|
Yes, it has to be worth it. That's weird to you? That I think life should be enjoyable instead of slavish?Owlofcreamcheese posted:If it's just that bingo bongo simple how come birth rates go way up in places with bad living conditions and go way down in places with good living conditions? Why don't they think of the "just dodn't have kids dumbo!" plan like you did? This is super weird to me and exactly as selfish as I am railing against. It's also not my "plan" to just get people to stop having kids. I just think having kids is very selfish in the current situation. It's AFancyQuestionMark posted:What I am saying is that having children isn't morally bad either. It is a morally neutral act and a prominent part of most people's lives. You're going to have to substantiate these moral claims. Perry Mason Jar fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Apr 5, 2018 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If it's just that bingo bongo simple how come birth rates go way up in places with bad living conditions and go way down in places with good living conditions? Why don't they think of the "just dodn't have kids dumbo!" plan like you did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Given that meeting the Paris accord target of 1.5C average warming requires a minimum of 5Gt annual carbon dioxide removal to come online REALLY fast, it's worth thinking how to do this without causing constant never-ending famine. Conventional BECSS competes for land with food crops, and Gt scale carbon sequestration will displace enough food production to significantly raise prices (among other problems). Aquatic BECSS using algae to absorb CO2 avoids this issue, and also takes advantage of algae's extremely fast growth rate. In principal algae can be processed into commercial products to offset some of the cost, including the biofuel necessary to enable modern international cat-watching. Algae production facilities use photobioreactors and/or open ponds to grow the algae. The photobioreactors are neat:   Here's an interesting article that describes a hybrid state-of-the-art algae producing system: Demonstrated large-scale production of marine microalgae for fuels and feed posted:We present the results from sustained tonne-quantity production of two novel strains of marine microalgae, the diatom Staurosira and the chlorophyte Desmodesmus, cultivated in a hybrid system of 25-m3 photobioreactors and 400-m2 open ponds at a large-scale demonstration facility, and then apply those results to evaluate the performance of a 100-ha Base Case commercial facility assuming it were built today. Nitrogen fertilization of 2-d batch cultures in open ponds led to the greatest yields – from both species – of ~ 75 MT ha− 1 yr− 1 biomass, and ~ 30 MT ha− 1 yr− 1 lipid, which are unprecedented in large scale open pond systems. The process described here uses only seawater, discharges no nitrogen or phosphorus in any form, and consumes CO2 at 78% efficiency. We estimate the capital cost of a 111-ha Base Case facility at $67 million in Hawaii, where actual production was performed, and $59 million on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Given that the Gulf of Mexico is turning into an oil-ridden hypoxic deathzone, why not use it to farm algae. Note that a related paper claims daily biomass productivity of 23 g/m^2, which blows stupid mangroves out of the water. This recent paper describes a combined algae farm + eucalyptus forest BECSS facility that sequesters carbon for only $68-$300/MT (assuming some favorable prices for algae derived products) but requires ~20 times as much land as water area (ie a ~2700ha forest for 120ha of open ponds). As far as I can tell as a non-expert, the physical area requirements alone mean at least an order of magnitude improvement in algae productivity is needed to take algae-BECSS seriously. edit: I totally missed the high-productivity algae production requires a pure CO2 supply. That's even less interesting. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
'Child Chat' should be framed around constraints. Some of you misanthropes have me wondering, are you trying to attack child-rearing or to make child-rearing fit through the upcoming filter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
clearly it is wrong to have children because they may one day contribute to another lovely page of this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
It's wrong to have children because you could be taking care of one who has already been born, instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Having new kids < Taking care of existing kids < Eating babies
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
That's the assumed slippery slope in this thread, yeah, that if you think spawning humans in the current environment is morally wrong, then you must be advocating infanticide and human extinction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:That's the assumed slippery slope in this thread, yeah, that if you think spawning humans in the current environment is morally wrong, then you must be advocating infanticide and human extinction. If the claim is that you shouldn't have children because their life will be so hellish that it renders their life worthless the concept of adoption doesn't really seem like it makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If the claim is that you shouldn't have children because their life will be so hellish that it renders their life worthless the concept of adoption doesn't really seem like it makes a lot of sense. Consider it from the standpoint that creating a life is contributing to the problem, while alleviating the suffering of a life that already exists is mitigation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Congratulations to everyone itt for making this the gooniest loving thread in the forums
