Alex_Krycek

Are they unlikely? The most recent comet impact is thought to have happened only 13,000 years ago.

Not a logical analogy.

A worthy dialogue. In my view, the questions of aliens and A.I. are crucially important because they represent potential extinction level events for mankind. A.I. could escape the pandora's box quite easily and run amok. Similarly, a highly advanced extra-terrestrial species could show up to our doorstep one day with the intent to take over the planet and annihilate our species. Instead of ridiculing those who raise these questions we should be forming concrete action plans in case they really happen, similar to NASA's NEO action plan. As the nuclear age was a catalyst for a new level of international cooperation forged to deal with the specter of nuclear war; so too should A.I. and aliens spur international cooperation with respect to these existential threats.

Sheldrake's perspective, as I understand it, is that some prominent scientists do not operate objectively, but rather have a pre-existing worldview that colors their views on what is acceptable scientific discourse or inquiry - hence Sheldrake's objections to what he perceives as dogma, and those who attempt to shut down dialogue that they deem illegitimate.

I've been a reader of Sheldrake for some time; in my opinion he has some interesting ideas. The "banned" TED talk you referenced seems to be a summary of his book "Science Set Free", which challenges premises underpinning the current mechanistic, materialist worldview of the universe. He's come under attack from the likes of Richard Dawkins and others who have attempted to "debunk" him for challenging the aforementioned worldview. Sheldrake himself is an accomplished scientist, professor, and author. Biography here. The questions he poses are important; as Thomas Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is vulnerable to group think like every other discipline, and thus theories that run contrary to the mainstream shouldn't be suppressed or ridiculed.

Do you really think it was all Donald Trump? Hate to break it to you, but Trump's policies were largely a continuation of Obama's, and were continued without major changes by Biden. Yes, Trump pushed the envelope to appease his base, but his policies were by no means a drastic departure of what was previously, and has since been, US immigration policy with respect to civilian, non-criminal, non citizen detainees. Here's a list of all the ICE detention facilities currently in operation for non-citizens: https://www.ice.gov/detention-facilities?state=All&office=&name=&page=0 It's five pages long with over 100 facilities. So we should recognize the reality that such facilities are already in operation for millions of human beings in the US. What I'm proposing here in alignment with the Sun Break Ranch proposal really pales in comparison to what is already occurring. Such a facility would also be far more humane than leaving homeless addicts out on the street to live in squalid and dangerous conditions.

Correct. I have since amended that point as the discussion unfolded, the Sun Break Ranch proposal being more closely aligned with what I think would actually work.

See the Safe Rest Village project I linked to earlier: https://www.portland.gov/united/saferestvillages This is your self serving caricature / straw man, not mine. I never mentioned anything about barbed wire or guard towers.

The Tiny House solution works great for those who aren't severely mentally ill or addicted to drugs. For the homeless in these two categories, simply giving them a tiny house isn't going to work.

Funny you mention it, was reading about the JWT on MIT Technology review the other week. Article here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/21/1065178/james-webb-space-telescope-universe/

If you can't get yourself off the floor, go and stay in a state run homeless shelter, which is only different from downtown shelters in that there's more beds and space, and it's further out in the countryside, so you'd get a free ride out there. Gee, what an abhorrently dystopian concept.

I've clarified several times that my view is in alignment with the Sun Break ranch proposal I referenced earlier. Under that proposal the homeless would be given the option to go to a treatment facility like Sun Break, find other accommodation (such as staying with family or friends, or go to prison. However camping on the street, loitering, shooting up in public, would no longer be tolerated.

https://www.newsweek.com/norway-testing-free-heroin-program-improve-lives-drug-addicts-1069473 Give heroin to whoever needs it. What could go wrong? And the documentary I linked to in the OP recounts addicts who were given rooms to stay in, AND OFFERED DRUGS! By the government employees who work there, no less. The addict in the documentary said he had to leave, since he would have likely overdosed had he stayed in such a permissive environment. Provide homeless addicts with better treatment facilities that are more cost effective and efficient while actually solving the homeless problem that afflicts many urban areas. What exactly is specious about that? I doubt you can tell me. Perhaps, but it would be an absurd analogy. Comparing Jewish prisoners under the Nazi regime to homeless addicts who choose to enroll in a voluntary, government funded treatment facility in a remote area is an insult to the survivors of the Holocaust.

This isn't a popularity contest. An argument lives or dies on its merits, and so far I have outlined clearly the merits of each premise of my argument. Historical comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, which are grandiose non-sequiturs in the context of what we're talking about. Equating remote treatment facilities for the homeless with Nazi death camps is the epitome of hubris. I'd align myself more as a Sanders Democrat actually.

In what way am I not taking the thread seriously? There are actual proponents of Solution 1, if that's what you're referring to.

Right, so because I'm employed, my view towards homeless people must necessarily be cartoonish. Great logic.

