|
Narbo posted:Society was sustainable, until 10,000 years later when population growth exploded, so where did the fuckup happen? I think defining all human endeavor past the pre-historic period as unsustainable proves my point very well. It is an extremely sustainable lifestyle until your neighbors develop the "boomstick", all of a sudden that egalitarian 20-hour work week doesn't seem so good, does it? The only reason any of these hunter-gatherer societies even still exist is because governments are enlightened enough to attempt to protect them from incursion by other parties. I don't see how 98% of the human population dying off and the remaining few returning to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better than anything else that has been proposed. But by all means, I'm sure any society deciding to adopt hunter-gathering won't just get exterminated by neighboring cultures who aspire to anything greater than finding some meat and berries for the day.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Torka posted:I've often wondered how people living in areas where clean water is scarce feel about the fact that first worlders poo poo into potable water, if they're aware of it. Probably some of all three. Hell, set aside the rest of the world for a second and note that several of our own states have to constantly wrestle with water scarcity issues and will do so in perpetuity. I want to see their reaction to some smirking boneheaded redneck saying something like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Narbo posted:Society was sustainable, until 10,000 years later when population growth exploded, so where did the fuckup happen? I think defining all human endeavor past the pre-historic period as unsustainable proves my point very well. How often do you hear politicians talking about a 'return to growth' as if it's the most natural thing in a world for something to keep growing without end, forever? That growth is fundamentally based on oil. We don't have infinite oil. End of story. I can't find a better chart that plots the two quantities right now, but check out http://www.oilposter.org/posterlarge.html - the main bulk of the chart is oil production over time. That thin yellow line is global population tracking it very nicely. Check out this paper arguing that the What needs to happen, and will happen one way or another, is a return to balance and a population that lives within its means. TACD fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
TACD posted:Things got unsustainable when we discovered oil and started basing our economy, agriculture and living arrangements on the assumption of cheap, ever-increasing supplies of fossil fuels being available forever. Also about the same time population growth started to take off in a very real way. This, basically. I don't want to derail this thread too far into Peak Oil territory, but the fact that we're having to reach farther for more marginal fossil fuel reserves has all but put the nail in the coffin for the infinite oil idea. Cheap energy from fossil fuels will just be a blip on the historical radar, and the idea that we have based our lifestyles around it seems incredibly shortsighted and insane. Especially considering the effects, such as the namesake of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
duck monster posted:A friend recently finished his house and managed to wire it all up with 12 volt led lighting. At full brightness its incredibly bright inside, so he keeps it dimmed, but it still uses an absurdly low amount of power. Its pretty drat good technology. Did he do the same?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
TACD posted:Things got unsustainable when we discovered oil Not when we started burning coal? e:"What needs to happen, and will happen one way or another, is a return to balance and a population that lives within its means." That's fine, sure I agree, for whatever that means. I guess I just don't see it as a useful conversation when you're bogged down in how to reduce energy dense activities and drive people to voluntarily choose investments that will reduce industrial, commercial, and personal energy use on a daily basis. Narbo fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
https://vimeo.com/19364230 has Daniel Quinn talking about totalitarian agriculture (vs. the regular act of growing things we eat) as being the culprit in the agricultural revolution, which also, in other books, he says is not something that happened once upon a time but something that is continually occurring. Totalitarian agriculture seems like a selfish mindset that leads to the type of unsustainable farming practiced widely today. Some have called totalitarian agriculture a moral event, not a technological one. My background studies were in anthropology, so early on I got used to the idea that before agriculture was horticulture, which hunters and gatherers practiced at times too. (Obviously horticulture still exists, but also this type of agriculture has a place in transitory history between nomadic hunter-gathering and agriculture.) The way I learned, and horticulture is often defined differently, is that horticulture generally was the smaller-plot planting of mixed crops as opposed to agriculture's large-plot planting of mono crops. Horticulturists also plant(ed) a wide variety of crops, including fruit trees that would help with irrigation, and they use(d) methods to enhance soil productivity. I imagine many of us who are growing foods as subsistence farming to a degree fall into the horticulture camp, which is something probably humans of all times have participated in and which should not be confused with totalitarian agriculture, which Quinn explains well in the video above. There was also not an enormous surplus leftover in horticulture. Quinn's view is that over-produced food actually motivates an over-produced population, which in turn promotes a larger population--an endless cycle, leading to where we are today. His views also define pre-totalitarian agriculturists as Leavers (people who take only what they need) as opposed to totalitarian agriculture society as Takers (they take anything they want, way more than they need: a big surplus). The Leavers, he argues, respect the fundamentals of ecology: competition and co-existence. The Takers, he argues, do not respect those fundamental laws and thrive on imposition, ecologically, economically, and even religiously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Narbo posted:Not when we started burning coal?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
There is no "harmony with nature", guys. It's an illusion because humanity is so young. We were originally confined to Africa until coincidence led to us traveling out and colonizing every single continent: 1) Displacing the gently caress out of any other hominids in Eurasia  2) Destabilizing the ecosystems of Australia, New Zealand, most Pacific islands, and the Americas. Then, having destroyed/assimilated all other hominids and eradicating or domesticating most large land animals; we turned to fighting the elements and ourselves for the past few millenia. Now it seems we have a karmic debt to pay for the fancy tools that have made us so successful. Humanity cannot conquer nature (or ignore it), but it seems this is a painful lesson we don't want to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Torka posted:I've often wondered how people living in areas where clean water is scarce feel about the fact that first worlders poo poo into potable water, if they're aware of it. You can just look at a country like australia where large sections are scarce for water AND people poo poo in fresh water toilets. Reaction: Indifference. (And then outrage when the govt rations water for gardening)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I had this idea some time back to step AC->DC at home level for ONLY lighting, and to use it purely for LED lighting to get rid of the stupid loving computer chip poo poo that has to exist to use LEDs on AC current. This is actually a pretty fantastic idea as long as you can wrangle the (small number of) shortcomings of wiring DC in the home. I don't think it'll be that much of an issue over that short a distance but the transmission losses are greater with DC, I recall something like 10% over neighborhood-scale distances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
duck monster posted:You can just look at a country like australia where large sections are scarce for water AND people poo poo in fresh water toilets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:This is actually a pretty fantastic idea as long as you can wrangle the (small number of) shortcomings of wiring DC in the home. I don't think it'll be that much of an issue over that short a distance but the transmission losses are greater with DC, I recall something like 10% over neighborhood-scale distances. It's hard to justify with the prices of integrated LED bulbs coming down to $5+/bulb for a dimmable 60W incandescent replacement. Might make sense still for certain industrial situations where highbay fluorescent fixtures are unsuitable and highbay LED replacements are more than $1000/fixture, but I wouldn't suggest spending money on it unless there was an immediate need. e: More effective measures include tightening up the building envelope as much as possible and exhausting insulation potential, managing current space heat usage with setbacks or programmable thermostats, solar hot water if it makes sense, getting rid of old appliances and maintaining the newer ones well, and then farther in the future replacing the housing stock with smaller units built to higher codes and with higher density and community oriented design in mind. And of course stop driving so much, stop buying so much poo poo, and teach your kids not to be wasteful little shits. Narbo fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jun 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
TACD posted:Yea I mean if somebody wants to start a peak energy thread I'd be happy to keep debating, I was just trying to justify continued use of the word 'sustainable' and the concept as a goal to shoot for. This will be of interest to you if peak energy is your thing. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/20593576/885722944/name/Patzek+and+Croft+2010+-+Peak+Coal+2011.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
McDowell posted:There is no "harmony with nature", guys. It's an illusion because humanity is so young. I agree with you for the most part, in that humanity can't truly achieve a real balance with nature without abandoning civilization. This extends all the way down to the tribal level. However, extreme as I am on this issue, I won't argue that we go so far as to go back to living like we did in the Pleistocene. A balance of sorts could be achieved, but not until human populations or consumption drop precipitously. Preferably both in this scenario, but I'm just humoring an idea that will never happen. The real trick is finding a balance that fucks neither us or the rest of our ecosystems over in a major way. I'll admit a bit of specieist self-interest here in stating that I believe humanity should survive while calculating in this balance. Where this equilibrium point is? I can't exactly say, and I won't pretend to. What I do know is that our current way of living and population levels sure as hell aren't anywhere near it. Getting to that point is going to be the really painful part, supposing we beat some really long odds and actually achieve this at some point in the future. I'm not saying anything really new at this point, but reframing things long-term in this way has been really sobering/depressing for me. We don't stand a chance at natural equilibrium as we know it until humans simply stop being human. 
