|
The other issue, as I understand it, with alternate energy is that it couldn't possibly replace the amount of energy that coal/oil supplies, at least not without significant political change and money to throw at it which would come from taxes. Then it gets sillier because someone way earlier in the thread posted a paper I believe that suggested if dinosaur energies footprint was replaced by nuclear, the world would be cooked by that heat instead of global warmings results.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
I don't think Arkane can be described as a climate denier as much as a climate skeptic. Two totally different things. Skepticism is always a healthy thing. It's the difference between an ostrich with its' head in the sand as lions approach, and an ostrich who stands around refusing to run as lions approach because he is skeptical that he's being hunted. However African savanna metaphors and doomsday hyperbole still don't make skepticism a crime against science. Vilifying skepticism is a crime against science. This thread needs more science, less dramatics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Randandal posted:I don't think Arkane can be described as a climate denier as much as a climate skeptic. Two totally different things. Skepticism is always a healthy thing. Actually they're the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Randandal posted:I don't think Arkane can be described as a climate denier as much as a climate skeptic. Two totally different things. Skepticism is always a healthy thing. I would have thought a skeptic would probably change their mind after being shown to be wrong about pretty much everything they post, rather than simply ignoring it and vanishing to come back and be wrong again later. Edit: vvv I never thought what I said was awesome, but if you are telling me that is not the case then maybe you aren't as awesome of a critical thinker as you think? Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:I would have thought a skeptic would probably change their mind after being shown to be wrong about pretty much everything they post, rather than simply ignoring it and vanishing to come back and be wrong again later. Seriously, as an observer/ lurker. Your refutations of Arkane are not as awesome as you think. And no one has answered my question from earlier. Illuminti posted:I thought the whole point was that the heat was all hiding in the deep oceans? Just a link, I'm gonna look again because I'm bored
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Randandal posted:I don't think Arkane can be described as a climate denier as much as a climate skeptic. Two totally different things. Skepticism is always a healthy thing. Skepticism is an integral part of science. It happens whenever a new paper comes out and scientists read over the finer points of the article and wonder if the results would be the same if you measured X, or took into account Y... or if the authors could really have gotten prime samples from Z location in the deep-sea without worrying about diagenesis. Skepticism is a tool, it is not meant to be a label for yourself or someone else; that's dumb. Believe it or not, climate scientists don't implicitly believe every single paper that comes out on climate change. Specific details, measurements, methods, parameters, etc. are argued and discussed all of the time. Just not on personal blogs, but rather in the literature. Climate "skeptics" are a myth. A unicorn. They don't exist. They are deniers because no matter how big the pile of evidence gets, they will always refer back to their worthless, non-peer reviewed tripe regurgitated by pundits or consultants or oil industry CEOs over the words of climate scientists. or at least 97% of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Don't mind me, I'm just a plate tectonics skeptic. I have yet to see irrefutable proof that plate tectonics exists 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:The other issue, as I understand it, with alternate energy is that it couldn't possibly replace the amount of energy that coal/oil supplies, at least not without significant political change and money to throw at it which would come from taxes. Then it gets sillier because someone way earlier in the thread posted a paper I believe that suggested if dinosaur energies footprint was replaced by nuclear, the world would be cooked by that heat instead of global warmings results. Nuclear power and coal plants both are heat engines that produce steam and drive a generator at 45%-ish efficiency. Replacing coal fired steam generators with nuclear powered steam generators does not produce more waste heat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Illuminti posted:Seriously, as an observer/ lurker. Your refutations of Arkane are not as awesome as you think. And no one has answered my question from earlier. The models are still right if the heat is in fact in the upper ocean or some other undiscovered heat sink. No one misused data. At 2 pages of posts in this thread you don't get to claim observer/lurker. You've been an Arkane apologist the whole time. Tanreall fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:The models are still right if the heat is in fact in the upper ocean or some other undiscovered heat sink. No one misused data. At 2 pages of posts in this thread you don't get to claim observer/lurker. You've been the an Arkane apologist the whole time. What's the deal with the observer/lurker thing? Is it the idea that if somebody lurks rather than contributes they tend to be wrong? Genuinely curious. Edit:vvv thanks guys Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:What's the deal with the observer/lurker thing? Is it the idea that if somebody lurks rather than contributes they tend to be wrong? Genuinely curious. It's that illuminati was implying they are an impartial observer of post quality because they haven't posted as much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:What's the deal with the observer/lurker thing? Is it the idea that if somebody lurks rather