|
StabbinHobo posted:what possible more peaceful exit could there ever be than the birth control pill ? Not dying in a labor camp or barrel bombs or...
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:how do we reduce from a 450% rate of renewable resource consumption to a 100% rate (which actually is still too high)? try using kilowatthours per capita, imho thats the easiest one to boil it down to. By limiting the demand for renewable resources. Do you know how much wood goes into a skyscraper?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:41
|
|
|
please stop responding in quips, and rather than making me drag it out of you question by question, just tell us your understanding and analysis i'm 100% trying to humor you here... do you have anything to say?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
If power were more evenly distributed we’d almost certainly be dealing with climate change better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
You asked how we reduce the rate of renewable resource consumption. It's an extremely broad question. Why are you asking me? I'm sure tons of people have studied it, you want me to go find it for you? https://www.overshootday.org/ Or you're just saying it's not possible?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:You asked how we reduce the rate of renewable resource consumption. It's an extremely broad question. Why are you asking me? I'm sure tons of people have studied it, you want me to go find it for you? Or you're just saying it's not possible? Is universal free access to birth control a human right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Is universal free access to birth control a human right? Sure, why not? You'd do better to eliminate inequality, which positively correlates with birth rates, as a birth control method. Two pronged approach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Sure, why not? You'd do better to eliminate inequality, which positively correlates with birth rates, as a birth control method. Two pronged approach. Okay this is what everybody is talking about. Using the government to hand out condoms and birth control pills for free to everyone who wants them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:56
|
|
|
Yes you can go down to the clinic and grab some. So what? You think Africans don't have condoms?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:You asked how we reduce the rate of renewable resource consumption. It's an extremely broad question. quote:Why are you asking me? quote:u want me to go find it for you? https://www.overshootday.org/ quote:Or you're just saying it's not possible? But you don't even have to listen to a word of my opinion. Use the ones from https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank if you want to work off a third party example. They have coyly hidden it behind focus group tested language, but #6 and #7 are really the same thing. So when you combine their number, you get the #1 thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Yes you can go down to the clinic and grab some. So what? You think Africans don't have condoms? Yes I think that. quote:Condom use is considered one of the cornerstones for the prevention of HIV transmission and acquisition. However, despite it being well known that condoms are highly effective at preventing HIV if used consistently and correctly (2–4), condoms are not widely used by people living in high epidemic areas. A population-based study in Uganda found that only 4.4% of respondents reported consistent condom use (defined as ‘always’ using condoms with each partner [marital or non-marital] in the year prior to the survey) (5). A study among recently diagnosed HIV positive participants in Uganda found that 54% of those who were sexually active had not used a condom during their most recent intercourse (6). Bunnell and colleagues report that among people testing positive for HIV in a population-based study with a nationally representative sample of Ugandans, 67% had never used a condom and two-fifths of them were in HIV-discordant relationships (7). A study by Fylkesnes and colleagues in Zambia found that while condom use at last non-regular sex among urban men was 68%, it was only 15% among rural men (8). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743219/ Nevermind that birth control is actively discouraged in the united states, where teen pregnancy is the highest of any developed country. The idea of "just go down to the clinic" doesn't apply here. Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:no, I asked how we reduce the rate of resource consumption to a sustainable level, the level at which they can be renewed. does rephrasing it like that make the question clearer? If we applied all hoarded wealth towards engineering solutions we can probably not only enact solutions but discover new ones. If we nonetheless fail to achieve a sustainable level of consumption we will have still guaranteed ourselves a more peaceful exit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
thats silicon valley magic technology thinking. that is literally elon musks philosophy. that is a form of denial two pages now and you still won't do the math. i give up. bed time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Yes I think that. You're talking about use not access now. Actually access can improve a lot in many parts of Africa, if I'm not being glib, but condom access isn't a necessary condition for birth control (education, for example, goes a long way; reduction of inequality, as mentioned (added bonus of increasing condom access); abortion access; et al)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:thats silicon valley magic technology thinking. No, Silicon Valley demands their solutions be profitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
