Which judging criteria did you apply? If you count from the raw materials required for the product all the way to actual miles traveled, it may not paint the rosy picture you are thinking of.
Until then, what do we do?
Mother Nature is giving us warnings, and she says: Humans, reconsider!
Or they will have to deal with me and all my power !
El impresionante derrumbe de una casa en Mar del Tuyu por la suba de la marea y las fuertes olas | El video que filmaron los guardavidas en medio del temporal | Pagina12
Or they will have to deal with me and all my power !
El impresionante derrumbe de una casa en Mar del Tuyu por la suba de la marea y las fuertes olas | El video que filmaron los guardavidas en medio del temporal | Pagina12
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It’s not just energy use, I saw a study published this year and referenced in one of the big newspapers on line which incorporated the impact of maintenance into the equation and just the use of and changing out of oil in ICE cars is enough of itself to favour electric cars on environmental grounds.
Until then? Give priority to the use of energy for the cooling of beer, of course!
When Lin Yutang wrote that the reasonable limit of life should be 75 years, he meant that the quality of life beyond that age in the West is deplorable.
You know, in the East they venerate and care for the elderly, they learn from their wisdom of life, from their experience.
When LY wrote the book that was so, now I'm not so sure.
In the West the elderly bother and we confine them to the nursing home if we have money, otherwise we abandon them to their fate, and they go to sleep under the highway. Not long ago, a politician from here (who is in hiding, but for other reasons) commanded a "task force" to eliminate those poor people because they "ugly" the city. They even sprayed and set fire to a woman who died there. himself, on his mattress. ”The next day, the body disappeared, and the soot was cleaned from the wall.
--------------
I did not understand that of 120, I said 100 ...
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Sorry, you’ll have to Google around for it, I can’t remember where it was posted.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I also read somewhere recently that fertilizer produces a big problem in terms of greenhouse gasses, certainly a waaaaay bigger problem than the amount of press it receives compared with CO2. In 3,000 years of population growth there’d be a need for a lot of fertilizer unless we find other solutions.
I read somewhere that humans have outstripped the Earth’s ability to provide enough food for the population naturally (without the use of fertilizers) more than a century ago.
Still think we’re going to be able to stay confined to this rock indefinitely? And if someone were to at least start thinking about a way to grow potatoes on Mars, they might just be able to use what they learn to keep Iowa arable for another thousand years despite climate change.
The “other solutions” you speak of include Soylent Green. Personally, I’d prefer a replicator, even if all it gives are “perfectly synthesized, ingeniously enhanced imitations”.
Still think we’re going to be able to stay confined to this rock indefinitely? And if someone were to at least start thinking about a way to grow potatoes on Mars, they might just be able to use what they learn to keep Iowa arable for another thousand years despite climate change.
The “other solutions” you speak of include Soylent Green. Personally, I’d prefer a replicator, even if all it gives are “perfectly synthesized, ingeniously enhanced imitations”.
I read all kinds of things somewhere including sound improvement by using cable lifters or drinking some kind of potion that can lengthen life. There is a lot more where that came from, that so called "somewhere", especially after the internet went public.
These is all under our control, it is all based on political choices, not some natural limit.
Look at the Scandinavian countries for example, or countries like Italy. It is also part of the social agenda, so its a choice.
Jan
Last edited:
Pete I think it is more subtle. Your world view is much different depending on whether you get your info from say CNN or Fox News. So you get locked up in a reality that stands on itself. Since with opposite opinions one of the parties is wrong, lots of people have contact with misinformation only. Of course they all think they are well-informed and it's 'the others' that miss the plot.
Jan
In that case there are way more fringe lunatics still to make their way out of the woodwork. However by their very nature they are by far the most vociferous and up front. So since the advent of the internet, they make it very clear their bent is always centered around far right idealism presented to them through main stream sources and outlets, the very ones from which they choose to perpetuate their disposition. There's no lack of information. You may have been correct 100 years ago in the deep south or the wild west.
I don't disagree with you, all the pertinent info is available anywhere and always. But you can't force-feed it to people.
Jan
Jan
Only if you let them. Nobody forces you to spend 6hrs at CNN or Fox. There are lots of other dependable sources. Problem is, it takes a real effort and we rather spend time on this forum ;-)
And remember, in audio as well as out there:
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
(c) Douglas Adams
Jan
And remember, in audio as well as out there:
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
(c) Douglas Adams
Jan
You just described my friend. He always buys into the most far fetched right wing nonsense. His latest obsession is the anti-vax stuff. He sends me so much garbage. I explain to him about vetting sources, science vs agenda driven drivel, etc. When I point out that the people he's referencing don't actually buy into the nonsense he's peddling, and actually recommend that people get vaccinated, he talks over me and says I'm brainwashed from reading the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Yeah, some crazy ignorant stuff on the internet is more credible.
It is sad because we're a bunch of old men, and we're avoiding him because he gives us a massive headache. He's the only non-STEM person in our group. I've explained to him a thousand times the difference between science and agenda driven pseudoscience. It doesn't help at all.
That's the US now. No longer does science come from universities. It comes from churches, politicians, and shadowy corners of the Internet. We're falling behind. Stupid is the new smart. The Empire is doomed.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Perhaps we need to train people on how best to obtain good information. The challenge will be who sets the standard for right vs wrong, some kind of reference rating agency is needed but there’s no way to ensure people will agree on one standard. Personally I think it is an unsolvable issue, people are divided by what they believe, in ways that are never completely addressable. Avoiding your crazy friend is the small scale equivalent of the ways in which minority groups are shunned by the majority groups. When you observe the utter conviction people have to their beliefs you know that persuasion is a dead end. I can not yet see a solution. I wonder if natural selection is currently the only way such differences will be settled, people with beliefs that increase their chances of survival and domination over others will propagate their beliefs, whilst the riskier beliefs will be subjugated or die. It’s a bit of a pessimistic view but in my attempt to be realistic in my expectations I haven’t yet seen an alternative but I would love to arrive at a nicer conclusion where all is solved through universal education and news print standards. Let’s hope the latter will prevail.
Last edited: