|
Existing commercial GMOs and most in development rely on intensification of industrial agricultural practices that net minimal increases in yield at the same time as they require high GHG emissions throughout their production lifecycle. They also do not seem to be making any attempts to integrate with sustainable soil management practices currently being developed, moving hard in the other direction instead. Some smart people will have to do a lot of smart things with food in the coming years, but there is no reason that it has to be anything resembling the current approach to GMOs.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Fasdar posted:Existing commercial GMOs and most in development rely on intensification of industrial agricultural practices that net minimal increases in yield at the same time as they require high GHG emissions throughout their production lifecycle. They also do not seem to be making any attempts to integrate with sustainable soil management practices currently being developed, moving hard in the other direction instead. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nope. I'd love to be enlightened if you have something you could point me to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:I'd love to be enlightened if you have something you could point me to. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3556746
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
So... no, then? I understand the distinction between the ethical and economic practices of corporations currently driving GMO agricultural research and the actual practice of genetically modifying agricultural crops. What I'm asking is, are there current attempts to develop GMOs that minimize industrial inputs, maintain long-term soil fertility, and reduce water use? If so, awesome. I'd love to read more. Edit: NM, page 95 of a very angry thread. Relevant Slate Article Interesting stuff, to be sure, and I very much hope that we get to a point where things like this can be utilized rationally and sustainably. It would seem that a lot would have to happen before that was the case, though. Fasdar fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:59
|
|
Fasdar posted:What I'm asking is, are there current attempts to develop GMOs that minimize industrial inputs, maintain long-term soil fertility, and reduce water use? If so, awesome. I'd love to read more. What makes you think there wouldn't be? Wouldn't minimizing water use be a purely good thing? It's not like Monsanto or whoever has an incentive to make people use more water.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:What makes you think there wouldn't be? Wouldn't minimizing water use be a purely good thing? It's not like Monsanto or whoever has an incentive to make people use more water. They have no incentive to not make them use more water unless that is the primary selling point of the crop. If it yields more or resists pests more to a degree that makes it preferable despite increased water use, then that water usage is an externality that they could effectively ignore. This is especially true in places like the U.S., where the cost of water is highly subsidized by government, and is ultimately shouldered primarily by non-human ecosystems. Fasdar fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:17
|
|
Fasdar posted:They have no incentive to not make them use more water unless that is the primary selling point of the crop. If it yields more or resists pests more to a degree that makes it preferable despite increased water use, then that water usage is an externality that they could effectively ignore. This is especially true in places like the U.S., where the cost of water is highly subsidized by government, and is ultimately shouldered primarily by non-human ecosystems. again, do you think there's really no market incentive for plants that take less water? also, w/r/t pesticides http://www.postbulletin.com/opinion...5f5dfacb2d.html so maybe some GMOs already deal with that issue? really though, you should just read http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3556746 in its entirety
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:They have no incentive to not make them use more water unless that is the primary selling point of the crop. If it yields more or resists pests more to a degree that makes it preferable despite increased water use, then that water usage is an externality that they could effectively ignore. This is especially true in places like the U.S., where the cost of water is highly subsidized by government, and is ultimately shouldered primarily by non-human ecosystems. GMOs often target multiple use cases, such as being pesticide resistant and drought ready.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:Is there a good book / reasonably-long-primer on climate science in general, and what we face in the future? I've been skipping around the thread and a bit of the book recommendation thread but haven't seen anything broad enough to cover the whole topic. In general, the MOOCs from the Sustainable Development Solutions Network are OK: https://www.sdsnedu.org/ . Apart from Age of..., Climate Change Science and Negotiations, in particular, gives insight into what is going to happen in Paris (the big talks that everyone, starting from the Pope, is now gearing towards: http://www.cop21paris.org/; see also this website that tracks the individual country pledges: http://climateactiontracker.org/ ). Common But Differentiated Responsibilities etc.. Planetary Boundaries is the work of Rockstrom from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and discuss all the planetary boundaries, not just climate change. The websites of the parent institutions are an interesting read, too: http://unsdsn.org/ ; http://www.stockholmresilience.org/ . For example, here's the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project report, worth a look at if you are interested in... well, the pathways to deep decarbonisation: http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/pathways-to-deep-decarbonization-2014-report/ .
