Fridays for Future

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Mar 16, 2019.

  1. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    That's why I'm all for cortex driven protest, such as boycotting Instagram instead of empty symbolism and amygdala driven meaningless worldwide upload en masse, for example. Dear folks, start boycotting any useless shit you don't really need and rest assured that evil capitalism would stop produce it.
  2. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Crni, you dream of that Trekian utopia where everyone lives in prosperity, but at the same time you want to redefine and limit prosperity for environmental reasons. Which one is it? What if, despite the dogmatic "We can't continue like this", we actually COULD continue like this, or rather, continue at this level of prosperity? Why do we close our eyes to the possibility? Is it just because "Capitalism bad"? That seems a bit narrow.
    Let's see if we can come up with an environmentally friendly plan that works with a free market economy:
    The first step is investment in nuclear reactors. Specifically, reactors capable of using fast neutrons and alternative fuels. Almost all technical challenges are long solved and could be used, but are scrapped for political reasons. But now we have a) a base power generation that is stable, and b) a massive fuel supply because fast breeders and thorium reactors can potentially use the old long-lived waste from older reactors. The resulting waste is short-lived and only needs to be stored around a hundred years or so. Considering many other toxic wastes we produce (among them stuff for renewable energies) that stay toxic forever, that's pretty good. And we get rid of the current waste, turning it short-lived. Building new reactors and utilizing the old waste and new fuels opens up new industries and markets, too, so it's good for the economy, too.
    Additionally, renewable energy sources are deployed and used. While nuclear power plants, despite common misconceptions, can be ramped down to adjust for load, it's still easier to just leave them running at best efficiency. The renewables, during highly productive days (windy or sunny) will not contribute much to the grid, but instead produce hydrogen for an increased hydrogen fuel economy. Boom, additional fuel supply that costs basically nothing. Step by step, automotive fleets can be converted to hydrogen fuel. Current gen pressure tanks running at 700 bar are stable, safe, and give enough range for a car to be competitive with gasoline cars. Converting existing cars on a large scale to hydrogen is another market that comes up. Either internal combustion or fuel cell, both is fine.
    So with this we massively reduce CO2 emissions, fire up the economy, change for a sustainable fuel and energy economy, and maintain prosperity.
    But sadly, it's capitalism, so thanks, but no, thanks.
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008

    I never completely understood why you think those are mutually exclusive.

    You can ask your self one question. Do you need this excessive consumerism to live a happy and healthy live? If you say yes, then I guessed you wrong and you're way more materialistic then I thought you are. And no, I am not saying everyone has to move out to a farm. We can make changes and actually end up happier beacuse of it, it's really possible. Places like Amsterdam are the proof. 60% of the popluation is using the bicycle, they have more space, less accidents and the population is happier. It's strange, by using less cars, the people feel better simply because there is less noice, less pollution, more parks and space for the people which was previously used for cars and parking lots. And the same can be done in many other areas of our society. For example, there is litteraly no need for selling water in plastic bottles to be 'happy', we also don't need plastic bags for everything either.

    The point is, we have to make extreme changes now because we havn't done any for the last 40 years and the longer we wait, the more severe will the changes be. But if we do not not make them now, we won't get a second chance, once certain tipping points are crossed, there is no going back. We can not simply go and de-carbonise our society in 2050 or 2070 or what ever, because it's unconvenient for us now, it would be like if your plan was to stop smoking once you have cancer to prevent cancer.

    You still havn't adressed the main issue here, that our need for energy is growing exponentially. This is the underlying issue here and this, can not be fixed by either fossil fuels, nuclear energy OR renewable energy for that matter. Dude, I am not opposing nuclear energy or saying we shouldn't invest in new technologies here or build new and better reactors where they are needed.

    All I am saying is, that it's not a magical button that we can push and it will solve the issue we're facing right now. Even if we did all of the things you said, we still had the same problem as before. We spend to much energy on producing shit we throw needlessly away. We would still cut down rainforrests in Brazil for farmland, we would still use more than 70% of the agricultural space to feed animals, we would still ship around tons of garbage manufactured in china, which is used in Europe/US to end up on landfills in Africa.

    This is what we have to fix, somehow. Or all this nuclear research and use will be completely useless. And we have not even yet talked about how much the need for energy will grow due to this new wave of digitalisation.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2019
  4. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    They have to ride bicycles since 60% of population is tripping hard on alkaloids, effectively rendering them unable to drive cars faster than 20 Km/h. Unless your plan is pumping up commoners with drugs, this argument is invalid.

  5. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Yay for redistributing poverty. Hey, it worked in communism before.
    No need for excessive consumerism. But I like to keep the freedom of choice. Let demand decide, not 5 Year Plans.