For the love of gently caress learn to edit prior posts and nest newer replies in them. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:What don't you understand? Mitigation strategies. And the hoarded wealth should be deleted/destroyed. redistributing it won't help anyway, most of it is junk, what land is valuable/arable is about to change rapidly, and resource extraction is the problem in the first place. Financial incentives have proven to do gently caress-all, imo if you want any mitigation strategies to be effective we're going to need to abandon the notion of individual autonomy/freedom entirely and enslave ourselves to make the necessary adjustments at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:You're talking about use not access now. Actually access can improve a lot in many parts of Africa, if I'm not being glib, but condom access isn't a necessary condition for birth control (education, for example, goes a long way; reduction of inequality, as mentioned (added bonus of increasing condom access); abortion access; et al) You came at me with "heh so you're saying BLACK people from AFRICA don't have condoms??" a couple posts ago and this is your follow up? In one sentence you tried to paint me as an ignorant racist AND picked out Africa as a place where condom access is a solved problem. Bro; 15 million people died of AIDS there in the last 30 years and 15% of the population of South Africa has HIV. Honestly just apologize to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:thats silicon valley magic technology thinking. that is literally elon musks philosophy. Notorious R.I.M. posted:PMJ has never brought anything near a quantitative understanding of planetary boundaries or sustainable development goals to the table so there's not really any value in engaging them until they educate themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You came at me with "heh so you're saying BLACK people from AFRICA don't have condoms??" a couple posts ago and this is your follow up? In one sentence you tried to paint me as an ignorant racist AND picked out Africa as a place where condom access is a solved problem. Bro; 15 million people died of AIDS there in the last 30 years and 15% of the population of South Africa has HIV. I mentioned Africa because it has the highest birth rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Oh my God, this is painful to watch. You pretty much confirmed every point people were trying to make about you and your posting and you still go on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
So do we have calculations on how many people the earth can reasonably feed without petrochemicals, mechanization, global shipping, altered growing zones/times, and probably substantial topsoil loss?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Torpor posted:So do we have calculations on how many people the earth can reasonably feed without petrochemicals, mechanization, global shipping, altered growing zones/times, and probably substantial topsoil loss?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
Torpor posted:So do we have calculations on how many people the earth can reasonably feed without petrochemicals, mechanization, global shipping, altered growing zones/times, and probably substantial topsoil loss? Depends on how fast we can build sustainable infrastructure before the impacts of climate change outrun our ability to adapt as well as how bad we allow our environmental impacts to become. It's a battle of rates at this point. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways attempt to solve this for various societal responses. While the optimistic scenarios can basically be discarded, the group of SSPs are worth a review. In general, more coordinated action on climate change results in lower overall population. Heightened conflict and inequality increases population until adaptive burden outruns survival capabilities. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
As far as I see it, modern societies will manage. Things won't pretty by any means but we have ability, means and maybe just maybe the will to make it happen. Sustenance Farmers out of Country like Guatemala? Good luck. This excludes feedback effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
Keeping in mind that infrastructure holds an inherent carbon cost, and we have hit the point where every gigaton we emit reduces our likelihood of survival regardless of the infrastructure we build. Unless it's domes.  I feel like there's a classic dilemma theory which encapsulates this concept, but the name escapes me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:As far as I see it, modern societies will manage. Things won't pretty by any means but we have ability, means and maybe just maybe the will to make it happen. Modern societies are not built for resilience. They are built on JIT logistics that maximize profits while minimizing fault tolerance. They are not near as sturdy as you believe they are. You will be shocked by major grid failures, food and water shortages, and wastewater failures if we continue BAU.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
I'm sure those things will happen but who has the best chance at survival? A thirty-eight year old car mechanic in Ohio with just a technical degree or someone in Country near the equator who's life is sustenance farming?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm sure those things will happen but who has the best chance at survival? A thirty-eight year old car mechanic in Ohio with just a technical degree or someone in Country near the equator who's life is sustenance farming? The dude who isn't in a lethal wet bulb region