In what way has my treatment of the subject been cartoonish or a caricature? You seem to be implying this because you don't have a strong counter argument.

Really? Explain please. Why should tax dollars, pounds, euros (insert your currency here) be spent primarily on things that do not benefit those that contributed?

Exactly. Social policies should take into consideration those who work and earn a living, as well as the disadvantaged. Policies should primarily favor those who work. To them it's other people's tax money, so they don't mind.

This is what it's about: solutions, and thus far I haven't seen anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is and choose one. The options can be boiled down to three approaches: Solution 1. Lenient: offer the addicts drugs, safe spaces to shoot up, no enforcement against homeless encampments, free food and social services wherever the homeless addicts choose to set up shop. Whatever the homeless addicts want, they get, regardless of the consequences to the nearby residents. There are no conditions or expectations for when they will get clean. This solution is fine for those who don't live or work near the problem since it doesn't affect their day to day life directly (as seems to be the case with most people participating in this thread). This solution isn't practical in my view due to the costs and the social reinforcement that society condones addiction as acceptable. Solution 2: Strict: Criminalize homeless addicts but offer them no alternatives. Send them directly to jail for loitering or camping, and give them the maximum time in prison for possession of illegal drugs. This solution isn't practical either as it offers no viable alternatives for treatment / recovery. Solution 3: Balanced: Criminalize loitering and camping but offer an alternative facility which offers a premium level of social services such as medical care, addiction support, and counseling (camp, ranch, etc). This would be the most cost effective (more so than prison and the lenient approach), is humane, and is entirely practical. If homeless addicts don't choose the support facility they can go to prison. So tell me again what's so wrong with Solution 3? Is it simply the word "camp" that triggers an emotional reaction and illogical conflation with Dachau or Bergen-Belsen? The camp isn't a prison. It's an alternative to them being on the street, which would be classified as illegal. If they find a friend who can house them that would work, or they can relocate to another state and find work, whatever. But the bottom line is the camp wouldn't be a facility to incarcerate homeless addicts. Not in many places, such as Vancouver. See the documentary from the OP. Vancouver is now very much "hands off" with violent homeless offenders. The camp would be a support facility where homeless addicts can choose to reside, not a prison. If you had actual direct experience with this issue, I don't think you'd refer to it as a caricature. Idea: let's not wait 20 years for long term government studies to come out before taking action. Glad to see you think the Sun Break proposal is meritorious. I agree that it's a sound plan. I have no problem accepting that the Sun Break solution is better in many ways than mine. We're brainstorming here - it's a process of iterative design.

Here we need to clarify again two points, which I believe others missed also. 1.) Just how entrenched and dangerous a certain element of the homeless population has become in many cities. These are mainly opioid / meth addicts. I'm not referring to one or two guys who got laid off when their factory was relocated to Mexico, and now they drink Jack Daniel out of a brown paper bag and sleep at the bus stop. This is a new breed of homeless we're seeing today. Young, unremorseful about their addiction, increasingly entitled (thanks to local government who coddle them and tell them it's normal to be an addict) and violent towards the citizens who live in the surrounding area. See the original documentary link I posted about Vancouver for an accurate frame of reference - this is the homeless profile that I'm talking about. 2.) About bothering you. This is exactly the problem in many cities. The homeless actively harass, rob, assault, in some cases even murder the local citizens and not a darn thing is done about it. The enforcement has been reduced to such an extent that it's given free reign to these people. I posted one link about Portland, but there are many others if you search for them. Local citizens who are constantly under threat by homeless addicts and the city does little to nothing to help them.

Come on, don't feign ignorance. We both know you're smarter than that. The options are very simple: go to Sun Break (where all the support facilities are provided, and yes, they can leave at any time), or go to jail (if loitering / public camping). And as established, the city has a right to arrest those trespassing, loitering, public camping etc.

I don't think you read the entire article. You missed this paragraph: "With a safe Sunbreak housing option available to all homeless persons in need, public loitering, camping, littering, defecating, urinating, illicit substance use and criminal activity on our streets, parks, canyons, and river basins will no longer be permitted, and strictly enforced." This is exactly what I was arguing for earlier: removing the option to camp on the street (which is much more unsafe for the homeless anyway). Cities have the legal right to arrest people who loiter, camp, or shoot up on the streets. With the Sun Break Ranch, or other option available, the homeless addict has a choice: go to the provided shelter or go to jail. Very simple. But shooting up, camping, going to the bathroom, in front of someone's house, a school, or a business would no longer be an option.

This video pretty much sums up the gravity of the problem, and the specific homeless element that I'm referring to (i.e. meth and opioid addicts). The situation in Portland is a microcosm that can be applied to many others cities in North America.

Some of the greatest scientists in history were religious. Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Claude Shannon... Before it became taboo for scientists to hold religious beliefs, it was the norm. "There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls." - Max Planck