npts2020

In the case of Utah most of the available water during a large part of the year is underground, which is generally all potable. Data centers CAN use a closed loop system and generate energy through means that don't require water usage. The problem is those are more expensive than just buying up all of a cheap resource (especially one like water which is probably way undervalued) and using it. It is almost always cheaper to make a mess and leave it than it is to clean it up or keep from making that mess to begin with.

True, (if you discount the possibility of a half egg from a baker's dozen--thanks iNow 🙂) but that is an infinitesimally small piece of the facts required to describe reality IMO.

This is where we disagree. I think absolute truth demands absolute accuracy, hence the reason I see absolute truth as possibly being unattainable by humans. Making things work in engineering and other applications doesn't generally require perfection, just being close enough that things turn out the same every time. In manufacturing that's why there are +/- specs for quality control, your car or tube of toothpaste isn't exactly the same as all of the others made like it but close enough that one can't tell the difference without using extreme (beyond your senses) means to do so. It is the same with reality/truth no two people have exactly the same view of it but the more we agree on what are actually "facts" the closer our perceptions of what reality is or should be.

That has happened to me a lot when hitchhiking, frequently I get offered money or food (which mostly isn't on my diet menu anyway). I have never gone on the road because I couldn't afford bus or train fare but people assume that you are doing it because you are destitute, especially if you are carrying camping equipment. That is one of the things that gives me hope that there are enough people in the world wanting to solve the problem posed in the OP that it can actually happen. IMO it comes down to learning how to motivate people through some other means than promise of extreme wealth or the threat of homelessness and starvation.

Of course, and that's why engineers and scientists can agree on reality enough to produce useful things. On a human scale this seems to work pretty well but you are familiar enough with physics and cosmology to know there is a vast amount we don't know and some of what we do know is changed on a pretty regular basis. The problem with defining reality (which I would equate with truth) becomes more acute as we delve into the microscopic and galactic realms because we see even less of it than what is discernible by our senses at "normal" scales. The fact (beginning to love that word) that humans discover things that seem to give us better explanations for this or that, makes me think that there is some ultimate or objective truth. The fact that we are STILL discovering things tells me we aren't there yet and might never get there.

I don't believe I have ever rejected the notion of objective reality, only that humans don't see enough of it for their subjective realities to perfectly align with it or even if we have correctly defined what objective reality is. Isn't that why there is such a thing as scientific discovery?

Poverty IMO is a relative term that is dependent on one's circumstances, a reason I have avoided using the word. The poorest person in the US would be considered pretty wealthy by Haitian standards but when the standard is keeping oneself from starving to death or being killed by a neighborhood gang, poverty is below what most people would consider an acceptable level of well-being. This discussion is isn't so much about money but allocation of resources for which money is simply a temporary representative in most circumstances. One of those other circumstances, I think, is education, especially about money and economics. The problem in the US is that only 2 parties are allowed to participate and both are bought off by moneyed interests. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is similar to the difference between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, pretty great on some few ancillary positions but in the end still capitalists/communists. Look how the mainstream Democratic Party did everything they could to oppose Mamdani and EVERY candidate he supported. Now they are saying that mainstream Americans are "not for socialism" without ever describing all of the socialist policies already in place or taking longer than a sound bite to talk about any specific policy.

I agree 100% with this. The problem is how to change it? No worries. I just felt it should be mentioned.

Not necessarily true, especially if one has no dependents. I know a few who are intentionally poor because they don't feel like working but that is admittedly a minority. I believe this to be the gist of the problem. In pure capitalism, that group gets shrunk down to one, the individual under consideration. Usually, that individual chooses to expand their group because it is recognized to be in his/her benefit to do so. I suppose the real question in the OP is how do we keep those with interest in the smallest groups from hoarding all of the world's resources?

Perhaps, but how much of that state are you/we able to observe and is/will it ever be 100%? I don't believe that it will ever be 100% and that it is the reason people have different "truths", often even when agreeing on the "facts". At present, I am more likely to believe that human view of "state of the present" is closer to 0% than 100%

Except for the part about being estranged from family, he pretty much describes how I grew up and puts a pretty good perspective on the problem posed in the OP. Unfortunately, he seems no closer to realizing any kind of solution than we have here. I wonder if it really boils down to just trying to change the minds of people who won't change them regardless of any evidence contrary to what they believe. Interestingly, I have done a fair amount of hitchhiking in the US (east to west a half dozen times, north to south a couple, and dozens of shorter trips) Only twice have I ever felt unsafe, once because of the driving and once because the guy was an armed lunatic I later found out had robbed a qiuckie-mart. In general, I have met very interesting people and most seem to like ideas such as feeding and housing everyone but I wonder how much my view of strangers is skewed by meeting only those willing to help to begin with? After all, the vast majority of people just drive on past. I would agree with the notion that culture pays a large part, there are definitely places where it is much easier or harder to get rides but I have been picked up by all kinds, from a barely running VW Beetle to very expensive luxury and sports cars to brand new 18 wheelers.

What I meant is, if the present ever became absolute truth, it wouldn't ever change and thus time would stand still. This is akin to Chairman Mao's writings about all motion being due to contradiction. This is why I personally don't believe in absolute truth. Like infinity, it is a useful concept but may not describe anything real. Like Schroedinger's cat which you don't know if it is dead or not until you look, a fact doesn't exist until it is far enough in the past to be shown true.