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm sure those things will happen but who has the best chance at survival? A thirty-eight year old car mechanic in Ohio with just a technical degree or someone in Country near the equator who's life is sustenance farming? I dunno but if those two guys teamed up that’d probably increase their chances
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:They are built on JIT logistics that maximize profits while minimizing fault tolerance. I've written quite a lot about that specfically in other threads. That's "lean". But their is another side of the coin. They also shoot for "agile." Think of it this way, if you have supply chain made up of a bunch of nodes: interchanges at terminals, points of origin for raw materials, factories, points of sale for finished goods, etc, what happens if a node dies? It just re-routes through another node. Let's say we lose a port. Cargo just moves through other ports and gets to its destination with another set of nodes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:The dude who isn't in a lethal wet bulb region That along with your entirely livelihood destroyed by climate change. The guy in Ohio? He has some government institutions that might be able to help him. We'll see how things turn out. I'm not religious but I'm just hoping we don't hit any feedback effects. I've given up hope on a limit of 2C 
Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jun 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That along with your entirely livelihood destroyed by climate change. The guy in Ohio? He has some government institutions that might be able to help him. They are pretty good until you just start to get back on your feet and they disappear. I'm concerned about the long term health of the lake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That along with your entirely livelihood destroyed by climate change. The guy in Ohio? He has some government institutions that might be able to help him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:That along with your entirely livelihood destroyed by climate change. The guy in Ohio? He has some government institutions that might be able to help him. The flipside to this is that the person in Ohio is also drastically more dependent on those government institutions. In general, it's hard to overstate how reliant we are on our infrastructure and systems. That's a good thing, except that we're hilariously hosed if those systems start to really break down. Our hypothetical mechanic is arguably in one of the worst places to be if serious food and water disruptions start to become routine, because our communities are not at all constructed to be resilient against those kinds of hardships. Our system is largely built on the idea that resources are not meaningfully limited except by our ability to purchase them. Things get very bad when the answer to "how much for that water?" is "it's not for sale."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Things get very bad when the answer to "how much for that water?" is "it's not for sale." I’ve been pondering what sort of economy there would be in a RCP 8,5 world. Will currency even matter? Or will it be canned foods and other useful items?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The flipside to this is that the person in Ohio is also drastically more dependent on those government institutions. It doesn't matter if you can withstand disruptions to infrastructure and government institutions if your land is underwater or uninhabitable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Complications posted:Looking at all of those interestingly exponential curves occurring in the poles that all started up 10+ years ago, I'm pretty sure you're a few decades late on that hope. Hope is all we have at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:7.5 billion people * 4.5 tons of CO2 per year per person = 33.75 Gt/yr. This rate of French CO2 output is based on 2014 figures reported by the World Bank. It's pretty hosed up that bringing the entire world up to French-level emissions wound actually reduce total global emissions (assuming that's 4.5t CO2e, not just CO2, and using Wikipedia's 45Gt CO2e in 2017).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I've written quite a lot about that specfically in other threads. That's all well and good but there tends to be an inherent trade-off between efficiency and "agility" as defined. Having lots of nodes with general capability is less efficient than having fewer, specialized nodes. And any degree of redundancy is less efficient than having fewer nodes in the first place. Some things, like containerized shipping, have less a severe trade-off in this regard, while others, like most advanced manufacturing have a severe trade-off. A huge chunk of most developed economies rely on pretty brittle supply chains with loads of choke-points, limited numbers of suppliers, very capital intensive infrastructure, long lead times and even longer qualification times. It's also important to recognize that there is a big difference between resilience and mere fault tolerance. There are many examples of modern logistics & supply chains that are highly tolerant to a certain number of faults, but which go into an abrupt and irrecoverable cascade of failures with no fallback state once that limit is exceeded. Modern economies tend to be a highly correlated network of such brittle systems; as soon as things get worse than the design basis of the system, everything gets completely insta-hosed. And why arrange for anything else? If an entire sector of the economy goes completely tits up in a nanosecond due to an unforeseen constellation of circumstances and fuckups, it's not like you have to return your yacht. An economy that optimizes for shareholder value is simply NOT going to exhibit the resilience that, for example, a war economy might.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2019 05:57
|
|
