Given this Marxist world view - how do you make strategies moving forward when you are in full receipt of the knowledge that every implementation of this world view has failed catastrophically. Also there is an apparent lack of self awareness that this entire conversation is happening within a self affirming bubble with overtly biased research that is only fit for the shredder. 1:41 - this part is mind blowing!

Wonderful Lady. I hope she is seeking for further answers. When she finds truth she will see the perfect answers of the four questions of life. 1st Origin, how did everything start. 2nd Meaning and purpose. 3rd Morality, the question what is good and evil 4th destiny, where will all end. Each answer have to show a consistency to each other. You can apply this model to every kind of worldview. But it will not provide truth by itself. It only affirms you when you have found truth.

Can someone tell me the name of the painter in minute 20:38 ? I don't understand the name too well... Thank you <3

What a load of tripe. I can't believe that money that could be spent on doing actual science is going to people like her!

I am interested in multi-species communication but why using all these words to understand species that do not use words? Does not risk to become self-referential terminology?

Thank you. This is a wonderful lecture.

This was a very dense bullet of knowledge. Much to consider here, thanks.

God bless him

Cool 😎 🆒️

She needs to resign nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-u-of-a-professor-holds-the-line-on-free-expression

As of June 2, 2020. 1:18:53 (...) Our governement (Alberta, Canada) is investing 35 million of dollars in something to teach our students leadership, which I expect will, if things go, in the most predictible way, create some worthy leaders for the "Capitalocene , "people who create fossils as quickly as possible"( ...). If (...) you were given these 35 M dollars and the task of somehow cultivating the sensibility that you've communicated in your talk , What experiences would you want those students to have ( ...) ? 1:20:00 the most important thing to do in a classroom, at whatever level, is to somehow communicate the permission to engage in SF (science fiction) in throwing out a proposition and seeing if it holds, to that…. trying out knowledges and tuning the capability to hear knowledges that are not your own and to realize that you actually knew more that you thought you knew but you don’t know enough to be intelligent yet, in the situation; that kind of cultivated tuned listening and speaking quiet and moving (…) that people who believe they are smart are smart and that kind of guided permission to learning to take up the literacies that are in a classroom and to do something interesting with them and then, to insist that the University structures support those activities, so that a student truly can compose in a transdisciplinary way around problems, courses of study from early-on (…) having time, the cultivativation of co-learners and co-mentorships that are paid. So that people have the time and the space to engage in that kind of translearning. (...) so that he credit system allows that. For example, the faculty members in my institution if you gonna teach your course with someone else, you only get half a credit for the course instead of a whole credit. 1:21:40 So the way we worked around, it was to work with THE ROOM PROGRAMMERS and just have them accidentally scheduled the courses in the same room at the same time. It works remarkably well (…) (your money) would be seriously dedicated to the question of struggling for the regulation of time (…) 1:22:16 il faut “exprimer” to experience, to express, to know something (...) 1:22:45 we need to back up the kind of restructuring that all of us have been subjected to, every kind of speed-up, etc.

As of June 2, 2020. Basis for story telling , need for narratives: 1:13:57 being forced to have a baby is absolutely not permitted. That kind of reproductive freedom is non negotiable. But having a baby is not a right. It's a community decision. Reproductive freedom consists in the pregnant one deciding who the symbiot of the child will be. Etc.

1790s was the most Fascinating fashion decade to me

These people are truly ignorant

Dear leftist social scientists who pretend to be relativists when it seems to suit you in pushing your views: please stop the incoherent post-modernist pretense. You know very well that you think that there is a true empirical reality when you get upset at the "alternative facts" coming from the climate deniers and other right-wing ideologues and activists. Moreover you know very well that you think that some ethical views are more defensible than others - why is it that you always claim only that we have to be open to and not judge negatively the radical left / non-western views that fit with your ethical and economic presuppositions, but you never say that we have to be open to and not judge negatively certain right-wing and western views that do not? You should know that if you thought that all views about what is worth doing were equally correct you would never be able to make a decision to do anything. It is great if you try to be as objective and unbiased as you can in your empirical work (although some of you seem to be the first to decry attempts to be objective and unbiased as doomed and nothing but another right-wing western power play); but please realize that this does not entail that all ethical views are equally correct, that you actually think that all ethical views are equally correct (as opposed to its simply being the case that you just don't work professionally on directly determining which basic ethical views are correct), or that there is no legitimate enterprise of trying to think as carefully and critically as you can about which ethical views actually are correct (in which you actually do engage in your everyday life and in which ethicists actually engage professionally in ways that can help to illuminate issues which you encounter in your everyday reasoning). Finally, as some of you seem fond of acknowledging, empirical science is not actually value free in the sense that what empirical questions are actually worth exploring depends very much upon what ethical views are correct. Obviously the only responsible thing to do is thus to engage in empirical research agendas that are informed by the most defensible ethical views, and to do that we must to earnestly determine via careful ethical argument what those ethical views are, rather than simply dismiss those who have different ethical views, attempt to censor them, or call them names (for instance but by no means limited to things like 'racist', 'settler-colonist', 'white supremicist', 'greedy capitalist', 'sexist', 'homophobe', 'transphobe', 'cis-normativist' - used nice and widely so that they apply to the vast majority of if not literally all ordinary individuals in western countries). This sort of behaviour can only serve to rally the base of supporters who already agree with all of the details of your world view, it alienates moderates / persuadable individuals who do not already agree with you in every detail, and it enrages and energizes your conservative opposition and encourages them to be just as ready to be tribalist towards and dismiss you with insults (e.g. 'fake news', 'sjw', 'snowflake', 'feminazi') as you are to be tribalist towards and dismiss them.