than contributes they tend to be wrong? Genuinely curious. Its an attempt to appear unbias in one's positions due to distance from the discussion and unknown conflicts of interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nuclear power and coal plants both are heat engines that produce steam and drive a generator at 45%-ish efficiency. Replacing coal fired steam generators with nuclear powered steam generators does not produce more waste heat. Sorry I should have clarified, posting on a phone. The paper in question was using nuclear energy as a replacement with the growth necessary to keep the same standard of living to population growth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Sorry I should have clarified, posting on a phone. The paper in question was using nuclear energy as a replacement with the growth necessary to keep the same standard of living to population growth. Do you have the paper handy? That sounds interesting but at the same time I'm still not sure I'm following.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Simply waiting for techno-fixes isn't a solution for a number of reasons. - Any technology fix would take some time to get online - The allure of a quick and easy solution "just around the corner" provides cover for continued emissions in the mean time. - There's a tremendous amount of carbon that we've baked into the system directly for X, Y, Z amount of years. - The fossil fuel industry's total recoverable assets outsize the global carbon budget by a sizable amount and simply have to be left in the ground. - Geoengineering projects are dangerous and unpredictable in and of themselves, would likely unevenly affect countries (you can guess who would suffer the most), and would require international cooperation and accountability the likes of which we haven't seen. - There's the danger that said techno-fixes might make more carbon-intensive assets economic , undercut alternatives, or leech funding. There are concrete, if politically and ideologically undesirable (at least to the status quo), solutions that we could implement right now: command-and-control legislation capping and taxing carbon; massive subsidization of alternative energy; trade agreements which incentivize local production rather than punish it; carbon tariffs which fairly distribute the cost between export and import nations; technology transfers and cash transfers to help raise the standard of living of developing countries, and so on. We don't have to wait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Do you have the paper handy? That sounds interesting but at the same time I'm still not sure I'm following. No unfortunately  it's buried in the thread somewhere. I'll try to look for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Do you have the paper handy? That sounds interesting but at the same time I'm still not sure I'm following. Zombie #246 posted:No unfortunately I'm pretty sure that this post from the "Do The Math" blog is what you're referring to. The reference to heat is solely to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that there can be constant, endless growth on the surface of the earth - in the most basic thermodynamic sense. quote:Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an impressive and sustained growth in the scale of energy consumption by human civilization. Plotting data from the Energy Information Agency on U.S. energy use since 1650 (1635-1945, 1949-2009, including wood, biomass, fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, etc.) shows a remarkably steady growth trajectory, characterized by an annual growth rate of 2.9% (see figure). It is important to understand the future trajectory of energy growth because governments and organizations everywhere make assumptions based on the expectation that the growth trend will continue as it has for centuries—and a look at the figure suggests that this is a perfectly reasonable assumption.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Generally "assuming growth necessary to keep the same standard of living to population growth" and/or "assuming growth necessary to bring the world's population to the same standard of living" are great ways to find a resource shortage somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Ah yup that's the post I was referring to. My mind blanked out the fact that it was a blog post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Repeating my question from above - What's so wrong/difficult/inefficient with letting algae bloom and then harvesting them? I've googled, but I don't know a thing about this field and am searching for educated opinions, not just articles stating that this is, in fact, possible, due to Technology X or Y.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
meristem posted:Repeating my question from above - What's so wrong/difficult/inefficient with letting algae bloom and then harvesting them? I've googled, but I don't know a thing about this field and am searching for educated opinions, not just articles stating that this is, in fact, possible, due to Technology X or Y. Basically it would be difficult to do in a way that is both: 1. Not a net carbon positive and 2. A better Carbon sequestration method than traditional CCS Any dispersed solution (e.g. harvesting ocean algae) will face the fundamental challenge that capturing carbon at the emissions source is one location, while algae is everywhere. Your emissions from your boats, pumps or whatever to collect the algae is a big factor. Plus you have to some how actually sequester it, another big factor. Compare that to sequestering at a power plant, where you have a ready source of power and an exhaust pipe all your carbon emissions already pass through. Now from an energy-input perspective, this is all dumb and we should just not use the carbon emitting resource in the first place, but that's something else entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