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Ah, I see a small problem with your plan. My plan? You mean my total ballpark guesswork? I'd be surprised if there wasn't something to nitpick in an off-the-cuff brief summary of things that will never happen so long as rich people exist. Which is what I posted. As for what you're talking about; we could stop population growth quite quickly, but we can't halve the population of the globe quickly in any way short of genocide - which is obviously not happening and mustn't happen. Heck, if that was a thing anyone was seriously considering we might as well not do anything at all and let global warming do that for us. No, we need exactly what you described, a gradual lowering of the total population of earth through family planning, improved living standards and social policies. This will help offset environmental impacts on agriculture and reduce need for logistics and transportation. But I haven't thought my ideas through, you say: Fine. I didn't exactly post a thesis, but you seem to have missed my point in that my proposed solutions are, by my own admittance, completely unrealistic. The reason isn't practical ability; we have the practical scientific, engineering and resource ability to work around resource shortages, create plentiful energy without emissions and quickly become a sustainable world society. We can, but we won't. I'm not saying that we - if we turned the ship around on a dime tomorrow - wouldn't still feel the impacts of global warming, we would absolutely feel the effects and we would have to work around that and adapt as much as we could. But we wouldn't be looking and hundreds of millions of fatalities in 30-50 years time and potentially billions later. So, why won't we? People in power, both political and monetary, don't want a change in the status quo. The politicians don't because they are elected, and are influenced by money (the wealthy who don't want a change) and the democatic consensus (which is swayed by conservativism and associated propaganda propagated by the wealthy and uninformed selfish self interest). The wealthy don't, because they too are influenced by ideology, peer pressure and uninformed/selfish self interest. This is obviously an enormously complicated issue, and really goes to the root of democracy, capitalism, freedom of speech, consumerism and why all of these are now working against humanity as a whole. The cynic in me tells me that the momentum of society is unstoppable. And it's going to affect all of us, whether we want it to or not, because no man is an island and when enough people starve, society goes. And that's the real danger of global warming that most people aren't aware of; we're all one bad harvest away from not having a civilized society anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:They have no incentive to not make them use more water unless that is the primary selling point of the crop. If it yields more or resists pests more to a degree that makes it preferable despite increased water use, then that water usage is an externality that they could effectively ignore. This is especially true in places like the U.S., where the cost of water is highly subsidized by government, and is ultimately shouldered primarily by non-human ecosystems. Dude, stop. You're are basically exposing your ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:As for what you're talking about; we could stop population growth quite quickly, but we can't halve the population of the globe quickly in any way short of genocide - which is obviously not happening and mustn't happen. Nice piece of fish posted:It requires (this is total ballpark stuff) a massive change in industrial and societal thinking, the abolition of the capitalist/consumerist ideology, reducing the population of the earth by half (through contraception and family planning, education etc.)... There were so many claims in your post that were poorly-thought-out that I just picked one. You stated that we must "reduce the population of the earth by half (through contraception and family planning, education etc.)", but now you say "we can't halve the population of the globe quickly in any way short of genocide". So, which is it? Unfortunately, you are far too optimistic about our capacity to both "elevate every person on earth to first world quality of life" and to control or adapt to climate change, and I don't think you know enough about renewables such as hydroelectric, or even "physics and technology", to make the kind of claims that you do. Reason posted:Why do people in poorer countries tend to have larger families? Part of the reason is because its much much easier to have a large family than a small family. Your older children take care of your younger children while the parents work, and as the older children get older they also start working in order to make money to help support the family. Its just easier this way when you're poor. You don't have to go to poorer countries to see this, you can see it right here in the US. People in poorer countries have more children both by choice, as insurance against child mortality (to pass on their genes), and once they have as many children as they want, because non-free contraception methods are unreliable. Children are a burden on a family for many years before they can even approach the point of a cost/benefit break-even point, and every child that cares for other children is a child that is uneducated and less able to provide for the family in future, and every day that a woman must spend caring for children is a day with less potential for productive work. With improved provision of medicine, women have more surviving children than they need to ensure that their genes survive, which results in a larger burden on both the family in question and their local society. Improved education of women and provision of free contraception are known factors that reduce fertility and thus poverty in poorer countries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:People in poorer countries have more children both by choice, as insurance against child mortality (to pass on their genes), and once they have as many children as they want, because non-free contraception methods are unreliable. Children are a burden on a family for many years before they can even approach the point of a cost/benefit break-even point, and every child that cares for other children is a child that is uneducated and less able to provide for the family in future, and every day that a woman must spend caring for children is a day with less potential for productive work. With improved provision of medicine, women have more surviving children than they need to ensure that their genes survive, which results in a larger burden on both the family in question and their local society. And urbanization. More hands on a farm is useful... less so in a city.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
