|
Placid Marmot posted:You didn't read my post very well, did you? Here you go: Chicken breasts are 1.89 a pound usually and have 105~ grams of protein per pound so they're a lot better than hot dogs but still not perfect. Living on pintos seems like hell though.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
I wonder exactly how long it would take to end consumerism? Or should we just aim to get consumerism down to 1990s levels by 2030 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Chicken breasts are 1.89 a pound usually and have 105~ grams of protein per pound so they're a lot better than hot dogs but still not perfect. Living on pintos seems like hell though. Living on chicken breasts sounds like hell to me - and that's what all the bodybuilders and lifters say about eating lots of chicken too. I was not suggesting that one should "live off" beans - a significant fraction of my food intake is composed of various beans, chickpeas, lentils and similar, but that's all cooked with vegetables, herbs, spices and whatever and I eat lots of fruit, nuts and grains too - I was just demonstrating that you can get "quality protein" [if you were to eat just pinto beans, you would be eating close to nutritionally compete protein - (but don't eat just pinto beans)] without having to eat meat. Nevvy Z posted:I'm not sure I buy this argument. Is TV really a significant source of energy consumption? It seems more like something you are railling against as an ill of modern society but is basically fine. Watching a lot of TV will certainly add up to a lot of energy consumption - whether it is "significant" depends how much energy the watcher expends on other activities - and, fitting with the direction of my argument, nobody can claim that someone "cannot afford" to cook for themselves or to ride to work if that person is also watching "multiple hours of TV". It is not high-consumption activities that should be taxed - how would you tax someone cooling their house to 72 degrees in summer (I don't know if that's a very cool temperature in Fahrenheit - let's say it is) versus someone heating their house to 72 degrees in winter? My idea is to allow everyone a ration of free energy, enough to cook, heat/cool, light, and other reasonable usages, and to tax usage on top of that on a scale that will permit poorer people to slightly overspend their free ration but that will prohibit rich people from using ridiculous amounts of energy. This will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or should we just aim to get consumerism down to 1990s levels by 2030 Trickle Down Economics will do it for you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Living on chicken breasts sounds like hell to me - and that's what all the bodybuilders and lifters say about eating lots of chicken too. I was not suggesting that one should "live off" beans - a significant fraction of my food intake is composed of various beans, chickpeas, lentils and similar, but that's all cooked with vegetables, herbs, spices and whatever and I eat lots of fruit, nuts and grains too - I was just demonstrating that you can get "quality protein" [if you were to eat just pinto beans, you would be eating close to nutritionally compete protein - (but don't eat just pinto beans)] without having to eat meat. Yeah your utopia sounds pretty lovely. Do the greens at the top still get to live like Al Gore? As long as some of us get to continue to be more equal than others, I'm ok with your plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Yeah your utopia sounds pretty lovely. Do the greens at the top still get to live like Al Gore? As long as some of us get to continue to be more equal than others, I'm ok with your plan. My idea would actively reduce inequality - did you not understand it? People who are poor would pay zero or close to zero for their energy, while richer people, or those who want to use unequal amounts of energy, would spend what they are willing to spend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:My idea would actively reduce inequality - did you not understand it? People who are poor would pay zero or close to zero for their energy, while richer people, or those who want to use unequal amounts of energy, would spend what they are willing to spend. "if you need a kilowatt, take a kilowatt, if you have a kilowatt, leave a kilowatt!" - a well thought out policy by a very serious D&D poster not at all based on the little penny dish thing next to the register at the qwick-e-shop
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:"if you need a kilowatt, take a kilowatt, if you have a kilowatt, leave a kilowatt!" Perhaps you thought that I was suggesting a zero-sum system? I never said that. Again, I don't think you understood what I wrote. Or perhaps you think that poor people require the same amount of energy as rich people to maintain their households, or that they should be spending the relatively-high proportion of their income on energy that they do now (energy that is largely essential: heating, cooking), while rich people should only spend a relatively-small proportion of their income, despite that rich people use more energy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Perhaps you thought that I was suggesting a zero-sum system? I never said that. Again, I don't think you understood what I wrote. Yes, I think poor people should spend a larger portion of their income on fixed rate things like energy or cars or shoes. Cheaper energy would be great, I think we can all agree!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They certainly don't in many factors (number of children, for example).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Yes, I think poor people should spend a larger portion of their income on fixed rate things like energy or cars or shoes. Cheaper energy would be great, I think we can all agree! Have you never heard of fuel poverty? Here's a handy link for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_poverty I want people to use less energy, but it is necessary for people to be able to heat their houses adequately, be able to cook, have lighting and refrigeration, and a reasonable amount of other energy usage. If you think that people living in fuel poverty is a good thing, then maybe you should stick to the libertarian threads.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Have you never heard of fuel poverty? Here's a handy link for you. What's 'reasonable'? I'm in favor of everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires, and shouldn't break the bank, or come at differing cost points based on income. That's loving retarded. Why is it that greens and communists always have these vast unworkable schemes? Is it your lack of experience operating in the adult world?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:40