Correction at 36:06: the 1,840 metric tons of C02 equivalent is Nolt's estimate for the LIFETIME emissions of an average US citizen, not the ANNUAL emissions of the average US citizen. I simply misspoke; nothing else that I say is affected by that error in speaking.

From the conference website: Re. the idea that “it’s all over” mentioned by the Sydney panel: that could only be true if there was only one threshold of GHG emissions that triggers all climate harm, any minute amount beneath which no harm would occur, and any amount above which no additional harm would occur. That is manifestly not the case; as the sources I cited in my talk indicate, one has a chance of tripping many different triggers with one’s emissions - Broome actually argues that it is virtually certain that one’s emissions will trip some triggers that wouldn’t have been tripped had one not made the emissions.

From the conference website: Re. Kalmius on puritans: I agree that guilt and shame aren’t typically effective rhetorical strategies for motivating change, but I think that it is important not to conflate that correct idea with what I take to be the false idea that reducing one’s own emissions can’t make a morally relevant difference to the lives of others even independent of one’s role-modelling the change to others. I gave an extended argument to this effect in my talk yesterday.

From the conference website: Re. especially Hiltner’s idea about losing face-to-face interaction: would not the optimal combination be one where we combine (i) live interaction on-line with (ii) opportunities for non-live text interaction? We’re doing that a bit with this conference - both among the participants (e.g. Petra in Calgary & me in Edmonton) and with the audience able to ask questions live, while we’ve also had opportunity for non-live text interaction. Could some conferences not also involve arrangements between particular panels to meet live at a time that works for them, which would be available non-live to those who aren’t able to make it to the live stream?

From the conference website: Re. Anders Andrae (@ 28:15): you mentioned that the 5G network will be more energy efficient, but that we’ll need to be careful not to use all of the capacity. Can you give us some advice - or point us to resources that can give us advice - as to what we can do to minimize our data / power usage (hopefully: while having a minimal impact on what we get out of using our devices)? Also in terms of public policy for incentivizing the reduction of fossil fuel burning computing: would the optimal intervention just be a general carbon tax and / or subsidization of green energy (like the provincial rebate we can get here in Alberta for installing solar panels), or is there something specific that would help with computing?

From the conference website: @Minimal Computing Roundtable (e.g. 1:25:08): I think that you mentioned not using or better using GUIs as an important way to reduce the environmental damage caused by our computing. I was wondering if you can give us some advice - or point us to resources that can give us advice - as to (i) how better to use our GUIs, and (ii) what, beyond less destructively using our GUIs, are some other ways we can reduce the environmental damage caused by our computing?

From the conference website @Minimal Computing Roundtable (re. "capitalism"; 1:38:32) [Also I heard some casual bashing of “capitalism.” As I asked - and received no answer from - Petra yesterday: what do you mean by ‘capitalism’? Given that ‘capitalism’ was introduced by Marx as a posit in a predictive economic theory, and his predictive economic theory failed, it seems to me that the original use of ‘capitalism’, just like ‘phlogiston’, fails to refer to anything, as it is a posit of a failed scientific theory. As I said, those who complain about ‘capitalism’ sound to me (and many others) like they are just complaining about the private ownership of most productive assets and market economies, regardless of the degree of regulation and redistribution. But the most progressive economies in north Europe and the policies proposed by individuals like Bernie Sanders all very much involve a market economy where most assets are privately owned. Even functioning economies in countries that are nominally communist, like China, are market-based and involve private share ownership (North Korea, on the other hand, is what a centrally planned economy looks like). Progressive redistribution and pro-environmental regulation are entirely consistent with market economies and privately owned assets; moreover there may well be beneficial interactions between progressive economic policies (like those of northern Europe and proposed by Sanders) and pro-environmental policies, and both of these may well be politically feasible. But economically illiterate speculation about something other than markets and private shares in firms, regardless of the degree of progressive redistribution and pro-environmental regulation, is simply not helpful in the context of short to medium term policy discussions. Much worse, loud pronouncements of being against markets & private assets, with no proposed alternatives - leading one’s audience to suspect that one can only be in favour of the sort of state control that involves gulags and bread lines - seems to me to be extremely ineffective environmental advocacy.]

