing problems, it's the severity I claimed by others that I am calling out for not being supported by evidence.

The one thing that I don't like about the One Ring explanation:

It turns you invisible, unless you are the one person for whom it was actually designed (Sauron).

To me, it seems like the rings of power and especially the one ring should grant a more consistent actual power than that. The three elven rings made by Celebrimbor outside the influence of the one are much better examples.

Narya is the "ring of fire", and in the timeline of LoTR it is held by Gandalf. Which makes sense, because he does a lot of fire-related stuff with his magic. Nenya is the "ring of water" held by Galadriel, and Vilya the "ring of air" held by Elrond. These are used less consistently in the books (or movies), but one movie example is the flood that helped save Frodo and get him to Rivendell. In the movie, the flood is shown as being made of water with horse shapes surging through it, which suggest the magical influence of both Nenya and Vilya (water and air) working together. Anyway, those 3 rings have a consistent and fairly well established list of powers associated with their "elemental" attachments, fire, water, and air.

But the one ring lacks that consistency. It is supposed to help Sauron with his urge to dominate, but it doesn't really explain how that works. It doesn't make him invisible; only others who wear it. Also, it helps him to control or at least influence the wearers of the other rings. That is probably the best, most established power of the one ring, but it is also a bit shaky because wearers other than Sauron don't get those abilities. It seems to make other wearers just more susceptible to corruption, greed, and lust for power.

To me, I think it would be more interesting if the one ring actually granted a more specific power, unique to the psychological state of the wearer. The consistently presented thing about the one ring is that it corrupts, and nothing corrupts more than power. So basically, I think that the one ring should be analyzing whoever wears it, and granting them a unique power that is specifically designed to provide them with their greatest source of temptation to abuse that power.

The invisibility power actually makes a lot of sense for hobbits. As presented in the video here, they generally aren't very ambitious. BUT, hobbits are established as being stealthy beings by default, so granting them invisibility is a good source of temptation to turn that stealthiness into more nefarious purpose. So, I don't mind that the three main hobbit (or hobbit-like) wearers (Gollum/Smeagol, Bilbo, Frodo) all consistently get the invisibility power out of the ring.

Human wearers like Isildur would have less consistent powers granted by the rings, because they have more diverse motivations than hobbits. Just as an example, I'd think that Isildur would be motivated by martial prowess and leadership after watching his father killed by Sauron and the human/elven armies decimated at the end of the second age. So, the ring could perceive that about him and grant him physical power and charisma to lead -- both of which would be very easily turned to corruption. Invisibility just doesn't logically provide the same level of temptation for someone like Isildur.

Finally we come to Sauron himself. He is already an exception to the "ring grants invisibility" concept. But for him, the ring should (and arguably does) represent power and control. Sauron had to put on a false face and play the role of deceiver to get Celebrimbor and the other elves to accept him and create the other rings. Having to stoop to that rather than simply crushing them made him despise that sort of approach; after creating the one ring he cast that aside and became all about sheer power and domination, rather than trickery and deception. So, I see the ring's powers granted to Sauron himself as being sort of a conversion of those cunning/deceptive abilities into might, self preservation, and overwhelming mental dominance that allows him to control his orc armies.


Sorry for the length of that -- I have just always felt that the established powers of the one ring would be a bit more interesting if they led to corruption through real power granted to the wearers, rather than "it makes them invisible, but not Sauron, and in general corrupts them, just because".

I really must resist the temptation to watch trailers; basically I've just watched the short version of the film, so going to see the full movie seems rather pointless.

With Seinfeld having being so much about understanding social interaction well enough to lampoon it on a level that everyone can relate to, that seems very unlikely. From a layman's point of view it seems he's simply better at resisting the temptation to simply accept societal conventions and instead question them.

Traffic accidents would be virtually eliminated. The insurance industry probably has the most to lose when it comes to self driving cars, without a risk to insure against they can't make any money.

Regarding features like this, I've just got a new Golf with adaptive cruise control. This measures the distance between you and the car in front and maintains a pre set gap up to a set speed. They have a lane assist option too, like the video here but I don't have that and I'm really glad. The cruise control is teaching me to not react when a car slows down in front of me or pulls into the lane in front of me because the car is doing it for me.

