|
nononon people making choices and acting on them is totally unreasonable remember
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:nononon people making choices and acting on them is totally unreasonable remember You should live the way you want to live, if someone wants to do stardew valley in real life and that seems enjoyable for them they should do that. It's absolutely not a way to save people though and someone should do it because they want to live that way not because they hate it but think it's a miserable good deed or something. It absolutely will not make measurable differance and absolutely could not be widely implemented. But if it's someone's good vision of a good life they should not be stopped by it not being actually heroic or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees and I am wondering if anyone has any ideas on how I can limit external water usage (i.e. well water/city water) through irrigation and land management. I get that I can use rain barrels, but I kind of want to keep as much water in the water table on my land as possible. So far I have an extensive mulching/composting plan to get rid of any red clay in the soil so my water retention rate will go up in times of drought and water scarcity, but I am looking for other ways of keeping my plants fed without taxing the water table or pumping water. what is the topology of your land? even if it looks flat, unless you're literally at the bottom of a floodplain or on a prairie or something, it probably has a bit of a slope. remember that water moves inexorably toward the centre of the earth, so your hardiest trees (i would plant pomegranates, pistachios, rosemary and whatever legume trees are native to your area) and your tanks should be at the top of the slope, and your more delicate flora (citrus, stonefruit, vine fruit) at the lowest point. if you mulch heavily at the top of the slope it will also help water retention the whole way down. also, this may be an eccentric suggestion but bear with me, please make little wreaths of deadwood and rocks around your tanks to help the frogs and lizards. they will be your friends in times of need - and, if you are sensitive and patient, maybe even your lovers
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:also, this may be an eccentric suggestion but bear with me, please make little wreaths of deadwood and rocks around your tanks to help the frogs and lizards. they will be your friends in times of need - and, if you are sensitive and patient, maybe even your lovers Unless this is some kind of fetish. Then no. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Come to the green building thread and tell us more! We want to hear the details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:it is a fetish, i love to have sex with frogs, and i would love to tell you all about it. where is the green building thread? Come and share the love https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3865561 e. pun not intended but it stays
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Come and share the love people try to tell me frogs can't give consent, however once you learn their language you'll find they comprehend more than you think
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Climate Change: i love to have sex with frogs
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
I like happy little frogs chilling out in flower pots and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:So I am sketching out a plan for sustainably growing fruit trees.. Most of the advice I would give has already been given, but I clear the immediate ground around my saplings/fruit bushes and lay some weedproof sheeting down, then stones over the top- really makes a difference for the important first few years of getting roots down.      friendbot2000 posted:Drop me a PM sometime. I need someone to trade ideas with. The house I plan to build is an A-Frame. That way I can fit more solar panels on it. Maybe do a thread for sustainable housing stuff? That or feel free to drop by my my thread and talk in there- im a few years off a home down there sadly but any offgrid related stuff is fine by me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:Maybe do a thread for sustainable housing stuff? That or feel free to drop by my my thread and talk in there- im a few years off a home down there sadly but any offgrid related stuff is fine by me I started a thread in DIY!Get In.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:I like happy little frogs chilling out in flower pots and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
I'm watching all sorts of climate related stuff, like the chinese green wall and science panels, speakers on Big Think and TED Talk, and I'm noticing that the deniers in the comment sections are just... out of their minds. Are there some bot campaigns by some oil company or what is this? These comments are so incomprehensible that they make flat earthers look good and cool. We are entering a mini ice age and we are entering a grand solar minimum so we need all the CO2 we can get to keep us warm. More CO2 and warmth means better food growing conditions = paradise. Chemtrails are the real reason for climate change, but also climate change isn't real. Climate changes naturally, don't do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
don't read comments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:I'm watching all sorts of climate related stuff, like the chinese green wall and science panels, speakers on Big Think and TED Talk, and I'm noticing that the deniers in the comment sections are just... out of their minds. Don't read the comments. These are the same people that handwave away the almost complete loss of every major port on either coast due to sea level rise. Like it'd be easy even for us to have to hastily rebuild almost every powerhouse point of entry/exit that literally sustains our concept of modern life. Really don't read the comments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 13:40
|
|
|
Well, I like to dive in to these lunatic rabbit holes just to try and figure out how it all happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