where did the meme that farmers have kids for free labor come from?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:There were so many claims in your post that were poorly-thought-out that I just picked one. You stated that we must "reduce the population of the earth by half (through contraception and family planning, education etc.)", but now you say "we can't halve the population of the globe quickly in any way short of genocide". Both. In case you're confused, those two sentences don't contradict eachother. Placid Marmot posted:Unfortunately, you are far too optimistic about our capacity to both "elevate every person on earth to first world quality of life" and to control or adapt to climate change, and I don't think you know enough about renewables such as hydroelectric, or even "physics and technology", to make the kind of claims that you do. Well, that sure is your opinion. Even if I were too optimistic, how is that unfortunate? What a strange choice of wording to someone telling you we're in terrible, unavoidable trouble. Also, I don't think you know enough about renewables such as hydroelectric, or even "physics and technology", to make the kind of claims that you do. Luckily we're only two nerds arguing on an internet forum, so it doesn't matter. I'd still like you to actually make your case for the thread though, if you're going to disagree with my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Four years later, and five years from the 2020 date discussed so often, is there any sort of update or continuation of the excellent Dave Roberts piece in the OP? e: not that I'm looking for good news or anything, just updated with new info/happenings
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:where did the meme that farmers have kids for free labor come from? The observation that farmers' children often work on their farms, at least historically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The observation that farmers' children often work on their farms, at least historically? I dunno its probably cheaper and more effective to just pay farm hands than it is to have a 6th or 7th kid to raise just so that in 10 years they can start doing small chores. I mean, yeah if you have kids you put em to work, but you don't keep having kids in some sort of bid to have a continuous labor supply, that meme is totally ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:36
|
|
Radbot posted:The observation that farmers' children often work on their farms, at least historically? yeah but that doesn't mean that they had children specifically to work in the farms, which seems like a really rear end backwards way of obtaining labor given the extreme cost of pregnancy and the early years of raising a child
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Considering that farmer's children would often stay on the farm and inherit it, making a so-called "family farm", it just doesn't seem that out there to me. Maybe the children were all mistakes and they all just loved farming, though. I mean parents to this day literally say they have children so "someone will support me when I'm old", doesn't seem like a quantum leap to go to "so someone will support me in a few years".
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
alright so that explains why you'd have children at all but it doesn't really explain why you'd have 10 kids "for the labor" should be easy enough to substantiate the claim that people had kids particularly for labor, feel free
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:People in poorer countries have more children both by choice, as insurance against child mortality (to pass on their genes), and once they have as many children as they want, because non-free contraception methods are unreliable. Children are a burden on a family for many years before they can even approach the point of a cost/benefit break-even point, and every child that cares for other children is a child that is uneducated and less able to provide for the family in future, and every day that a woman must spend caring for children is a day with less potential for productive work. With improved provision of medicine, women have more surviving children than they need to ensure that their genes survive, which results in a larger burden on both the family in question and their local society. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think that approaching climate change from a population control stand point would take far more effort than convincing the world at large that we need to do something. Through technology(farming, logistics) we've found means to expand our carrying capacity but part of the population problem is that the earth is still a limited place. Free contraception is a great start, but what form does that take? Condoms are pretty much the worst as far as preventing child birth because its too easy to just not use them. Also goes back to the whole stopping people from loving thing, because condoms are the worst for day to day contraceptive methods sex with condoms is really only slightly better than no sex. There are a bunch of better options, but we're still missing one of the most important which is some form of contraceptive pill/implant for men. My personal big climate change never happen partial fix thing is to take away the personal automobile, replace it with electric self driving cars that are like cabs but also free and hailed with phone apps or kiosks, oh man that would be the coolest