I've noticed I'm letting my eyes wander for longer when looking at the radio, or flicking through options on the display. It's not intentional, taking my eyes off the road is dangerous. I know that. But I can steer between white lines using my peripheral vision so as long as nothing really bad happens the car will save me, so the temptation to look at something just a little longer creeps in subliminally. I don't want to be doing it, and I try not to. Thing is, if you're driving a long way it's pretty certain you're not going to have the self control to be 100% focussed on the road every millisecond.

I can't wait for driverless cars. I can't help but think that features like this being drip fed us are not really that helpful. It's just teaching us to pay less attention when actually the cars aren't that clever yet.

And to anyone who's going to say 'if you take your eyes off the road you're a bad driver, you should be able to keep concentrating, blah blah blah', you don't understand how the mind works. Your body adapts to the situation you're in. When I drive an auto I don't go for the clutch all the time, my body adjusts. It's not a conscious thing, it's automatic. it's the same with these driver aids, your body learns to take advantage of them.

sure. And, unless you consciously choose to perform or not perform the action, it isn't virtuous nor does it build a virtuous character.

The point of the video is about building virtuous citizens. Assuming everything you say is true - there might be good reasons to make things illegal. I am of that opinion myself.

The question is, will it build virtue? Or will it build obedience? I know and work with rich people who are extraordinarily virtuous, who are faced with temptation regularly, and it is their virtue that stops them from exercising their power unfairly. They could get away with all kinds of bullshit and not get caught. It isn't the rules that stops them, it is the morality.

I believe those with power will always be tempted to use it unfairly, and there are many kinds of power (which are not going away any time soon). The key is to build virtue in those who have the power, and that comes through choices that build that virtue.

ChaosE - This may be a matter of semantics and definitions. Depending on how you define the terms, I agree with your point.

And, in moral philosophy, if it is not your _choice_, it is not an ethical choice. Sorry if this is philosophical bullshit, but think about it: your "not killing someone" because you don't have the motivation or means is not a virtuous choice, it is simply not NOT an unethical one. It is the lack of a negative, not the presence of a positive. Virtue is about our choices, not our defaults.

Virtue is like building a muscle. The virtue is demonstrated/evidenced in building my strength (taking the time and focus to work out and be disciplined), not in the fact that I am strong. If I stop working out, my muscle will decay.

This is like virtue. In a strange way, once we have habituated a virtuous choice to routine/automatic mode, it is no longer a virtuous choice. It was virtuous to build the habit, but it is not virtuous when it is automatic.

Again, it is philosophical quibbling/definitions, but it points to a real distinction that matters in our moment by moment experience. As moral philosophers put it, morality is about what you do in the face of difficulty and temptation, not when things are automatic. It is easy to be nice to people when life is going great for you. It is hard to be nice to others when things are stressful and falling apart. THAT is where the rubber of morality meets the road of reality/daily life. That is where virtue shows up (or doesn't).

I am married and monogamy is part of my commitment. If no other woman would deign to sleep with me, my not sleeping with them is no indication of my virtue. It is only in the face of propositions to which I say "no" that I am exercising the virtue of fidelity.

In this sense, the more we are responsible for our own choices, the more those choice CAN be virtuous and BUILD our virtuous character. In contrast, when other people make our choices for us, we neither act virtuously nor build virtuous character.

I am sure this is true in your own life. If you donate time/money/effort to a charitable cause, it impacts you personally and powerfully. When the government takes taxes from your paycheck to pay for social programs, it is impersonal and has virtually zero impact on your character.

Or, that is one way of looking at it - which the video is all about.

First off, I want to say @artician, thanks for such an insightful comment, and enoch as well. I've not been participating in this community much for the past few years because of being busy with figuring myself out and trying to figure out how I feel about the mess we're in. Interesting conversations like this were what drew me to the sift initially.