TheFuglyStik fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jun 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Again, I think you guys should go read Eaarth by Bill McKibben. He's a borderline anarcho-primitivist, except he's nowhere near as gloomy and thinks the Internet would be able to prevent a complete collapse of human civilisation even if we all go back to growing our own food. I dunno, I just like reading his stuff 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
TACD posted:I would assume the US would freaking love that kind of service, but it barely exists over here. It's just not a thing. I could understand certain areas not being eligible because the US has some pretty loving remote locations but it just doesn't seem to be offered anywhere. EDIT: Actually did a quick search and stuff like this pops up. I've personally never heard of them though but I looks like I'm wrong anyways. I have no idea if they stay in business by charging a bunch or what. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Jun 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 10:46
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:There were several companies that tried this back in the late 90's/early 2000's. They all crashed and burned within a year and I haven't heard of a major effort to try Grocery Store Deliveries since. I forget why exactly but there just isn't a way to make money off this idea in the US. The firms you're probably thinking of were an outgrowth of the dotcom boom/bust. They folded likely because terrible models were pumped up with hilariously misallocated venture capital and prayers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The firms you're probably thinking of were an outgrowth of the dotcom boom/bust. They folded likely because terrible models were pumped up with hilariously misallocated venture capital and prayers. Plenty of grocery stores still deliver. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Plenty of grocery stores still deliver. That's cool and correct but we're talking about high profile failed 3rd party delivery services like Webvan, not direct delivery by the grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:That's cool and correct but we're talking about high profile failed 3rd party delivery services like Webvan, not direct delivery by the grocery store. I think I brought it up talking about the UK situation, in the UK it's almost all run by the store but they have nice websites with a memory feature and the like and it's pretty user friendly. I think some stores do a shop and drop too, you go down there, pick everything in a trolley, pay, leave it in the store and they deliver it. I would imagine that kind of service is mainly used by people without cars since it's much easier than humping 30kg of groceries home on the bus
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
duck monster posted:That second sentence is a bit inconvenient for the angries. Its not saying denialists are MORE scientific, its saying that scientific literacy merely polarized the debate further. Implication being that the dunning kurger effect is not as large here as previously anticipated and lower scientific literacy folks appear to be aware that they dont have the full capacity to assess the data. That graph on communitarian vs individualist is worrying as gently caress all and reminds me of that section in The Authoritarians where they simulate a world run by authoritarians and non-authoritarians which result in nuclear war (twice) versus the end of war, harmony, general development and banding together to fight climate change and natural catastrophes. When you said earlier that there's a group of people holding us all way the gently caress back, you were right on. Unfortunately, education is not a solution to these people, as some kind of hosed up mental development has lead to them being horrible people and I don't even know where to begin to undo that. Purging them isn't exactly an option either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
Something I haven't seen brought up in the bits of this thread I've read - Is there any known way of taking greenhouse gasses OUT of the atmosphere on any kind of meaningful scale? If it's too late to reduce emissions to any useful level, that would seen like the next avenue to consider. Edit: Failing that, what are the other options to consider re: cooling the earth? I know about the Space Mirrors, is there anything else? It seems like most deniers anyone cares about at least agree the earth is getting warmer regardless of what the cause is, so it seems like we could have an easier time getting them behind cooling measures. I mean, Peak Fossil Fuel would still screw us over a lot, but it's better than having it happen alongside climate catastrophe. Spiritus Nox fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jun 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Something I haven't seen brought up in the bits of this thread I've read - Is there any known way of taking greenhouse gasses OUT of the atmosphere on any kind of meaningful scale? If it's too late to reduce emissions to any useful level, that would seen like the next avenue to consider. Yes. Let's run down the options (I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but I'm no expert so take this with a pinch of salt):
