Steve
Mostly Harmless
By this definition, I think we're all idiots in certain areas. Unless you're suggesting you and Bill Mattocks are the only ones who aren't.
Are We Knowingly Living a Lie?
- Thread starter Gyakuto
- Start date
- Status
That's true enough....
On the bright side, the fact that we recognize this means that we aren't total idiots.
OP
OP
This is how my anthropomorphic climate change denying scientist friend commences his usual diatribe when anyone mentions it. I was going to see Richard Dawkins in conversation with him and was so worried that if Dawkins mentioned anthropomorphic climate change, my friend would jump in and argue in the most embarrassing way. Luckily we āfeel outā just before the event and I went on my own
OP
OP
Bill and I are the only sensible people in the world (except he doesnāt have a telly).
OP
OP
Many donāt. I mean flat earthers genuinely believe the earth is a plane surface (actually I suspect theyāre just enjoying being contrary).That's true enough....
On the bright side, the fact that we recognize this means that we aren't total idiots.
OP
OP
Do you have a piece of headwear you could consume, Steve?
Fungus
Black Belt
The peak was some days ago the coldest january temp in 25 years -43.6C
Freezing temperatures of below -40C reported in Finland and Sweden
The extremely cold weather caused disruptions in transportation in Finland, Sweden and Norway, where snow made rail traffic difficult and ferry lines were suspended.
www.euronews.com
Fungus
Black Belt
Good point.
What often strikes me, is that there is a lot of talk about transferring to green energy source, but we chould also talk about reducing the overall energy expenditure ("green" or not!)
During the pandemic, I realized that alot of transportartion is simply unnecessary. Instead of switching from diesel to electric cars, why not stop going back and forth like squirrels unless really necessary. But the car manufacturers would not like that. But then it's profit interest behind.
"61% of CO2 emissions in EU are due to cars.
...
The production and disposal of an electric car is less environmentally friendly than that of a car with an internal combustion engine and the level of emissions from electric vehicles varies depending on how the electricity is produced."
-- CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics) | News | European Parliament
We can't remove all transportation, but to speak for myself, I transport myself to the office and sit in the front of the computer all day, then i transport myself back home. During the pandemic i worked from home and to 95% that was no issues. In the days of information and digital communication, I think alot of driving back and forth is not necessary. Instead we can transport the information back and forth.
OP
OP
You make some very good points Fungus.
Why? Is it because no energy source can be truly green and will always have an impact on the environment? Is green energy part of the complicity with which weāre engaged?
Again, why?
I can believe that. U.K. roads are clogged with cars and lorries.
And yet our many employers are demanding that ākeyboard tappersā come into the office because it allows for creativity and transfer of ideas
OP
OP
This report is very interesting.
OP
OP
Population control is the pachyderm in the room. The carbon/resources footprint in bringing up a child is enormous and itās impossible to know if that child will grow into someone who contributes positively to society: they may just be parasitic. A āone childā policy would really help to reduce the world population but certain institutions are dead against this.
View attachment 30576
Thanos was way too soft. What if we knocked the world population down to about a quarter of billion. Heck that's more than we had during the height of the Roman Empire. Then we'd have plenty of resources, could maintain a highly cultured civilization and our impact on the environment would be far less so the natural world could thrive.
I'll do my part. Next pandemic, I'm not wearing a mask!
A few years ago, David Attenborough (āmay flowers sprout from his very footstepsā
) declared that population control was central and vital to saving the planet. He was very quickly criticised for saying this and this opinion shut down (not sure by whom). He never publically mentioned the idea again and my respect for him reduced markedly.Having said that, David Bellamy was a botanist and U.K. TV naturalist in the same vein, level of respect and contemporary to Attenborough. He was popular with the nature programme-watching public because he was quite eccentric. However, he questioned anthropomorphic climate change but unlike Attenborough, remained vocal about his beliefs and was removed from all broadcasting and sadly, totally disappeared from British culture.
Maybe Attenborough was protecting his TV career.
Fungus
Black Belt
Green energy source switching is good, but there is often still an impact on environment when it's used and produced. For example electric cars, question isn't just about how the electricitly is produced, but also that the energy storage fossile fules are replaced by battery cells. And production and recycling of battery technology is not exactly green. Nuclear is also not clean or free of risks.
So I think while part of the solution is to swithch to renewable energy, one part is also to think about wether we are just wasting resources.
I think we should be able to find new creative WAYS to transfer these ideas by now. Good communication is not constrained to physical contact these days. We have all we need for video meeting these days, where you can have eyecontact and talk for those who does not like to type or read. This may depend on your personality type I think, and of course not ALL jobs are centered around keyboard tapping.And yet our many employers are demanding that ākeyboard tappersā come into the office because it allows for creativity and transfer of ideas
Of course I am also an idiot, just like everyone else. I happen to be cursed with the ability to see the futility of trying to get people to try to consider anyone other than themselves, but it doesn't make me smarter than them.
On the other hand, I don't keep pressing the cross-walk button repeatedly, thinking it will make the light change faster.
So THATās what I was doing wrong!
Steve
Mostly Harmless
But are we booger eating morons?That's true enough....
On the bright side, the fact that we recognize this means that we aren't total idiots.
So far, so good. Iām happy to be proven wrong.
I'm not an idiot. I may not be knowledgeable many things, but I'm no idiot. You guys set high benchmarks.
here are mine.
The rapper 69
The islandboys
BaehrTKD
Green Belt
I'll simply say this (avoiding all debate on this divisive issue):
The people in charge (the wealthy billionaires who basically control the world and our politicians) want everyone else to take less, use less, and consume less, so that they can continue to grow the global population, add more customers, and have more money for themselves. (In a nutshell, that is what is happening.)
Look at it from the perspective of Elon Musk:
Do you sell more Teslas when the population is 8 billion people or 16 billion people?
They will do whatever it takes to squeeze more people in. More apartment buildings. Taller apartment buildings. Higher yield food (whatever feeds the most people in the least amount of space). If carbon emissions are a problem they will take away gas cars. If pencils and paper cost too many trees, everything will go digital. If electricity becomes an issue, they will ration that off too.
You can do everything in your power to use less and waste less, and the government will reward you by adding 4 new people to the country, thereby increasing overall pollution, consumption, and waste by far more than you were able to save. In the end, everyone simply gets less. (Or at least the 99% of us do.) The pie is finite, and a knife keeps dividing it into smaller and smaller slices.
The only thing that can save the world is a reduced human population, back down to where it was a century ago. Capping immigration, having one child per family policies, etc. are easy and realistic ways to do this. But it will never happen. Shrinking the population would mean shrinking profits for big businesses, and that will never be allowed.
What we are doing right now is akin to taking a flamethrower to a candle. It'll burn bright yes..... but not for long. If you look at earth from space, we are definitely in the "burning bright" stage of that candle.
The world doesn't need saving. It will save itself itself. Mother nature has always been able to adjust populations as needed.
According to Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate the global birthrate per 1000 people has been consistently decreasing. The rate is low enough for the US and China to be concern about population growth.
According to Source: Charted: The Rapid Decline of Global Birth Rates Also shows the same thing.
The global death rate is on rise.
Disease, War, Limited Resources, and drastic climate change are all efficient ways in which the population of resources. There are plenty of things that will decrease the population. There will be new things that will add to the to population decline in the near future. There's no need to worry about too many humans. Decreased population comes with its own set of problems. Fewer people doesn't mean that there will be fewer problems nor does it mean that things will be better. If we were to move today's technology advances to 100 years in the past. There wouldn't be enough people to grow or maintain the tech.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-