From the conference website: @Minimal Computing Roundtable re. “exploitation” (1:34:42): Because access to export markets has been one of the main things responsible for lifting millions of the global poor out of absolute poverty I would caution you against the unthinking assumption that any economic interaction with the poor is “exploitative” in a sense that implies that it ought not be allowed. Do you have any reason to believe that the absolutely poor individuals you mention would be better off if they did not have the opportunity to take the difficult jobs in question for the compensation offered? If not then perhaps you should think twice before decrying the ability of the desperately poor to make a living, and not find it distasteful for them to earn compensations that would be very low to you, but pays much more than the alternatives open to them, and enables them to afford food medicine that will save the lives of their family members. Some of my ancestors were poor immigrants who came to the US from eastern Europe who had nothing to offer but their cheap labour, and I’m very grateful that they were allowed to make a living, and not prevented from doing so by out-of-touch elites refusing to allow anyone to purchase their services (and requiring everyone to buy more expensive services from richer individuals instead) because they found the compensation they were willing to accept distasteful.

Dear leftist social scientists who pretend to be relativists when it seems to suit you in pushing your views: please stop the incoherent post-modernist pretense. You know very well that you think that there is a true empirical reality when you get upset at the "alternative facts" coming from the climate deniers and other right-wing ideologues and activists. Moreover you know very well that you think that some ethical views are more defensible than others - why is it that you always claim only that we have to be open to and not judge negatively the radical left / non-western views that fit with your ethical and economic presuppositions, but you never say that we have to be open to and not judge negatively certain right-wing and western views that do not? You should know that if you thought that all views about what is worth doing were equally correct you would never be able to make a decision to do anything. It is great if you try to be as objective and unbiased as you can in your empirical work (although some of you seem to be the first to decry attempts to be objective and unbiased as doomed and nothing but another right-wing western power play); but please realize that this does not entail that all ethical views are equally correct, that you actually think that all ethical views are equally correct (as opposed to its simply being the case that you just don't work professionally on directly determining which basic ethical views are correct), or that there is no legitimate enterprise of trying to think as carefully and critically as you can about which ethical views actually are correct (in which you actually do engage in your everyday life and in which ethicists actually engage professionally in ways that can help to illuminate issues which you encounter in your everyday reasoning). Finally, as some of you seem fond of acknowledging, empirical science is not actually value free in the sense that what empirical questions are actually worth exploring depends very much upon what ethical views are correct. Obviously the only responsible thing to do is thus to engage in empirical research agendas that are informed by the most defensible ethical views, and to do that we must to earnestly determine via careful ethical argument what those ethical views are, rather than simply dismiss those who have different ethical views, attempt to censor them, or call them names (for instance but by no means limited to things like 'racist', 'settler-colonist', 'white supremicist', 'greedy capitalist', 'sexist', 'homophobe', 'transphobe', 'cis-normativist' - used nice and widely so that they apply to the vast majority of if not literally all ordinary individuals in western countries). This sort of behaviour can only serve to rally the base of supporters who already agree with all of the details of your world view, it alienates moderates / persuadable individuals who do not already agree with you in every detail, and it enrages and energizes your conservative opposition and encourages them to be just as ready to be tribalist towards and dismiss you with insults (e.g. 'fake news', 'sjw', 'snowflake', 'feminazi') as you are to be tribalist towards and dismiss them.

Correction at 37:08: the 1,840 metric tons of C02 equivalent is Nolt's estimate for the LIFETIME emissions of an average US citizen, not the ANNUAL emissions of the average US citizen. I simply misspoke; nothing else that I say is affected by that error in speaking.

I hope that this is obvious but perhaps I should still clarify: the most progressive economies in north Europe and the policies proposed by individuals like Bernie Sanders all very much involve a market economy where most assets are privately owned. Even functioning economies in countries that are nominally communist, like China, are market-based and involve private share ownership (North Korea, on the other hand, is what a centrally planned economy looks like). Progressive redistribution and pro-environmental regulation are entirely consistent with market economies and privately owned assets; moreover there may well be beneficial interactions between progressive economic policies (like those of northern Europe and proposed by Sanders) and pro-environmental policies, and both of these may well be politically feasible. But economically illiterate speculation about something other than markets and private shares in firms, regardless of the degree of progressive redistribution and pro-environmental regulation, is simply not helpful in the context of short to medium term policy discussions. Much worse, loud pronouncements of being against growth and against markets & private assets, with no proposed alternatives - leading one's audience to suspect that one can only be in favour of the sort of state control that involves gulags and bread lines, seems to me to be extremely ineffective environmental advocacy. You do realize that this is on the internet and any ordinary individual who is not a fully indoctrinated academic Marxist can come across it and be really put off by it, don't you? I think that the more we associate environmental advocacy with fringe economic ideas, the more we encourage members of the general public to become climate deniers and to elect right-wing politicians who thwart our attempts to mitigate environmental damage.