|
|
actually a zero sum carbon tax redistributed per capita to the people makes a lot of sense, hell, we can even exempt the top 10% of earners from payouts 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What's 'reasonable'? I'm in favor of everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires, and shouldn't break the bank, or come at differing cost points based on income. That's loving retarded. Why is it that greens and communists always have these vast unworkable schemes? Is it your lack of experience operating in the adult world? Because a really vast and unworkable scheme is probably the only thing that's going to get us through the century without a worldwide collapse of technological civilization?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What's 'reasonable'? I'm in favor of everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires, and shouldn't break the bank, or come at differing cost points based on income. That's loving retarded. Why is it that greens and communists always have these vast unworkable schemes? Is it your lack of experience operating in the adult world? So basically you want to save the planet as cheaply as possible. Because living on cheap energy got us into this problem, so it can get us out of it. Are you listening to yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What's 'reasonable'? I'm in favor of everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires, and shouldn't break the bank, or come at differing cost points based on income. That's loving retarded. Why is it that greens and communists always have these vast unworkable schemes? Is it your lack of experience operating in the adult world? "Everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires" is kinda why we're in this problem to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Because a really vast and unworkable scheme is probably the only thing that's going to get us through the century without a worldwide collapse of technological civilization?  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I wouldn't say that having lots of kids is a well-recognized aspect of hedonism. Save perhaps as an accidental side-effect. It's the foundation of the original "Tragedy of the Commons" argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:educating poor people If they were educated, they wouldn't be poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's the foundation of the original "Tragedy of the Commons" argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
i am harry posted:If they were educated, they wouldn't be poor. I guess you're trolling. If so, congratulations. My actual statement was: Placid Marmot posted:If anything, educating poor people in ways to reduce their spending while also being more eco-friendly is more likely to be effective than educating well-off people, as poorer people will see proportionally-greater benefits. which says nothing about the general education of poor people and actually places them in the same educational category as well-off people, being people who could learn more about reducing their spending while being more eco-friendly. In any case, you have it back to front: if they weren't poor, they wouldn't be poorly-educated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
No I think I have it the right way round. I'm not saying "ur poor and dumb and dumb and poor", just that a lack of the sort of education you and I have so far received is the main reason most of these poor people you're talking about are poor...so educating them about how to grow a vegetable patch in their back yard is short-sighted and ineffective. Look at birth rate. i am harry fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:actually a zero sum carbon tax redistributed per capita to the people makes a lot of sense, hell, we can even exempt the top 10% of earners from payouts 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What's 'reasonable'? I'm in favor of everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires, and shouldn't break the bank, or come at differing cost points based on income. That's loving retarded. Why is it that greens and communists always have these vast unworkable schemes? Is it your lack of experience operating in the adult world? How is tiered pricing unworkable. My electricity bill in every city I've ever lived had tiered pricing: the first X kWh were dirt-cheap, the next tier a bit more, and up and up. It's pretty loving great: I didn't have to pay out the rear end for basic necessities of life, but there was significant savings to be had at the top end by setting the timer on my A/C or turning off unneeded lights. How can you say something is unworkable when the idea is used in municipal utilities every drat day? And if you don't want energy usage to break the bank for anyone, shouldn't you support low prices for the first kWh (which represents literal life-and-death like winter heating and cooked food), and higher prices for the luxuries powered by someone's 800th kWh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:What's 'reasonable'? I'm in favor of everyone having all the energy their lifestyle requires, and shouldn't break the bank, or come at differing cost points based on income. That's loving retarded. Why is it that greens and communists always have these vast unworkable schemes? Is it your lack of experience operating in the adult world? So you want to save the world, you just don't think anyone should bother spending any money or wasting any effort to do so. Got it, good idea you mature adult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