Ultimately, I've come to a similar conclusion as you. While, as JustSaying noted, we do tend to be tribal creatures, the nature of the interaction between ingroups and outgroups is a learned one (for the most part) just like violence as an acceptable outlet is a learned habit (for the most part; children who are abused and grow up surrounded by violence are more likely to perpetuate abuse, etc). Because people naturally learn to be more tolerant and empathetic as they grow to understand each other and see how much their similarities outweigh their differences, this tribal nature shifts in more interconnected societies to things like political parties, sports fanships, cliques, etc. as the increased understanding/empathy between us decrease the potential for dehumanization of the "other" and violence.

We are living in more peaceful times than ever before in most ways. We are learning to be more accepting of religion, sexuality, and other differences more than ever before in terms of the global average. We have a system that promotes dehumanization and exploitation, selfishness and secrecy rather than compassion and empathy, sharing and oppenness, but such a system need not always be. There are no easy answers, and none of us can do anything alone to change things, but the majority of us are tired of the wars and killing, throwing away the lives of our youth instead of seeing what new art and science and wonder they could bring to our world. Those who lust after power enough to exercise it over their fellow men the way it has been are the few and very sick who need some help and removal from temptation, like a "recovering" alcoholic at a Christmas party.

Aw, they couldn't even spraypaint "earth" on the door of the cab? If it happened to be parked overnight in my vicinity, it would be hard to resist the temptation to solve that problem for them.

Watch The Last Temptation of Christ. Harvey Keitel as Judas!?!

I had low expectations (dunno why exactly), but I liked the movie quite a bit. I know very little about the comic book Superman, only stuff I've picked up from other sources -- so I don't know if or how extensive any backstory alterations were.

One thing that I've always thought about Superman is that it sure seems like it would be more likely that an "alien" in his situation would turn out pretty evil; absolute power corrupting absolutely and that sort of thing. I thought this movie did a better job than the (limited) other versions that I've seen of having him face down those temptations.

precisely the point I've been arguing for a while now: the hypocrisy of being giving up our personal and private data at the drop of a hat, yet being outraged when government uses it.

privacy as most people think of it is an outdated concept.

we give out that data freely all the time. we share what we're thinking and doing with Facebook and Twitter all the time.

Even when we're at home and not online, we still share private information freely with our friends and loved ones and that info gets shared with other friends and loved ones.

face it, the human being is not a private creature.

There is always going to be a risk of someone mis-using that collected information, but that doesn't mean the genie is put back in the bottle. All you can do is put safeguards in place and quite frankly, the human race needs to grow up a little so that the temptation to use it maliciously is easier to ignore.

they said the same shit about the nuclear bomb and we're still have yet to blow ourselves to kingdom come. In addition, when we master nuclear fusion it's going to leap us forward tremendously.

someone's eventually going to figure out a tremendously positive use for all of that sociological data that will benefit us greatly. That's typically the nature of all these military and space projects. The tech gets spun off into medical and other positive ventures.

Not an exact dupe, but a superset of Louis CK - Indians, Louis CK - White People and Indians (animated, so different video -- and your sift @Grimm now that I look at it), and Louis CK - If God Came Back.

I dunno the exact rules about calling a dupe, and I don't have privileges to do so anyway. I understand the temptation to just go for it -- each of those videos hit #1 here on the sift, so Louis CK is pretty much guaranteed votes. But, for the sake of limiting redundancy, I won't personally upvote this.

Dear me... Blah, Blah, Blah. If you have nothing to say, resist the temptation to BLAH.

I think maybe, much more simply. It might just be commentary on what would *really* happen if someone was given super powers.

Even the most fair and ethical person in the world would have a REALLY HARD time not using powers for personal gain or petty satisfaction. That's assuming you didn't just flat out commit blatant crimes such as this flying man.

Even if you chose to "do good" with your powers, when you no longer have the traditional limitations us normal mortals have, the temptation to do petty shit, even just harmless pranks with your powers would be insanely tough.

@coolhund brings up an excellent point. blue-collar crime, in the grand scheme of things, really isn't a huge problem anymore. white collar crime, however, is a larger concern for most people these days. Little bit harder to swoop in and save the day in that sort of situation. Not very exciting either.

And when it comes right down to it, crime fighting really isn't all that fun or easy.