meristem posted:Repeating my question from above - What's so wrong/difficult/inefficient with letting algae bloom and then harvesting them? I've googled, but I don't know a thing about this field and am searching for educated opinions, not just articles stating that this is, in fact, possible, due to Technology X or Y. The initial stumbling block seems to me to be dissolved oxygen. Even if you somehow harvest most of the algae before a large amount died, they'll still cause a few noticeable dips in dissolved oxygen content via parts of the photosynthesis process. This would be bad for local fish. Also, you'd need somewhere to sequester the carbon, and below the thermocline is out, so you're looking at freezing it in a tundra (iffy, especially as these are tending to defrost) or burying it underground. So you're seeding algae and hoping it doesn't effect wildlife, quickly harvesting it, then carting it somewhere on shore or off shore to be put deep underground. Of course transporting it is likely releasing carbon, making the whole process less efficient. If you start doing this on a massive scale you might run into nutrient depletion, as your algae is gobbling up everything and then being taken off where they can't return those nutrients back into their respective chemical cycles. I mean all of these could probably be engineered around (more efficient transportation technology, systems to separate out nutrients and return them into the ocean), but they limit the utility of such a project compared with simply not putting carbon into the atmosphere in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:Sorry I should have clarified, posting on a phone. The paper in question was using nuclear energy as a replacement with the growth necessary to keep the same standard of living to population growth. EnemyCombatant posted:I'm pretty sure that this post from the "Do The Math" blog is what you're referring to. The reference to heat is solely to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that there can be constant, endless growth on the surface of the earth - in the most basic thermodynamic sense. I think we went through this back in the energy thread last year. At something like 20-40x our current energy consumption we will heat the planet by 2°C with waste heat, so there is room for adjusting to a nuclear solution and for some further growth, but with limits in sight. Since industrial countries have been growing their energy demand less-than-exponentially lately we might be seeing logistic growth instead of exponential growth of energy demand, which would be ok. meristem posted:Repeating my question from above - What's so wrong/difficult/inefficient with letting algae bloom and then harvesting them? I've googled, but I don't know a thing about this field and am searching for educated opinions, not just articles stating that this is, in fact, possible, due to Technology X or Y. Even an algal bloom is mostly water with somewhat more than average algae in it. It would be more efficient to build an algae factory in some empty patch of desert. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Speaking of carbon sequestration, what do people think of biochar?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
UnCO3 posted:Speaking of carbon sequestration, what do people think of biochar? We're eroding soils faster than they regenerate pretty much everywhere and we'll run out of cheap rock phosphate within the century. Increasing/retaining agricultural productivity with easily-produced charcoal can be a good thing, so on that alone it's worth looking into. As with fuel crops in general, we need to make sure it doesn't lead to clearing intact habitats for agricultural use (good luck with that). It would also be interesting to see if chucking large amounts of charcoal into charcoal-free soils will change carbon emissions from the soil, and I can't imagine it would be good to dump large amounts of charcoal into many intact habitats. While the whole thing is in the prototype phase their estimates for carbon sequestration might be overly optimistic, it's probably going to be sensible and cost effective to use it in agricultural areas anyway (so large parts of the planet) and make some contribution to sequestration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Seriously, as an observer/ lurker. Your refutations of Arkane are not as awesome as you think. (1) None of the smarty-pants models predicted ~the pause~ therefore the models are wrong (2) Nic Lewis is the only person who calculates sensitivity correctly and everyone else can gently caress off (3) Technology will solve our problems anyway so the best thing to do is grow the economy, don't tax me bro (1) and (2) are often conflated but they are not the same position. The only way to explain (1) is with the boring but true observation that a model mean (let alone a multi-model mean) doesn't account for short-term variability. Individual model runs do often exhibit pauses of a decade or longer. That's why the confidence interval is there as well as the multi-model mean. As for (2), while you wouldn't know it reading Arkane's posts, Nic Lewis is not the only author in the world talking about climate sensitivity. Even the others who use similar methods, such as Forster & Gregory and Otto (who co-authored with Lewis) acknowledge the relative strengths and weaknesses of the methods for calculating sensitivity, instead just insisting, as Lewis does, that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That's because Lewis is an ideological skeptic. Energy budgets derived from a decade of observational values are not the Last Word on Sensitivity, and the IPCC did not "hide the good news," they merely considered the totality of the evidence rather than "Gregory and Forster, Otto et al, the rest of you suckers take a lap." The authors of these papers themselves have cautioned against over-weighting their sensitivity values in the context of the paleo & model evidence. And more importantly, let's say for a minute that we take the generous interpretation of Arkane's position that models with TCR>=2 are overrepresented in CMIP3 and CMIP5. Ironically, the most complex models (the full Earth System