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Consider it from the standpoint that creating a life is contributing to the problem, while alleviating the suffering of a life that already exists is mitigation. Sure, whatever on that. For the guy saying "I don't think having children is immoral because it accelerates global warming. I think having children is immoral because you absolutely cannot provide them a full, joyful life - with previous generations the thinking was you would be able to provide your children a better life than you had, but now I cannot even reasonably assume they'll have a life equal to mine. In fact I can reasonably assume they'll live a life of extreme difficulty and suffering" adoption makes no sense. The adopted kid would also have to live in his weird hell fantasy just as much as the biological one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sure, whatever on that. For the guy saying "I don't think having children is immoral because it accelerates global warming. I think having children is immoral because you absolutely cannot provide them a full, joyful life - with previous generations the thinking was you would be able to provide your children a better life than you had, but now I cannot even reasonably assume they'll have a life equal to mine. In fact I can reasonably assume they'll live a life of extreme difficulty and suffering" adoption makes no sense. The adopted kid would also have to live in his weird hell fantasy just as much as the biological one. It still makes more sense to help the humans that are already here vs making whole new ones that will have to suffer. I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning but it still makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:It still makes more sense to help the humans that are already here vs making whole new ones that will have to suffer. I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning but it still makes sense. How are you helping them if all you offer them is extreme suffering?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How are you helping them if all you offer them is extreme suffering? Are you trying to take this down to the bottom of the slippery slope where the only true way to alleviate suffering is death?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Are you trying to take this down to the bottom of the slippery slope where the only true way to alleviate suffering is death? How can you say adoption is moral if the life you offer is "they'll live a life of extreme suffering". If you are offering a kid a life so awful it'd be better to not have been born it's not some great charity to offer that life to some orphan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How can you say adoption is moral if the life you offer is "they'll live a life of extreme suffering". If you are offering a kid a life so awful it'd be better to not have been born it's not some great charity to offer that life to some orphan. Okay, even if we assumed a literal forsaken child would see no meaningful improvement in their prospects by being adopted, because life will screw everyone equally or some poo poo, that'd make it in this most extreme of circumstances a morally neutral act. But spawning from your loins contributes to the problem. This is provable. So if you wish to satisfy some kind of desire by raising a child, that's a pretty easy moral calculus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Are you trying to take this down to the bottom of the slippery slope where the only true way to alleviate suffering is death? i mean, we're already well on our way there with the antinatalism discussion i would also accept lobotomy of all pain and aversion centers edit: adoption is preferable to reproduction, mind
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Forget about kids, the way people, even those supposedly environmentally 'conscious', react to discussions about reducing meat consumption is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Given that meeting the Paris accord target of 1.5C average warming requires a minimum of 5Gt annual carbon dioxide removal to come online REALLY fast, it's worth thinking how to do this without causing constant never-ending famine. Conventional BECSS competes for land with food crops, and Gt scale carbon sequestration will displace enough food production to significantly raise prices (among other problems). Aquatic BECSS using algae to absorb CO2 avoids this issue, and also takes advantage of algae's extremely fast growth rate. In principal algae can be processed into commercial products to offset some of the cost, including the biofuel necessary to enable modern international cat-watching. Thank you for sharing this, this is amazing. gtrmp posted:Congratulations to everyone itt for making this the gooniest loving thread in the forums This is the only thread that I've read that I can think of where it needs a heel to keep the rest of the thread from devouring itself. Arcane come back!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
how is owl not the heel also yes, ty nocturtle that was a Good Post though by your own napkin math stuff like this is like... I dunno its good r&d but I have no real hope for it being more than another marginal tweak to add to the pile. like the cost curve for solar to just run fuel cells in reverse and re-fill oil wells looks more plausible (and that aint' much). StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Forget about kids, the way people, even those supposedly environmentally 'conscious', react to discussions about reducing meat consumption is nuts. Seriously, it's not news that people obsessed with having children are never going to listen to anything approaching reason, but it is consistently hilarious how quickly even environmentally minded people will turn on a dime to declare that there's nothing wrong with eating meat and they'll never stop or even reduce consumption and no amount of research or evidence can prove otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 04:43
|
|
|
Oh hey, 100+ posts since I last checked the thread, what fun new thing has been learned... ....oh it's just several pages of climate children chat. Well anyway, the Arctic is disintegrating: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/982104708897693696
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Oh hey, 100+ posts since I last checked the thread, what fun new thing has been learned... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:clearly it is wrong to have children because they may one day contribute to another lovely page of this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Oh hey, 100+ posts since I last checked the thread, what fun new thing has been learned...