poo poo but also completely impossible. The reality is that in order to stop climate change everything needs to change. Not just people being more educated and having less children, not just people driving less. It all has to change. In any sustainable future people are going to make sacrifices, I don't think those sacrifices would be so drastic that it would be impossible to live a fulfilling and meaningful life, we just have to change what that means (for people in the first world) not everyone wants three cars and closets full of shoes or whatever. I also don't think we should or need to strive for a carbon negative. Someone else said that what we really need to focus on is surviving and moving forward and I agree. As far as the idea that farmers had big families to help with family duties is a meme, as someone who has different families of farmers in their family I know that you can barely run a functioning farm with just two parents and one child, you're either going to have to hire help which sucks because smaller family farms don't make much money, or you can have built in helpers in having a large family. A small dairy farm is 24/7 work, if you have a family of three working on a farm and one or two of those people get sick or hurt for any extended period of time you're so hosed because any minute you're not working your farm is a minute you're not making money is a dollar closer you are to losing your farm. Of course modern farming is also a huge problem as far as how bad it is at feeding everyone and sustainability in general. Large cow farms are absolutely lovely for the environment(ha ha pun). Getting rid of animal farming and moving to a more sustainable farming model with microcrops would be a huge step(but people won't eat bugs because their icky). One big thing I notice is that one of the biggest arguments against doing anything boils down to money, want to take a guess as to what I think the real problem is? An economic system that relies on money to provide necessities, relies on money to express social status, relies on money to express power, relies on money in general. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:alright so that explains why you'd have children at all but it doesn't really explain why you'd have 10 kids "for the labor" Ok it's not specifically for the labor. However you can put a 6 year old in charge of looking after a herd of goats or milk a cow or whatever. More children won't necesarrily be a drain on you. In the city the dynamic is different - you can dump them in a sweatshop assuming someone will have them but most likely you'll struggle to find something for them to do beyond begging. I'll concede that the real reason urbanites have fewer children is that birth control and family planning is more readily available.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:alright so that explains why you'd have children at all but it doesn't really explain why you'd have 10 kids "for the labor" Who the gently caress cares whether they were had "particularly for labor", that's what they were used for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:50
|
|
Radbot posted:Who the gently caress cares whether they were had "particularly for labor", that's what they were used for. quote:Why do people in poorer countries tend to have larger families? Part of the reason is because its much much easier to have a large family than a small family. Your older children take care of your younger children while the parents work, and as the older children get older they also start working in order to make money to help support the family. Its just easier this way when you're poor. You don't have to go to poorer countries to see this, you can see it right here in the US. I don't think this is correct, I think it has way more to do with access to education and birth control, both of which are pretty bad for many of the poor in places like the US.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Both. In case you're confused, those two sentences don't contradict eachother. They "don't contradict eachother" only because of the word "quickly", but, as you know (see your "30-50 years" quote, below), we don't have time for the world's population to fall to a sutainable level (which has been estimated at around 1 billion, but let's call it the "half" - 3.5 billion - that you defined) thanks to "contraception and family planning, education etc." before climate change kills "hundreds of millions in 30-50 years time and potentially billions later", if we are even assuming that reducing the population on its own is sufficient to effect an adequate reduction of anthropogenic climate change in the first place. Nice piece of fish posted:Well, that sure is your opinion. Even if I were too optimistic, how is that unfortunate? What a strange choice of wording to someone telling you we're in terrible, unavoidable trouble. It is unfortunate that you make claims that are untenable, rather than putting forward realistic proposals to reduce the suffering that will occur in the short- and medium-term, or even just remaining silent. This works against your desire to bring about a better future. If you could point out which of my prior claims rely on my understanding of 'renewables such as hydroelectric, or even "physics and technology" ', other than my dismissal of your competence in this field, that would also be helpful; I only specified that your opinion about population control was poorly-formed. Let's look at your energy ideas. Claim: "We have the long term non-sustainable and sustainable energy solutions that together will more than cover the energy needs of the entire world if we elevated every person on earth to first world quality of life, or close to it. Nuclear, hydro, solar and wind can absolutely do this with significant investments in infrastructure and research. We can find substitutes for most of our non-renewable resources, or at least find workarounds. And we can do it all with minimum greenhouse gas emissions, and possibly have energy in surplus to spend on carbon sequestration technology and efforts." Current total electricity production: 22,613TWh/year. http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/html/inventaire/pdf/15e-inventaire-Chap01-Eng.pdf