1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is the difference between a lottery and a photo competition with an entrance fee?

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Chester AP, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. Jimbo57

    Jimbo57 Well-Known Member

    Not to dismiss the thrust of your argument, but to be picky, much of what we consider to be "natural resources" comes, either directly or indirectly, from beyond our planet and, as the universe is not finite, then it may be that we do have access to an infinite stock of natural resources.
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  2. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Surely "some" rather than "much". Also, the universe may well be finite.

    And, even with access to infinite resources, we can't fit them all on an infinite planet; and that's quite ignoring the implications of the energy use involved in transforming those resources for use.

    So I think my original statement holds: you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. But if you like, I'll extend it to "you cannot have infinite growth in a finite universe".

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    peterba likes this.
  3. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    But if the universe is finite it must exist within something else so the "something else" would be infinite.
     
  4. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    No, if it's unbounded, it curves round on itself in all directions and there is no outside.
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  5. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    When listening to commentators in the media (politicians, economists, etc.) droning on and on about the need for growth, I note that none of them ever stops to consider that maybe NON-growth (as distinct from contraction) might be a desirable state.

    I'm no biologist, but I believe that a tumour is essentially the result of cell growth continuing beyond the optimum. Maybe someone more knowledgeable on such matters than I, will say that this is not technically the best analogy, but you get the point.
     
    Trannifan and Roger Hicks like this.
  6. Jimbo57

    Jimbo57 Well-Known Member

    Well, no. Even all of our resources such as oil, coal, natural gas, etc., are merely storing energy that came to us from beyond our planet. As for a "finite universe", as it is expanding, it must be expanding into something and we know of no limits to its expansion.
     
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    There's an argument that we in the north western societies could slow down our growth so that resources could be diverted to the poorer areas of the planet. The question is how you would sell that to electorates who know that any such scheme will be an enormous trough for the friends and relations of the "honourable" ladies and gentlemen.
     
    Roger Hicks and peterba like this.
  8. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    And how would you redistribute those resources in a sustainable way? How does water saved in UK reach people in the heart of Africa? I used to hear this endlessly from the global NGOs. I support it entirely in principle, but have never seen a credible plan. Last analysis I saw showed that if the developed countries even attempted it, it would impact the under-developed countries very negatively. That's probably why the NGOs drew a discreet veil over the whole argument. In general they switched to a strategy of the developed world consuming ever more, but increasingly in a more sustainable way, eg through Fair Trade (which has its faults) and similar. The push for energy saving, recycling etc has more to do with finite resources than redistribution of them.
     
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    The obvious answer is technology and work transfer. Build factories in the poorer areas using wealth and knowledge from the richer areas. China and the other tiger economies have shown how well this can work.
     
  10. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    Sure, but it still doesn't address the point that infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    Your assumption is that we have an effectively finite planet. There's no evidence to support that as yet and there's no reason to assume that we cannot import materials and even food from outside the planet. The problem with accepting Thomas Malthus's hypothesis is that he had no way of forseeing how technology could and would affect the availability of resources.
     
  12. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    This is because we do, in fact, have an effectively finite planet.

    First, there is something of a race against time. Will we be able to import sufficient extraterrestrial resources before they run out terrestrially? My feeling is that we probably won't.

    Second, do not forget the energy involved in processing and consuming those resources. At maybe 21 or 22 I went to a lecture by (as far as I recall) Jack Cohen called "The absolute thermodynamic limits to population". These arrive (again as far as I recall) when the black body radiation from earth equals or is greater than the energy received from the sun.

    I take it you are familiar with Trantor, as in the Foundation Trilogy.

    As an aside to which, a lovely quote from Grauniad comments. Someone suggested that the Trumps are robots. Someone else replied that they cannot be, because they do not obey the First Law of Robotics.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one and only time will reveal which of us if either is correct.
     
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    True, but consider the fact that my first point dealt with exactly that question. On which side of the argument is time itself?

    If we take my assumption, it is vastly more likely that we may survive, even without extraterrestrial assistance.

    If we take your assumption, the possibility that we will not survive is greatly increased.

    Even with infinite material resources, there are the thermodynamic limits.

    So no, I can't agree to disagree. The risks contingent upon your being wrong are infinitely greater (because they are existential) than the risks contingent upon my being wrong.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  15. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    This is getting pointless and very boring.

    Can Roger and Andrew start their own debate on their own thread?
     
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    You obviously didn't notice the date on Roger's last post is May 26th. We've long since gone on to other things. :rolleyes:
     
    Roger Hicks and Benchista like this.
  17. MattoClark

    MattoClark Member

    I got your point and I think that there is something true in what you are saying. You can buy 10 lottery tickets and multiply your chances to win by 10. For some photo competitions, you can apply with only one photo, so you have better chances to win the lottery In that case :D But one thing you have said, i disagree. For a photo competition, where the main evaluation criteria are 50% original composition, 30% technique, 10% creativity,10% Proper Description and Completeness, what is more important - the eye behind the camera or the camera itself? In my opinion, the gear is not always a determinating factor, a factor that can win you a competition and prove to others that you are a "great" photographer. You can might have a camera and gear for 20k, but this doesn't make you any better at photography. You will still suck.
    You said that in a photo competition with an entrance fee we are a subject to whatever the judges may like this year. Maybe you are right, maybe you are not. This may also apply for a competition without an entry free. But also may ot apply at all. For example, here https://www.voubs.com you can find competition with and wihtout entry fee, but in both cases, not only the judges decides who is the winner of the competition. The users, like me and you also can vote. Ofc. mine, yours and every other user's vote are not much determinating for the final result, but atleast they give us the chance to show what we like. And i don't believe that if you and me participate in a competiton and you have 100 votes and I have 3, and at the end I am the winner, according to the judges,this would be unnoticed by the community. This is a crime and speaks bad for the judges, the host of the event and the winner.
     

Share This Page