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:though by your own napkin math stuff like this is like... I dunno its good r&d but I have no real hope for it being more than another marginal tweak to add to the pile. like the cost curve for solar to just run fuel cells in reverse and re-fill oil wells looks more plausible (and that aint' much). Yeah I'm not super impressed with algae as a means to mitigate emissions given the need for relatively pure CO2 to get high biomass productivity. From the previously linked paper: quote:We highlight one fundamental operation, CO 2 delivery, as a potential constraint for the otherwise tremendous potential of algal biofuels. Our facility model assumes a nearby, nearly pure CO 2 source, located within 15 km. However, in the real world pure CO 2 sources are rare, and even dilute sources may not be near large tracts of land. The facility cost increases at the rate of ~$1300 ha −1 for each km of CO 2 pipeline, so at a distance of 100 km the cost of the CO 2 delivery system would be substantial. Unless other methods of CO 2 capture and utilization are developed and deployed, the algae biofuel industry will forever be limited by its short tether to stack gases. If yields can be pushed significantly beyond what we have demonstrated here, 75 MT ha − 1 yr − 1 biomass and 30 MT ha −1 yr −1 , or 35,000 L ha −1 yr −1 algal osuperil, then other sources of CO 2 may well be worth pursuing because the low-hanging fruit of nearby, nearly pure CO 2 sources will quickly be claimed, leaving no alternative. I thought it was mainly interesting to see a relatively fleshed out design for algae+BECSS facility that could plausibly sequester CO2 in the range of ~$100/MT without relying on food crops. However the amount of land required is pretty excessive, which seems to be a feature of BECSS in general. There are other carbon-capture applications for algae biomass production, as essentially every CO2 point source becomes a candidate algae farm. In general these only really become economical for carbon prices >$100/MT, which returns to the political question as to how to implement carbon taxes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Let’s not be unreasonable here - it’s not that nobody should have children, it’s just that 0.05% of us should have children.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
You're not going to argue a parent or parent-to-be out of how fundamental their experience is to the human condition. Why did they sacrifice the good years of their life to raise another human being, if it's not the most important thing a person can do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Given that meeting the Paris accord target of 1.5C average warming requires a minimum of 5Gt annual carbon dioxide removal to come online REALLY fast, it's worth thinking how to do this without causing constant never-ending famine. Conventional BECSS competes for land with food crops, and Gt scale carbon sequestration will displace enough food production to significantly raise prices (among other problems). Aquatic BECSS using algae to absorb CO2 avoids this issue, and also takes advantage of algae's extremely fast growth rate. In principal algae can be processed into commercial products to offset some of the cost, including the biofuel necessary to enable modern international cat-watching. We can electrify many things but algae-based fuel is going to be vital for airliners. At least the ones that have to fly longer than a few 100 miles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Why would anyone switch to algae fuel when it's going to be more expensive and there will always be an international airliner willing to fly the route with good old dino juice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
call to action posted:You're not going to argue a parent or parent-to-be out of how fundamental their experience is to the human condition. Why did they sacrifice the good years of their life to raise another human being, if it's not the most important thing a person can do? Also why so many parents pressure their children to give them grandkids: "I went through all this crap and so must you! Plus, I get all the benefits of doting on a little kid while you get all the work!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
still pissed we don't have solar dirigibles yet
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
lost in the shuffle of this week's episode of Celebrity White House: This one's even worse than that Exxon one from last yearquote:A Dutch journalist has uncovered Royal Dutch Shell documents as old as 1988 that showed the oil company understood the gravity of climate change, the company’s large contribution to it and how hard it would be to stop it. Document here and it's a doozy. Some additional highlowlights: quote:"Although CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere as a consequence of several processes, e.g. oxidation of humic substances and deforestation, the main cause of increasing CO2 concentrations is considered to be fossil fuel burning." quote:"Decrease in pH - Increasing tendency of dissolution of carbonate shells (e.g. shellfish), corals and sediments." quote:"Mathematical models of the earth's climate indicate that if this warming occurs then it could create significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather. These changes could be larger than any that have occurred over the last 12,000 years. Such relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies and could have major social, economic and political consequences." Dang they had it all figured out 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
That's amazing, an actual mycrimes.txt from the oil industry.call to action posted:Why would anyone switch to algae fuel when it's going to be more expensive and there will always be an international airliner willing to fly the route with good old dino juice? That's easy, they won't switch. Algae biofuel is only feasible with stiff carbon pricing making dino-fuel relatively too expensive. Until then it's a promising tech waiting in the wings, as this article on the "algae bubble" makes clear: quote:Hard Lessons From the Great Algae Biofuel Bubble I have to be honest, I see no problem with dumb venture capitalists getting fleeced by startups researching bioenergy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Dang they had it all figured out  is that they spent all the time and money to figure this out but then didn't make the simple logical connection that it would therefore be very profitable to invest in renewables and get ahead of the game. What was all this research for if not to get a decade of lead time on smart business decisions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I have to be honest, I see no problem with dumb venture capitalists getting fleeced by startups researching bioenergy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
call to action posted:Why would anyone switch to algae fuel when it's going to be more expensive and there will always be an international airliner willing to fly the route with good old dino juice? This is The Tragedy of the Commons. The airline isn't paying the real cost of the Kerosine they are burning. The cost in climate change etc. One job of governments is to prevent the "socialization of expenses" that corporations are wont to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Don't you mean protect it, not prevent it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Yes, it has to be worth it. That's weird to you? That I think life should be enjoyable instead of slavish? lol, by that logic when is the correct 'moral' time to have kids? Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, there was a good chance anyone having kids was going leave them to grow up orphans (or dead) in the ruins of a nuclear holocaust. Pre-WWII? Nope. Earlier? Nope, there's a good chance they'd die in a different huge war/crop failure/epidemic. Nobody knows their kids are going to have a better life than them, in any time period, in any country. poo poo's going to suck, but that doesn't mean life's not worth living.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 10:28
|
|