If we want to fix this issue in a meaningful way it really needs to be tackled from both ends, and a mix of these options would help alongside rapidly removing fossil fuels from use. Fake edit: There's a few methods of cooling down the earth such as painting roofs white which means more light is reflected, letting a bunch of nasty chemicals out into the atmosphere meaning less light is absorbed (but could have a bunch of unintended consequences) or allowing water vapour into the atmosphere to hopefully reflect more light (a test project of this was recently cancelled).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
froglet posted:Yes. Let's run down the options (I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but I'm no expert so take this with a pinch of salt): Hm. Now, some of those I know are actually being enacted - most obviously planting trees, since those of course have benefits to everyone, including greedy tycoons. Do you know why the water vapor test was cancelled? That sounds like it could be really helpful if we could avoid doing dramatic cooling and throwing ourselves in the freezer to spite the oven.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Hm. Now, some of those I know are actually being enacted - most obviously planting trees, since those of course have benefits to everyone, including greedy tycoons. It was due to a conflict of interest. Apparently two of the scientists involved had patented similar technology before and it wasn't properly declared to the relevant parties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
The water vapour idea is probably the most practical and safe method on the table that I've heard of so far. You get some ships out on the ocean and start shooting vapour about 100 feet up. Have a dozen or so going all year, for the low cost of a few %s of some developed country's GDP. And very easy to turn off. Honestly we need to start thinking about what's costly in terms of a country's GDP, because that's the kind of money that's going to be needed to stabilize the climate, let alone actually address the root problems of climate change. A few percent of some country's GDP for 50 years is a small price to pay. Of course as some people balk at the costs, it gets progressively more and more expensive to address.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Hm. Now, some of those I know are actually being enacted - most obviously planting trees, since those of course have benefits to everyone, including greedy tycoons. You'll find that the rate forests are being replanted is being exceeded by the rate of deforestation of the Amazon/other rainforests, and as large tree have have a much greater capacity to capture carbon it will be years before the new forests reach the carbon fixing capability of an old growth forest. In addition the cultivation of cleared land releases more carbon into the atmosphere as disturbing the soil increases the oxidation of organic matter and humus, and the bits of tree that are not used for timber are generally burnt and emit more carbon. At the same time this is happening we have created more problems to deal with: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/trees/climate-change-has-doubled-forest-mortality gay picnic defence fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jun 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
4liters posted:You'll find that the rate forests are being replanted is being exceeded by the rate of deforestation of the Amazon/other rainforests, and as large tree have have a much greater capacity to capture carbon it will be years before the new forests reach the carbon fixing capability of an old growth forest. In addition the cultivation of cleared land releases more carbon into the atmosphere as disturbing the soil increases the oxidation of organic matter and humus, and the bits of tree that are not used for timber are generally burnt and emit more carbon. And the only way you could stop much of this is some imperialistic power play to ban it, which is not a good option at all. Pl,us China and the rest of the developing world will keep the market for gas growing in the meantime. I'm at the the point where its getting hard to get worked up about it anymore, I just hope I'm dead before the worst happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:The water vapour idea is probably the most practical and safe method on the table that I've heard of so far. You get some ships out on the ocean and start shooting vapour about 100 feet up. Have a dozen or so going all year, for the low cost of a few %s of some developed country's GDP. And very easy to turn off. Uh... I thought water vapor was an important player in global warming? Like, not in preventing it, but rather contributing positively to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Uh... I thought water vapor was an important player in global warming? Like, not in preventing it, but rather contributing positively to it. Well 100 feet up isn't the stratosphere. But if that's applicable even at low altitudes, back to the drawing board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Well 100 feet up isn't the stratosphere. But if that's applicable even at low altitudes, back to the drawing board. I though the point of the water vapor is that concentrated release of it would seed clouds, and that