It works like credit, if you're a grown-rear end adult. We incurred the costs of explosive global industrialization without environmental care over the past half-century on the credit offered by stuff like the oceanic heat sink capability and the atmosphere's slow rate of reaction to additional carbon, but now we have to pay the bill for all those costs. Maybe if we didn't burn so much coal and oil it wouldn't be so drat expensive but that's the price of blasting through 400ppm and heating the arctic to the point where the jet stream is wandering around like a senile in fugue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It works like credit, if you're a grown-rear end adult. Why does everyone try to draw analogies to household spending for every single political issue? Making these comparisons oversimplifies and disregards that the externalities are never felt by the same people who are the biggest causes of the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Why does everyone try to draw analogies to household spending for every single political issue? Making these comparisons oversimplifies and disregards that the externalities are never felt by the same people who are the biggest causes of the problems. It oversimplifies it because it's an attempt to explain a complex issue to an overly simple person. If they cared about discussing the issue honestly or in any level of detail they wouldn't be rolling into the discourse bitching about how much all this like, totally lame mitigation effort stuff costs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
But Al Gore has a big house, so climate data is invalid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But Al Gore has a big house, so climate data is invalid. No, but oddly enough, the ones preaching for the most transformative solutions (for the rest of us) also happen to have ridiculous carbon footprints (for themselves). I'd say 'makes you think' but it's about as surprising as the plot to animal farm at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, but oddly enough, the ones preaching for the most transformative solutions (for the rest of us) also happen to have ridiculous carbon footprints (for themselves). I'd say 'makes you think' but it's about as surprising as the plot to animal farm at this point. Except the actual climate scientists, in many cases. I mean, Al Gore is mostly a celebrity who happens to beat the drum for a non-terrible cause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 14:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, but oddly enough, the ones preaching for the most transformative solutions (for the rest of us) also happen to have ridiculous carbon footprints (for themselves). I'd say 'makes you think' but it's about as surprising as the plot to animal farm at this point. I'm sure there are frugal scientists pushing solutions. Our society pays attention to rich people though. I'd like that to be different as well. e: too slow
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Why does everyone try to draw analogies to household spending for every single political issue? The best part being that the household budget is so often compared to things is absolutely not like at all. Like the US Federal Budget.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Al Gore is rich, it is a complex story http://www.fastcompany.com/60067/al-gores-100-million-makeover
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, but oddly enough, the ones preaching for the most transformative solutions (for the rest of us) also happen to have ridiculous carbon footprints (for themselves). I'd say 'makes you think' but it's about as surprising as the plot to animal farm at this point. I bet a stiff surcharge on energy usage beyond a reasonable amount would rein in Al Gore's energy-extravagant ways that vex you so, is that what you're proposing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I bet a stiff surcharge on energy usage beyond a reasonable amount would rein in Al Gore's energy-extravagant ways that vex you so, is that what you're proposing? He's talking about Freedom and Liberty 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:No, but oddly enough, the ones preaching for the most transformative solutions (for the rest of us) also happen to have ridiculous carbon footprints (for themselves). I'd say 'makes you think' but it's about as surprising as the plot to animal farm at this point. Question: do you think this is a systemic problem or no? Are first-world countries going to have to make any culture-wide or economy-wide changes to appropriately address climate change, in your opinion? Your Sledgehammer fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I bet a stiff surcharge on energy usage beyond a reasonable amount would rein in Al Gore's energy-extravagant ways that vex you so, is that what you're proposing? It'd have to be real stiff with all that Saudi oil money in which he's awash after selling his lovely TV network to them. I'm proposing that the people who are shrieking the loudest that this is a crisis, start acting like it is. I'm sure once celebrities and luminaries like Al Gore move into sub 1500 sq ft homes and take public transportation (and stop eating meat!) perhaps the culture will stop completely ignoring Climate Change
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:It'd have to be real stiff with all that Saudi oil money in which he's awash after selling his lovely TV network to them. I'm proposing that the people who are shrieking the loudest that this is a crisis, start acting like it is. I'm sure once celebrities and luminaries like Al Gore move into sub 1500 sq ft homes and take public transportation (and stop eating meat!) perhaps the culture will stop completely ignoring Climate Change Here's the thing: Nobody trying to push for solutions about Climate Change gives a poo poo about Al Gore. He's just a vocal supporter. That's it. Is he a hypocrite? Like many politicians, yes. But the fact that you brought up Al Gore basically means you are trying to setup a straw man, and the favorite straw man for arguing against Climate Change is to point at Al Gore. So that's a nice strawman, but Al Gore is inconsequential to the actual reality of Climate Change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Your Sledgehammer posted:Question: do you think this is a systemic problem or no? Are first-world countries going to have to make any culture-wide or economy-wide changes to appropriately address climate change, in your opinion? Define have to? Nope, I doubt you see much change in first-world behavior. The more hysterical predictions fall by the wayside, the more people tune it out. It's hard to imagine that in a democracy that anybody is going to get elected on a platform of lets get poor and suffer
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:42
|
|