or 19,320TWh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption) A reasonable "high-tech high quality of life" electricity consumption figure, the same as Macedonia, South Africa or Malta, marginally above China, from the above link: 500W. Current world average consumption: 313W So world consumption of electricity would have to increase by 2/3 for "every person on earth to first world quality of life", while Western electricity consumption would have to decrease by 30% (EU) to 70% (US), requiring 28,000-34,000TWh/year. Current "Nuclear, hydro, solar and wind" energy production: Nuclear: 2,464TWh/year Hydro: 3,600TWh/year Solar: 105TWh/year Wind: 534TWh/year Total: 6704TWh/year Hydro has a economically-feasible potential of 8,772TWh/year. http://www.intpow.com/index.php?id=487&download=1 So, if we dam every river and flood every valley, "Nuclear, solar and wind" capacity would have to increase SEVENFOLD. Problem 1: Aside from damming every river, the supply of uranium, not to mention the tech metals required for wind, does not exist to power the reactors needed. It can't be mined fast enough. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Uranium-Markets/ Problem 2: The above only relates to electricity production. The world currently supplies 155,500TWh/year of energy, only 22,668TWh/year of which becomes electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption If you wish to "find substitutes for most of our non-renewable resources, or at least find workarounds. And we can do it all with minimum greenhouse gas emissions, and possibly have energy in surplus to spend on carbon sequestration technology and efforts", then you need to find a way to replace the remaining 86% of our consumption with non-fossil fuel alternatives, which I'm guessing will be by multiplying "Nuclear, solar and wind" capacity another seven or so times, and still having "surplus to spend on carbon sequestration technology and efforts". Ok, so let's say that the current electricity consumption of Macedonia, South Africa, Malta and China is double that required for a "completely sustainable, high-tech high quality of life society", and that the whole world can have that while consuming like Tajikistan and Jamaica, then we would still need to dam every river and more than double nuclear, solar and wind, then convert or replace every non-electrical device and multiply the nuclear, solar and wind another seven or so times, while reducing Western energy consumption by 65-85%. And all of this is without any known method for actually safely sequestering enough carbon for your sequestration scheme to have any effect, and without any way to prevent the clathrate and permafrost methane releases that are expected, and for all of this to happen before such unstoppable feedback loops are triggered and before the ocean ceases to support life. i.e. your ideas are pie-in-the-sky non-possibilities. Do I have a solution to all of our upcoming problems? No, only suggestions of how to reduce the damage we do to the future, not grandiose claims that are not remotely feasible, which include such unpalateables as an end to animal production, an end to travel, and strict energy rationing, which are never going to happen, yet are at least possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Ok, so let's say that the current electricity consumption of Macedonia, South Africa, Malta and China is double that required for a "completely sustainable, high-tech high quality of life society", and that the whole world can have that while consuming like Tajikistan and Jamaica, then we would still need to dam every river and more than double nuclear, solar and wind, then convert or replace every non-electrical device and multiply the nuclear, solar and wind another seven or so times, while reducing Western energy consumption by 65-85%. what if we built like 10x as many nuclear plants as we have now how about 100x
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Current total electricity production: 22,613TWh/year. You're making a common mistake by assuming that Wh/year transfers over to quality of life when in reality they are rather decoupled.  Besides, you're also assuming that magically we're solve poverty at the exact same time as Climate Change. But we won't, so its insane to pretend that everyone in the world will live a first world life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:It is unfortunate that you make claims that are untenable, rather than putting forward realistic proposals to reduce the suffering that will occur in the short- and medium-term, or even just remaining silent. This works against your desire to bring about a better future. You do know Uranium is not the only way to fuel reactors, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're making a common mistake by assuming that Wh/year transfers over to quality of life when in reality they are rather decoupled. I know that there is not a linear relationship between energy usage and quality of life - I recall that same chart from earlier in the thread, in fact; I objected to the ridiculous claim that everyone can have a "high-tech high quality of life". I am not the one assuming that "poverty will be solved at the exact same time as Climate Change" - that is the argument of "Nice piece of fish". I have only claimed that his/her scenario is ridiculous and that a damage-limiting scenario might be possible. CommieGIR posted:You do know Uranium is not the only way to fuel reactors, right? Yes, you can look at my post history if you want proof. We do not have the fuel supply to increase energy production based on current technology to the levels required by "Nice piece of fish", even if (or, especially if) thousands of commercial-scale reactors of proven design were given instant planning permission and the manufacturing capacity and expertise existed to put them into production, nor do we have proven designs for thorium, standing wave or other alternate-fuel designs at commercial scale, or the capacity to construct and run them, and this is a situation that will not change in the timescale that we have to eliminate CO2 emissions, as proposed by "Nice piece of fish".