Models) are the ones repping the low-end of TCR. Go here and run an estimate using the GFDL-ESM2G model (which has a TCR of 1.3, per Lewis' estimates) and RCP 6.0 (per Arkane's assertion that RCP 8.5 is crap) for 2071-2095. It's still a >2.5°C rise above 1980-2004 baseline for the world (or >3°C above pre-industrial). This squares with the observations of Otto, another author Arkane likes to cite a lot: quote:What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3 °C rather than 1.8 °C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC's models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale. Elotana fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Generally "assuming growth necessary to keep the same standard of living to population growth" and/or "assuming growth necessary to bring the world's population to the same standard of living" are great ways to find a resource shortage somehow. Yeah but the thing is there are interests at work that want poo poo to keep chugging along the way we are now with the assumption of infinite growth. Whether we like it or not we're running into issues with how humans are behaving that will, in the long term, make things really hard for humans. CEO Fatty McRichpants might get to buy his 30th yacht in the short term so he doesn't want to change. Yuri McDevelopingcountry is probably also getting tired of dirt farming 18 hours a day while wearing rags so he'd definitely welcome the opportunity to work in a factory 12 hours a day if that means he gets slightly nicer stuff, pollution be damned. Global population and consumption overall are still growing. It's a mathematical certainty that if we don't change our ways or spread out beyond Earth we're going to hit a limit. It might be catastrophic, it might not, but the status quo is impossible to maintain forever. That's why climate change discussion is such a huge deal; the people wildly profiting from the status quo don't want it to go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Honestly, the best argument against waiting for a technological savior is that there are plenty of ways we could be changing and fixing things already but the plutocracy refuses to act. "Stopping" climate change is so much more a political and sociological problem than it ever has been a tech one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We don't have an exact understanding about how it would effect oceans. It's like how that proposition to dump a shitton of iron in the South Pacific might fix things or it might make things a lot worse. What came of that iron that was dumping in the ocean off the coast of British Columbia a year or two ago? I remember some guy who wanted to do it for a few years and the Canadian government covered up that they allowed it. I found a little about it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-ocean-iron-dump-investigation-to-proceed-1.2523649 Danny LaFever fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Danny LaFever posted:What came of that iron that was dumping in the ocean off the coast of British Columbia a year or two ago? I remember some guy who wanted to do it for a few years and the Canadian government covered up that they allowed it. http://www.whoi.edu/ocb-fert/page.do?pid=38315 quote:July 15, 2014: The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) conducted a small scale Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) experiment in the North Pacific in 2012. 120 tons of iron compound were deposited in the migration routes of pink and sockeye salmon in the Pacific ocean West of Haida Gwaii over a period of 30 days. The project resulted in a 35,000 km2 plankton bloom that lasted for
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Honestly, the best argument against waiting for a technological savior is that there are plenty of ways we could be changing and fixing things already but the plutocracy refuses to act. "Stopping" climate change is so much more a political and sociological problem than it ever has been a tech one. At the same time, stuff like smart grid/smart cities is very much up the tech industry's alley, isn't it? (Insert also: "smart agriculture" and smart... really everything.) It really jives in with this entire Big Data/Internet of Things thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:Honestly, the best argument against waiting for a technological savior is that there are plenty of ways we could be changing and fixing things already but the plutocracy refuses to act. "Stopping" climate change is so much more a political and sociological problem than it ever has been a tech one. This is pretty much just a meaningless platitude at best, complete nonsense at worst. Hell, the idea that technology is a separable part of human existence is already nonsense on its own; without technology we'd have been dead a long time ago. The idea that 'technology will save us' is mocked here even though that's been the case endless times through human existence. Why aren't we starving like Malthus said? Because technology allows us to produce food at a rate that was unthinkable at that time. One person creates in an hour what would have taken an army of men back then. Why haven't we been wiped out by plague or disease? Because science saved us with medicine. None of these things were planned either. It wasn't like we waited for medicine to mature before we started cramming people into cities. Anyway technology is humanity, our primary evolutionary advantage is how well our brain works to interact with tools in the environment. CC is not a 'political' or 'sociological' problem- it is a human problem. The plutocrats aren't forcing you to buy buy buy, people want to buy buy buy. No one is putting a gun to SUV buyers heads right now, yet sales are jumping up from the oil decline. We could live incredibly more efficiently, yet people like big houses, waste food, and drive around burning gas just for fun. I'm sure some will suggest this is also the elites fault as they make us want this stuff through advertising and blah blah. Except this just doesn't