The arctic icecap has already almost entirely melted, and we'll likely see ice free summers in our lifetime. At this point the only people denying man-made climate change in the face of undeniable evidence can't be reasoned out of their position. They'll live in their own version of reality until they die. It's not a surprise that outright climate denialism is largely confined to Republicans in the US and conservatives in general internationally. The more modern and subtle form of denialism is arguing that climate change mitigation will actually be worse than climate change itself. This is much harder because climate change mitigation would in fact be extremely expensive. Reaching the 1.5C max temperature rise target will optimistically cost no less than some single-digit percentage of global GDP. There was a provocative Nature article that emphasized that even just decarbonizing without causing widespread economic hardship or famine is not trivial: Science Daily posted:Climate taxes on agriculture could lead to more food insecurity than climate change itself Also as others have said internet comments are the lowest form of discourse, why are you reading them? Gortarius posted:Well, I like to dive in to these lunatic rabbit holes just to try and figure out how it all happens. Either large sections of their brains have died or they don't want to pay for the cost of mitigation and will support any bad faith argument to get out of doing so. This covers the entire spectrum of climate change deniers arguing on the internet or otherwise, there's no need to investigate further.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
focusing on deniers is a great way to feel good and smug about being a "believer" while not doing poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The more modern and subtle form of denialism is arguing that climate change mitigation will actually be worse than climate change itself. Depends on what mitigation, people in this thread have suggested everything from infrastructure changes to be in line with other less polluting countries to ecofascism with 80% genocide of the human race through forced sterilization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Oocc I just wanted to give you a  somewhere other than in the russia thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:focusing on deniers is a great way to feel good and smug about being a "believer" while not doing poo poo Assuming we're not rich/influential people, what are we supposed to do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
actionjackson posted:Assuming we're not rich/influential people, what are we supposed to do? Aren’t you an American? Don’t you have almost unlimited access to guns? Go on a rampage at an Exxon Mobil board meeting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Overflow gerrymandered districting to kick out the villains actively rolling progress backward, then overflow centrist inertia to kick out the clowns who aren't making forward progress a priority. In your own town, see about going to meetings, social events, etc. Convince one person that, instead of building a fountain/memorial/whatever, they should instead build something both green and financially self-sustaining, like a bus line or a community solar plant--however small--on like the roof of a community building or something. Start that ball rolling somewhere, however small, save the future an miniscule few tens/hundreds/thousands of co2 they'll have to sequester, and more importantly create a material example of a thing you can point to as proof to green planning can work, we just need political will. Flowers for Algeria has the right idea, actually; it's just that the only morally acceptable way to "disappear" sceptic conservatives is to politically marginalize them. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Aug 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Aren’t you an American? Don’t you have almost unlimited access to guns? Go on a rampage at an Exxon Mobil board meeting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Here's a question for you all. Sweden has had droughts this summer much like most of Europe. This has led to a lack of animal feed which in turn has led to more animals than usual being slaughtered, since you can't keep them around if you can't feed them. The resulting surpluss of meat, primarily beef and pork, is predicted to cause prices to drop and waste to occur during the autumn. Then the whiplash effect of this will cause a shortage next summer with higher prices and more imported meat. Now I've been vegeterian for a while for climate reasons, but I'm starting to think that during this autumn it would be more beneficial to switch back to eating meat. Partly to prevent waste, and partly because supporting Swedish farmers now might lead to them being able to handle next summer better, reducing the need for imported meat. Am i just trying to justify eating meat again or does this make sense? No need to comment that indiviual action is useless, let's just pretend it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:focusing on deniers is a great way to feel good and smug about being a "believer" while not doing poo poo We need to get better at politically marginalizing people opposing climate change mitigation. It should go without saying this doesn't remove the necessity for positive individual action. Potato Salad posted:In your own town, see about going to meetings, social events, etc. Convince one person that, instead of building a fountain/memorial/whatever, they should instead build something both green and financially self-sustaining, like a bus line or a community solar plant--however small--on like the roof of a community building or something. Start that ball rolling somewhere, however small, save the future an miniscule few tens/hundreds/thousands of co2 they'll have to sequester, and more importantly create a material example of a thing you can point to as proof to green planning can work, we just need political will. I've spent what little available time volunteering with Citizen's Climate Lobby, which is dedicated towards I've also been wondering why countries like Sweden were able to pass and maintain a pretty significant carbon tax (~$140 USD/ tCO2), while Canada is on the cusp of repealing a fairly anemic carbon tax while the US hasn't even left the gate. It seems relevant. Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Cakebaker posted:Here's a question for you all. Sweden has had droughts this summer much like most of Europe. This has led to a lack of animal feed which in turn has led to more animals than usual being slaughtered, since you can't keep them around if you can't feed them. The resulting surpluss of meat, primarily beef and pork, is predicted to cause prices to drop and waste to occur during the autumn. Then the whiplash effect of this will cause a shortage next summer with higher prices and more imported meat. Nothing wrong with being an opportunistic omnivore, eating what is available seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:We need to get better at politically marginalizing people opposing climate change mitigation. It should go without saying this doesn't remove the necessity for positive individual action. Skipping over the local level is the first half of my post. First stop Republicans from cutting our limbs off, then vote out the inactive bystanders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Also the local impacts are the ones people can actually understand. I don't understand what any of the global impacts really mean, but I do understand what "that river will be dry 30% of the year" or "that dock will be underwater" means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
50% of our once-terrestrial landmass is currently underwater and the other 50% is in drought. if you're in a drought-stricken part of the world, providing water for the creatures is the kindest thing you can do. it seems like a small gesture, and it is, but remember the power of trickle-down evolution! the thirsty tree frog you save today could be the ancestor of a burrowing armoured desert frog inhabiting the dessicated husk of california in one million years' time. don't tell me that's not how evolution works, we don't actually know how evolution works. in fact we don't know anything - not about evolution, or ecology, or climatology or geology or any of those mysteries. once you accept that, it becomes easier to accept that you can't stop climate change, and just do little things in the now if you have a bird bath, put it under a tree and plant small saplings around it. little birds like robins, which like to hop around on the ground for bugs, prefer to have a sapling nearby that they can flutter into. when you're designing your space for small creatures, think on their level. when you're very tiny, the scariest thing in the universe is the sky. most of their ancestral predators come from the sky. if they can't see the sky (because it's hidden by a tree), they're less stressed, happier, and more able to focus on the important things like eating and nesting another helpful thing you can do is bury bits of native wood in the soil. even the driest wood has moisture in it that's released by decomposition (by burying it you hasten the decomposition and stop the moisture from evaporating into the air). in a protracted dry spell, a whole population of bugs and beetles can live for months in/on a bit of rotten timber. this is good for them, because we need them, and also for our friends the frogs, lizards, and birds, who eat them
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:50% of our once-terrestrial landmass is currently underwater and the other 50% is in drought ???
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
ok it might not be underwater yet, but it will be soon
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Your intentions might be pure but I believe you're the one who doesn't know anything, my good sir.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:<snip> What the gently caress did I just read? Anyway. I've been doing some more research and I bet a lot of the smarter people in this world are kicking themselves that we haven't been focusing more on space industry and a proper moon base with some serious industry. At this point, it looks like a sun shade of sorts would help quite a bit but we have no industry capable of doing something like that in any reasonable time frame. Why the gently caress are we focusing so hard on Mars when the Moon is right loving there? Why have we never returned to the moon in like 40 goddamn years? I'm starting to buy into some of those conspiracy theories about moon aliens / the moon is an alien space station something... And a real moon base, perhaps even with a railgun/coilgun payload launch system like in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", would help enormously with getting to Mars / Earth terraforming projects / etc. e. just checked and moon escape velocity (from the earth/moon system) is only 2.38km/s. Earth escape velocity is 11.2km/s. Why the gently caress aren't we taking advantage of that? ugh. this world is so loving backwards sometimes (read this as most of the time). Ambaire fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Aug 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Ambaire posted:What the gently caress did I just read? No that's dumb. Going into space solves nothing at all, the problem is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not insolation or anything else that can be solved by Elon Musk-type bullshit space constructions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
It is way, way easier to make Earth liveable than it is to make the moon liveable
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Skipping over the local level is the first half of my post. First stop Republicans from cutting our limbs off, then vote out the inactive bystanders. I'm bringing this up as IMO Canada will likely repeal it's anemic national carbon tax just over a year from now if and when the Conservatives win the next federal election. This is in large part due to it just not being very popular: IPSOS posted:Majority of Ontarians Not Sold on Carbon Taxes, Think They’re Simply a Tax Grab CCL is trying to apply the idea that a dedicated lobbying effort focused on a single issue can have disproportionate political influence, even for measures that benefit a special interest at the expense of the broader population (corn subsidies are the usual example). This relies on the broader voting public to be indifferent or only weakly opposed to the policy, but realistic carbon pricing has too large an impact on the public for this to hold. It won't work unless enough of the public is on-board.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