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
gently caress it, I'll bite.Placid Marmot posted:They "don't contradict eachother" only because of the word "quickly" No, they just plain don't contradict eachother because I never said it would have to happen instantly. This is a position you decided I held, and are now attacking (this is commonly referred to as a "strawman" I'm told, which is pretty indicative of your entire little essay of a post). Placid Marmot posted:we don't have time for the world's population to fall to a sutainable level Sure we do. You don't know that statement is true anyway, and in any case we don't have the option of not waiting. C'est la vie. Placid Marmot posted:if we are even assuming that reducing the population on its own is sufficient to effect an adequate reduction of anthropogenic climate change in the first place. Are we? You certainly are assuming this, like this is the only or even the most significant factor in combatting climate change. Which it isn't. But by all means, keep pretending I said that. Placid Marmot posted:It is unfortunate that you make claims that are untenable, rather than putting forward realistic proposals to reduce the suffering that will occur in the short- and medium-term, You mean it's unfortunate that I'm saying something you don't agree with. This is the first time you've elected to expand on your scepticism with something concrete, and so far I don't see any succinct reasoning for why what I've talked about is -practically- "untenable". Which is remarkable, considering that I made the bare minimum of effort to propose ideas for combatting climate change. Placid Marmot posted:or even just remaining silent. What? It's unfortunate that I don't just remain silent? You're pretty staggeringly arrogant as well as rude. I don't particularly see why I should indulge you. Placid Marmot posted:If you could point out which of my prior claims You haven't made any that I can see. And unlike you, I'm disinclined to invent some for you. Placid Marmot posted:
Sure, if we accept all your assumptions:
I don't accept any of those because I don't know that any of them are true. I'm disinclined to take your word for it. I thought my own pessimism was rather pronounced and bleak, but you're really on a different level. Let me put it this way, and let's see if you're able to let this particular argument go; you're saying that we can not, I'm saying that we will not, and either way the result is the same. Tl; dr - we are so screwed. Placid Marmot posted:I know that there is not a linear relationship between energy usage and quality of life - I recall that same chart from earlier in the thread, in fact; I objected to the ridiculous claim that everyone can have a "high-tech high quality of life". And more strawmen. The definition of poverty might have to be changed without a predominantly capitalist market system, in fact "poverty" would probably have to increase if we're working off of current ideas of "wealth". But I don't particularly see where I said "solving poverty" is the same as a first world lifestyle. There are plenty of people in the US who live in poverty yet vastly better than a huge number of third-worlders; at least in the US/Europe they mostly have access to clean drinking water, basic public transportation, some health care and social services. If you think a "high quality of life" in the context of the entire world's population of humans is in any way linked to what a "high quality of life" is in the US, I can begin to see why you've fundamentally misunderstood what a sustainable society looks like. Placid Marmot posted:Yes, you can look at my post history if you want proof. We do not have the fuel supply to increase energy production based on current technology to the levels required by "Nice piece of fish", even if (or, especially if) thousands of commercial-scale reactors of proven design were given instant planning permission and the manufacturing capacity and expertise existed to put them into production, nor do we have proven designs for thorium, standing wave or other alternate-fuel designs at commercial scale, or the capacity to construct and run them, and this is a situation that will not change in the timescale that we have to eliminate CO2 emissions, as proposed by "Nice piece of fish". The timescale I've proposed? What, 30-50 years or more? This is literally impossible for the combined industrial output and scientific/engineering ability of the human race, or just the first world alone? In half a century. Assuming full political will and international cooperation, we couldn't begin massive changes tomorrow? Well, seeing as this is entirely hypothetical I say we could shut down every coal and gas power plant within - let's say - ten years, with suitable changes to society (assuming full effort and perfect coordination and cooperation - and why wouldn't we, since that is the hypothetical I'm talking about). And why not even sooner? Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:41
|
|
about energy
impossible!