Isn't that what change is, falsifying (changing) the present to make it past? I fail to see how that means one must reject absolute truth, especially if this is considered to be one of the (or the only) absolute truths.

I am not so sure being helpful to others generally runs against our instincts. It seems to me that unwillingness to help is because of a perception of privation to self from doing so. In my opinion, this stems in large part from the seemingly predominant ethos of "you can never have enough", which places the individual's "needs" over those of society. If true, how can that sort of cooperation be promoted over competition? (don't take that to mean that I place no value on competition, just that it needs to be appropriate)

Appreciate all of the responses, definitely good ones and given some thought. IMO one of the biggest reasons every person on the planet doesn't have a minimum standard of living is because actual solutions, aside from apparently not being easy, are so frequently not discussed in reasonable terms. In virtually any other forum, every proposal I am aware of would immediately be dismissed as the boogieman (communism, socialism, fascism etc whatever the favorite something to hate is) rather than actually discussing the effects of any specific policy proposals. Combine that with widespread ignorance of how other people live and the capabilities of modern technology and we have the current status quo. I like the idea of Universal Basic Income but wonder if it can ever be enough to cover the cost of living in a system where seemingly the more successful at price gouging you are, the higher your status in society. I don't think people not working is that great an issue because few want to live a minimal existence. Almost everyone Ikes eating out on occasion, drinking beer or soda, and going on vacations. What I think will happen, is a lot of menial jobs will either pay substantially more, taken over by AI or decided they didn't really have to be done after all. The problem I see with it for the worst off of citizens, is that you are in many cases giving money to people who have shown they can't manage their own affairs and saying "here, go manage you own affairs". However, it might be made to work if one has to give up their UBI to live in government housing with cafeterias, libraries, vocational training, medical and psychological care. The specifics of all that could run into a very long post but the goal should be to get such people back (or up) to being contributing members of society where they can be on their own and once again collect UBI. I believe that is covered by "crazies who will want to live in a tent or refuse health care" in the OP, even if the specific cause(s) of that craziness is not specified.

In general, the people on this forum are among the smartest humans I interact with on a regular basis so am asking opinions on the following; Humans have had the ability to satisfy every person's basic needs for at least a century. Furthermore, a large plurality (if not the vast majority) follow religions or philosophical systems that claim (and in some cases, demand) that helping your fellow beings is one of the highest "goods". So why is there still people homeless, starving and dying of curable diseases anywhere, especially in places like the US or Europe? Is there some secret plan by Democrats or Republicans (or any other party in charge around the world) to solve those things? What would it take to reduce deaths in the world from homelessness, starvation and lack of health care as close to zero as the number of insane people in the populace allows (meaning there will always be some number of crazies who will want to live in a tent or refuse health care) and is it even possible to do under any of the current political/economics systems?l

This points to the fact that truth and facts can be time dependent. There could have been an ammonite named Joe at some point and that would have made the statement that he IS an ammonite both true and a fact. However, it is no longer either so the statement has to be changed to Joe WAS an ammonite to be true and a fact. Has this really changed anything regarding facts or truth, tho? Appreciate the discussion, even if it is splitting hairs at times.

I don't see how there could be any fewer goals in futbol. It seems to me it would open up the field to allow more space to operate. I could see someone like Mbappe or Haaland scoring hat tricks on a regular basis if allowed to lounge on the offensive side of the field where all they need to do is get to the space ahead of the defender rather than being required to give them a head start.

I would disagree with this. Unless one wants to argue that the difference between life and non-life has no meaning in this debate (is that just semantics or not?), I would say that when Joe the ammonite dies, he ceases being Joe the ammonite. Corpses/fossils/memories all tell of a former creature, Joe the ammonite, but none are actually Joe.

I think the games would be much Improved if they cracked down on the amount of clutching and grabbing that goes on. I find it hard to believe that teams haven't switched to skin-tight shirts since so much goes on. Oh, yeah Why is there even an "offsides" rule?

I wonder if people started referring to him as Pete Hogsbreath SoW, if anything would change?

I could recite facts, like we're having this discussion on a science forum, ad infinitum. Whether any of those facts are germane to any particular discussion or valid for describing reality is a different matter. One thing I would call a fact is that no two humans think exactly alike in every situation. It seems to me that this makes everyone's reality slightly (or even pretty radically) different.

That's SoW, and very appropriate I might add.

Which is why I completely agree with Mr. Havel's statement below.

The "nonsense" AFAICT is the notion that anyone can know EVERY SINGLE FACT to be able to discern "TRUTH". I would like to know which scientists think we will ever be on the verge of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt what truth is and when that might happen? It seems to me, the more we learn the more disagreements scientists end up with. When one matter is resolved other areas of disagreement pop up. Science is about resolving exactly what a fact is and using those facts to attempt discerning what is true or truth. Since we, as humans, are all missing an innumerable number of those facts we each have different truths. Assembling a bunch of facts (truths as you call them) doesn't necessarily mean one has found truth. Some people do exactly that. Not sure why you think I was claiming it ought to be done by anyone here.