What would be a better way of reducing emissions in Ontario then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
One day I plan on making an effort thread on the realities of future space travel. Let me kill some time by laying a few things out here. Escaping to space is often laid out as a solution to our problems. Perhaps we can terraform mars or the moon, or maybe place habitats in orbit so we have a second home in case we gently caress up earth. It would relieve population pressure, and we don't want to keep all our eggs in one basket just in case a giant asteroid ever strikes the earth again. This will never happen because living in space is always the harder and less economical option, because humans are custom made to live on earth. If you have the tech, money, and time to terraform mars or the moon, then it would be easier to take that tech and reverse global warming on earth. If 10000 years from now an alien race came to our system and had the choice between terraforming mars or terraforming the global warming ruined earth, the earth would be the easier option. Unlike mars it already has liquid water, an atmosphere, and a magnetosphere to repel the radiation that bombards mars. If you have the tech, money, and time to place giant orbiting self contained habitats in orbit around the earth or moon, it would be cheaper and easier to build self contained habitats on the ground on earth, where you don't have to create artifical gravity or have raw materials lifted up to you. You can't live long term on the surface of the moon or mars, because those bodies don't have a magnetosphere like earth does, and the radiation that pervades space will kill you. Even the steel of a orbital habitat won't stop it. Cities on the moon or mars would have to be built underground. If a giant asteroid was going to hit the earth, and you had the tech and money to build giant cities underground on the moon or mars to house the people that are the last hope of humanity, it would be cheaper and easier to instead build giant cities under the ocean or a mile under the rocky mountains where even a dinosaur killer could be rode out for a few decades until the dust cleared. The only time fleeing to space makes sense is if an asteroid big enough to crack the planet is coming. But in that case an early warning system would be better. If you have the tech and money to colonize mars, then building an asteroid deflection system should be easy as long as you have a few years notice before it hits. Even if a 200 mile wide belt around the equater becomes a barren desert, the ice caps melt and flood he coasts, and most of the life in the ocean dies, fixing that gently caress up would be easier than terraforming the moon or mars. Even in a venus hothouse scenorio where every living thing on this earth dies and a few thousand survivors flee to underground habitats, fixing the earth would still be easier then terraforming mars, because at least the earth has a magnetosphere. If we break the pieces that make up our ecosystem, maybe we can but them back together. The other celestial bodies don't even have the pieces available in the first place. poo poo is WEIRD in space. For example the very dust on the ground on the moon is razor sharp because there is no water cycle to cause weathering. There are a million other things to consider besides just finding water and being able to react oxygen from the rocks. We are not going to be able run from this. But suppose we did manage to colonize other planets, what then? I'm lumping a lot of things together in this post besides just global warming, such as resource depletion and over population. Suppose we refused to face the music here on earth and just left. Somehow sent millions of people to the moon and mars. How long until we hosed those planets up like we've hosed the earth? How long until Mars is over populated as well? The UNICEF estimates that an average of 353,000 babies are born each day around the world. Even if we could terraform the moon, we would still have to get a handle on things here on earth, unless we had enough ships to blast off almost half a million people every day to the colonies. I firmly believe in space exploration. I would like to see a permanet observatory on the moon, and maybe even on mars, but that is as far as we are going to go. Again, even if the tech was there, even if we could live on the moon or mars, it would make more sense to use that tech on earth. I hope this pointless space derail has provided you a brief respite from the horror that is coming in your lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:This will never happen because living in space is always the harder and less economical option, because humans are custom made to live on earth. This idea that the human race consistently allocates resources from easiest to hardest in order seems really counter factual. Lining up all the possible actions the human race could do and tackling them first to last seems like maybe something the machine emperor would do once he seized leadership of every country on earth, but it's pretty much never ever been the way anything in human history has ever been done. "X would be cheaper than Y" is a rational reason X should be done before Y but we live in a world that spent almost a billion dollar making hobbit movies no one liked while people lack health care or food to live. People don't operate collectively like that to globally sort what to do in what order. It's long been known that just out right buying entire houses would be cheaper for society than the cost of homelessness, but we apparently have like 500 million other things we are doing before we implement that plan. We have basically never ever operated in ideal order, rarely even in any top down enforced order at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 04:12
|
|