happen in places that have million dollar adverting budgets, it happens in poor countries, it happens everywhere. This is larger than one person, larger than than one political body and larger than one society. It is something without historical precedence- nothing even comes close to the amount of global cooperation you'll need over the length of time needed. WWII is basically the closest and that required a direct and obvious threat. I mean it shouldn't be a surprise that people don't act with the same urgency at predictions on charts and graphs than they do to goose-stepping nazis. Nothing major is going to happen wrt climate change until there is direct staring-you-in-the-face evidence of it happening. A couple more hurricanes a year aint gonna do it. But do go on pwhXpress, who are the plutocrats holding us back, how are they holding us back, how will we remove them and if we remove them (from every country in the world I suppose, simultaneously), who will take their place and how will we convince them of the rightness of our cause? What are the changes we can be doing that will reduce global CO2 output in the required timeframe according the the IPCC? This is why I call the statement a platitude, because we can rah rah rah all you want but it's a lot bigger of a problem than some old white guys smoking cigars in a hazy room. Hell, one of the best things we could do now is a massive worldwide nuclear infrastructure overhaul yet it's the aging hippies, not elites stopping that one. Science is the best chance we got, really. meristem posted:It's not a coincidence that environmentalism and social equality are both umbrella'ed under sustainable-development problems. I find Jeffrey Sachs' textbook to be a good primer: http://cupola.columbia.edu/age-of-sustainable-development/ . And the UNSDSN courses: https://www.sdsnedu.org/home . Lazy, easy, simple, chatty, just the thing for an interested amateur like me. Thing is wealth and life quality / expectancy has utterly exploded during the un-sustainable periods- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo You're pretty much better off on the poverty line in a western country today than anyone but the elite in any country 200 years ago. tsa fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is why I call the statement a platitude, because we can rah rah rah all you want but it's a lot bigger of a problem than some old white guys smoking cigars in a hazy room. Hell, one of the best things we could do now is a massive worldwide nuclear infrastructure overhaul yet it's the aging hippies, not elites stopping that one. Considering the immense power behind the gas/coal/oil industries, I wouldn't really claim that aging hippies are the only ones stopping nuclear. Nuclear has unimaginable regulations compared to that of the fossil fuel industry, and that isn't because aging hippies don't care about those energy sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:You're pretty much better off on the poverty line in a western country today than anyone but the elite in any country 200 years ago. It's interesting how misleading data can be, especially wage data or GDP per capita data. Who would you say is better off - a frontiersman with a large amount of free land given to him, yet no income as he is a subsistence farmer - or a part-time single mom working at McDonalds in 2014? Because the data clearly says the single mom earns way, way more. Progress! What about people in China forced off of their land and into sweatshops? Sure their lives are miserable, but we technically raised their wage infinity percent! drat capitalism rocks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:
The Chinese are actually restrained from leaving their land so that's not the best example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The Chinese are actually restrained from leaving their land so that's not the best example. Oh OK I can do Wikipedia too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_evictions_in_China Or BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-19894292 Here's some about Mongolians in northern China: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/ecological-policy-10232014165741.html To say nothing of the Cultural Revolution. Need a link for that one too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Oh OK I can do Wikipedia too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_evictions_in_China The Mongolian example is the only one that really fit your narrative. The vast majority of protests (and most likely, the vast majority of evictions) occurred in what we would consider urban or suburban areas (Wukan would be the latter). As for historical references, you would probably have better luck looking at the Great Leap Forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The Mongolian example is the only one that really fit your narrative. The vast majority of protests (and most likely, the vast majority of evictions) occurred in what we would consider urban or suburban areas (Wukan would be the latter). Cool, thanks for your input. I think I'll stick with the Cultural Revolution as my example, although the GLF works too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Who would you say is better off - a frontiersman with a large amount of free land given to him, yet no income as he is a subsistence farmer - or a part-time single mom working at McDonalds in 2014? Because the data clearly says the single mom earns way, way more. Progress! Given that subsistence farming is back breaking labor and subject to drought and pests that can randomly plunge you into starvation I'm gonna go ahead and say the McD worker is better off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
ehhhhhh, not sure about that. Building a sustainable homestead takes time and effort but it is possible to have a high quality of life, even without electricity. Additionally, residential PV cells and batteries are becoming much more accessible and it's becoming easier than ever to go "off-grid."
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:08
|
|