|
Nice piece of fish posted:if we accept all your assumptions: That's what I was thinking but couldn't enumerate. This is my problem anytime anyone in a blog post or forum post tried to calculate future energy needs to make a point. The best energy researchers in the world work to develop complex models that will run 3-15 different scenarios each, and those models aren't all that accurate! How the gently caress could anyone do as well in a single post? So if we're just shooting the poo poo about future demand, that's one thing, but if someone is trying to say "look, I modeled the future of technology, energy and society in less than a page, see how it proves my point?" It rings hollow to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Yes, you can look at my post history if you want proof. We do not have the fuel supply to increase energy production based on current technology to the levels required by "Nice piece of fish", even if (or, especially if) thousands of commercial-scale reactors of proven design were given instant planning permission and the manufacturing capacity and expertise existed to put them into production, nor do we have proven designs for thorium, standing wave or other alternate-fuel designs at commercial scale, or the capacity to construct and run them, and this is a situation that will not change in the timescale that we have to eliminate CO2 emissions, as proposed by "Nice piece of fish". But its the best solution, unfortunately for both your timescale and ours as humans. Here are your choices: Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear. Pick one. Solar and Wind are largely offsets, and will help offsetting your overall load, but are not going to replace those three. So pick one. Hydro is largely a dead end due to land use issues and destruction of habitat. Pick one and go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
Getting the whole world "on average" to the level of Macedonia or South Africa is not unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Getting the whole world "on average" to the level of Macedonia or South Africa is not unreasonable. I wouldn't recommend an average here, unless we like our superwealthy to help out the number. Regardless, the question isn't physical feasibility for most challenges facing humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
See, here's my problem as a layperson: in this debate, there's a lot of people who are smug know-it-all douchebags and they completely dominate the conversation. I can't evaluate who's right and wrong so I feel like I learn nothing. I believe the climate is changing and that it will be bad over the next century, but that's about all I "know". Some people are saying nuclear is awesome and can power the world, others are saying No you dumbass. There are people saying solar will power everything and nuclear is terrible. And then there are people saying that we should all take up flintnapping. I get the sense that we can maintain some semblance of a modern world that has electricity, internet, medicine, etc. but will have to give up suburbs, personal automobiles, planned obsolescence, eating meat all the time, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Not sustainable without population reduction, or magic breakthrough energy source, that someone will give way for free and not try to control/profit out of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:See, here's my problem as a layperson: in this debate, there's a lot of people who are smug know-it-all douchebags and they completely dominate the conversation. I can't evaluate who's right and wrong so I feel like I learn nothing. I believe the climate is changing and that it will be bad over the next century, but that's about all I "know". Some people are saying nuclear is awesome and can power the world, others are saying No you dumbass. There are people saying solar will power everything and nuclear is terrible. And then there are people saying that we should all take up flintnapping. I get the sense that we can maintain some semblance of a modern world that has electricity, internet, medicine, etc. but will have to give up suburbs, personal automobiles, planned obsolescence, eating meat all the time, etc. Well, in a sense it pays to remember that none of us are "right", since all of us are speculating about the future (or even worse, possible futures). Very few people can say anything with certainty, so your view is very far from wrong. Beginning with the basic fact that global warming exists, we can reason that the most unsustainable parts of our society - the things you were talking about and some other things - would need to end (and will have to end at some point regardless), but that the core parts of modern society would remain out of necessity. This is common sense stuff, and if people are saying things that conflict with common sense then that person is probably speculating, talking about extremes of this and that, and it's entirely up to you how much you believe that hypothesis. But at its core, you look to me to understand the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:See, here's my problem as a layperson: in this debate, there's a lot of people who are smug know-it-all douchebags and they completely dominate the conversation. I can't evaluate who's right and wrong so I feel like I learn nothing. I believe the climate is changing and that it will be bad over the next century, but that's about all I "know". Some people are saying nuclear is awesome and can power the world, others are saying No you dumbass. There are people saying solar will power everything and nuclear is terrible. And then there are people saying that we should all take up flintnapping. I get the sense that we can maintain some semblance of a modern world that has electricity, internet, medicine, etc. but will have to give up suburbs, personal automobiles, planned obsolescence, eating meat all the time, etc. I think that you're very much on the right track. I feel that anyone who isn't sraight trolling will agree with the following points: 1)global warming is human made 2)global warming is delayed in its effect. It's only starting to effect our environment because our emissions yesterday create the conditions tomorrow. 3) global warming is going to get worse without drastic steps to prevent it. 4) Those drastic steps are not currently taking place. 5) Without any action a large amount of human suffereing will directly fall out of our lack of action after some debatable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 23:58
|
|