increasing the number of clouds would raise the earths albedo. I didn't think that the point of the plan was to change that math on greenhouse gases as much a it was to increase the amount of light reflected back into space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:And the only way you could stop much of this is some imperialistic power play to ban it, which is not a good option at all. I don't know if we can really say that, though, if the alternative is massive dieoffs at best and societal collapse or extinction at worst. Mind you, for that to work you'd have to have a majority of the acting nations' population aware of the problems - so you can write the US right off. China might be able to pull it off, but they don't appear to give a poo poo, so gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
The problem with large-scale technological solutions such as cloud seeding is the high potential for unintended consequences. When you're talking about something like weather or an ecosystem, it is critical to understand that such systems are highly complex and behave in nonlinear ways, which means that our ability to accurately predict outcomes is limited (if not nonexistent). Reforestation is the best bet, because of all the options, it's the one we can be most certain will produce the intended outcome and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I don't know if we can really say that, though, if the alternative is massive dieoffs at best and societal collapse or extinction at worst. Mind you, for that to work you'd have to have a majority of the acting nations' population aware of the problems - so you can write the US right off. China might be able to pull it off, but they don't appear to give a poo poo, so gently caress that. Yeah, us kicking down Brazil's door and then subsidizing their farmers would not be a terrible thing as far as history goes, but I highly doubt that will happen. The most likely intervention is probably someone pressuring the govt into banning the deforestation while leaving the farmers with no alternatives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Yeah, us kicking down Brazil's door and then subsidizing their farmers would not be a terrible thing as far as history goes, but I highly doubt that will happen. The most likely intervention is probably someone pressuring the govt into banning the deforestation while leaving the farmers with no alternatives. What kind of frustrates me is China had a chance to start from closer to scratch than most anywhere in the west, access to the information, and (as far as I know, which is admittedly very little) a population that isn't nearly as hostile to the idea as our own. They could have gone to the expense of practicalizing solar or some other form of clean energy, but instead they opted towards digging for the last scraps of oil our planet has to offer. Dammit. Still, we have to keep faith that the tide will turn. Progress is being made in alternative fuels and spreading awareness - our own millitary seems quite interested in non-fossil fuels from purely pragmatic standpoints, despite the efforts of the loving REPUBLICANS (  ) to shut them up. We can't give in to pessimism, or we might as well just sit back and wait for the end, if you'll pardom my melodrama.By the by, are the farmers absolutely screwed without encroaching on the Amazon? Is there no way to get more long-term viability out of the land they have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Torka posted:I've often wondered how people living in areas where clean water is scarce feel about the fact that first worlders poo poo into potable water, if they're aware of it. How much water is actually removed from the fresh/potable water cycle when I take a poo poo in it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How much water is actually removed from the fresh/potable water cycle when I take a poo poo in it? When 500 million or a billion people are making GBS threads in potable water around once a day each, it adds up pretty drat quick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How much water is actually removed from the fresh/potable water cycle when I take a poo poo in it? A tiny fraction compared to what's lost by growing cotton in the desert. In the US, water use has been dropping both total and per capita for decades despite increasing population and production, with almost all past (and planned future) saving being through improved practices in the industrial and agricultural sector that uses most of the water intake. Sure, a lot of that isn't literally going through purification processes for drinking, but the water that does is a pretty small fraction of what's suitable for it. Not to say better toilets aren't a nice thing, and double-flush designs and the like are a great thing, but worrying too much about them is like when people get worried about a few million dollars in "Congressional pork!" to the exclusion of hundreds of billions in defense spending or what have you. Your eating and clothing habits determine your use of fresh water to a far greater extent than anything you do in the bathroom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Nutrient loss to sewage outflow is probably a more significant problem than the water being polluted, really.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 01:05
|
|