Cross-posted on the conference website: Responses to various participants re. growth from the chat: The earth will not fail to support life for another 7.5 billion years. We have massive responsibilities to the enormous numbers of sentient beings who will inhabit it throughout that time. Also contemporary biological humans will most likely case to exist via giving rise to descendant species and / or artificial intelligent systems. Either way what we do now will definitely affect what they do. What do you mean when you say ‘capitalism’? I really have no idea. If you just mean an economy where most productive assets are privately owned and the economy functions through markets, then here is no alternative to it. If you think we have to wait to address climate change until your commie revolution (which is desired by no one but a few academics) comes, that’s a death sentence for huge numbers of humans and non-human animals. Sure; I certainly agree that we should care about non-human animals in economic growth, but getting others to share this view is a long term project. It is also best facilitated by as Tobias Leenaert would put it, making compassion easier, by e.g. developing affordable lab-grown animal products. But given that climate change is a short run project, I think that advocacy has to be willing to work against a backdrop of moral assumptions by most of one’s audience that are far from perfect. I’m afraid that speculatively imagining away privately owned assets and market economies (to which there really are no workable alternatives) is a radical waste of time, especially if we are to address the very short-term problem of climate change.

Cross-posted on conference website: Question / Comment re. some of the discussion around Karen Bolender’s presentation: various participants seemed to suggest that an important objective of ecological advocacy should be the acceptance of a future without economic growth. I worry that this may involve a conflation between (i) economic growth that involves a great deal of environmental destruction (which we currently have), and (ii) economic growth per se, which can in principle occur with drastically less environmental destruction. Economic growth is simply the expansion of the market value of the goods and services produced within an economy. There are many goods and services that are not ecologically destructive - indeed, some are positively environmentally beneficial (such those for which one pays in installing a large solar array that will make one a net donor to the grid and reduce the fossil fuels demanded by one’s neighbours). I think that a much more politically feasible objective of environmental advocacy is to make economic growth as environmentally friendly as possible - i.e. to minimize the environmental destruction and maximize the environmental benefits from the goods and services produced and consumed in an economy, even as their total market value expands. Many working class and poor individuals do not feel very economically comfortable (and the global poor could really use a continued expansion in their material conditions), and it is not politically feasible to meet their needs through lump-sum redistribution. Under these conditions they (at least very strongly and understandably feel that they) need economic growth, and will not take kindly to a bunch of very economically comfortable upper-middle-class academics hectoring them about the need to simply not care expanding economic opportunities. As helpful as the fine art being discussed here may be, I really don’t see it having the power in the short to medium run to change the minds of the working class and poor about whether it is important for them to be able to afford their medications, child-care, and mortgages in the name of the alleged general wrong-headedness of caring about expanding economic opportunities. Moreover in the case of climate change it is the short to medium run that matters a great deal, as things get much worse the more we don’t address them now.

Re-posted from the chat: Question re. Paul Palmer: As a concrete policy proposal to cut waste, how about a municipal tax on waste disposal that seeks to internalize the social and environmental costs of disposing of waste? Couldn't that create important incentives for consumers to buy longer lasting products and thus increase demand and incentivize the production of such products?

Re-posted from the chat: Question re. Erika Daley: as you may know animal agriculture is enormously environmentally destructive, in terms of land and water use, GHG emissions, and other forms of waste - making it much more environmentally friendly to find plant-based alternatives. It seems to me very likely that similar dynamics would make testing on animals and using animal products in labs much more environmentally destructive than using alternatives to animal testing and plant-based products. Are you aware of this, and if so, is part of your initiative to promote alternatives to animal testing and plant-based inputs - both to adopt them when they are available and to encourage their development?

Very nice presentation, Lauren.

Very intetesting. Could references and links for some of the speakers sources be put on here. I'd like to read Andrea Martins piece she mentioned.

The bit about self-contextualizing objects was quite fascinating. Starting perhaps with the physical web.

this shit is what you get when a feminist discusses tech instead of an actual scientist.

I feel for the sign interpreters

This work was not edited by the author before publication. The correct spelling in this case should be '' PLAGIARISM'' and not as written on the video, LAGARISM, with the omission of letter '' i ''. Hope the school authority would take down this clip for proper editing and re-uploading.