That is trivially true. The question is always how to deal with divergence.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Divergence is intractable. Convergence isn't trivially true because of the multitudes of differences attributed to nature-nurture.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
Divergence is ultimately always tractable with separation of food chains or a form of violence that ensures minimally viable convergence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Cutting down a different view is not solving a problem. Problem model can't be altered midway through by hacking constraints.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
It is absolutely solving a problem. The question is just if there are less costly (morally, economically, physically) and risky ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
When the problem is altered, how can it be a solution. Violence would result in humanity dying before the melting of polar ice caps.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
The solution of a problem is pretty much by definition the disappearance of that problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
That is too simplistic a view. Solutions exist for most problems.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @muralipiyer
Apart from the fact that we can mathematically prove that most problems are unsolvable, how is that a contradiction?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
I think the term I am hunting is appropriateness. Solution is the most appropriate effect of a problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes! And how is violence not a solution? How else do you get the carrot out of the ground?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.