    Energy needs aren't growing exponentially, at least not for long. Population and society will stabilize at some point. Industry will adapt more efficient methods, increased recycling capabilities and so on. And if we don't go down the Greentardation route we could also finally employ nuclear fusion, giving us ridiculous energy production capabilities.
    Thing is, who says it isn't a magic button? Economic growth isn't meant to continue endlessly, that's a misconception. If we don't go the Greentardation route, what about nuclear fusion? Giving us even more energy production capabilities, while at the same time technology gets ever more efficient. Recycling, additive manufacturing, production can be extremely efficient. If we were smart, we wouldn't need to reduce consumerism by force. We could let people decide for themselves, and still save the environment.
    But as I said. It's not really about saving the environment. It's about ending capitalism and utlimately, control.
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Or they continue till they collapse. If 2015 wasn't a wake up call, then I do not know what is. About a 1 million people, have been a serious issue for our democracy and gave growth to a lot of populism. Imagine if 100 Million climate refugees arrive at some point. This 'stabiliziation' you're talking about, can also come as a collapse. It wouldn't be the first time. I mean societies have collapsed before, just not a global scale yet. Of course things can not grow indefinetly. That's the whole point. Let us look at systems that do, like cancer, what is the end result? The organism is dieing. And this could very well happen here as well.

    This stuff isn't new, the club of rome talked about it already 40 years ago.

    But I give up. I guess it still requires a few more exceptionally hot summers, maybe even the one or other famine and giant storm in Europe before a real change happens or is even considered.
  7. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Preparing for disasters and thinkig about the unsustainability of capitalism is too much post modernism.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  8. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    I'm proposing change, in case you didn't notice. Radical change, actually. A way that radically cuts carbon dioxide emissions, removes need for deforestation to make room for biofuel plantations, and can lead to increased prosperity for everyone.
    But all you see is that it doesn't condemn capitalism enough.
  9. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    I'm 100% with Hassknecht, all of our research capabilities should have been fairly paid and focused at clean energy source such as nuclear fusion decades ago, not now. All this recent lobby for photovoltaics in EU is nothing but massive scam anyway, pumping eurofunds for overpaid projects in wrong pockets.

    Also what Vuk wrote is a copy-pasta of my own older posts adressed to him years ago @Walpknut - both the threat of future overpopulation with hundreds of millions climatic migrants based on UN stats, and The Limits of Growth book by the Club of Rome. Glad to see I didn't write it in vain.
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    And that's all well and understood and for the record, for the case you missunderstood me or I wasn't clear. I do support a lot of what you say. Maybe I am not as entusiastic here, but we are on the same page after all and I aknowledge the fact that you have a better understanding with nuclear technology than I do.

    All I am saying is, the source of the problem is NOT(!) what we use to make energy. Our current lifestyle is simply not sustainable in the long run, regardless what energy we use, be it nuclear, fossil or renewable.
  11. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    Our lifestyle is plenty sustainable, it's just the ratio that will have to change, regarding how many people get to live like this.

    Overpopulation in itself isn't that big a deal either. Again, comes down to quality of life and who gets what.

    Am I helping?

    By now, our only real alternatives are to set up a fully functional dyson-sphere - OR - just stop doing everything we are doing. 2nd option seem pretty impossible, practically speaking, like... human history consists of people failing at trying to stop people at doing things they should stop doing.

    How much would a dyson-sphere cost? I feel like I'm not helping
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Our current lifestyle is already causing a growing global temperature and a damage to the environment, that's reaching a global scale. How on earth is this current lifestyle 'sustainable'? I mean at this point, drastic measures at least in some areas, are in order if we want to preserve a somewhat tolerable future.

    There is almost no corner of this earth, where you don't see beaches full of plastic or some kind of human influence.

    Earth Overshoot Day (EOD), previously known as Ecological Debt Day (EDD), is the calculated illustrative calendar date on which humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth's capacity to regenerate those resources that year.
    When viewed through an economic perspective, EOD represents the day in which humanity enters an ecological deficit spending. In ecology the term Earth Overshoot Day illustrates the level by which human population overshoots its environment. In 2018, Earth Overshoot Day is on August 1.[2]

    This, this is already happening now. Our current lifestyle, is not sustainable, not in the long run.

    Overpopulation is a problem IF we continue on the current path.
  13. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    Firstly - humans far from consume all the resources we actually get out, in particular when we talk about food. Food is produced and destroyed ad continuum. We should produce what we actually consume, things would be easyer, but... everyone involved in these processes know this, so, who am I to tell them?

    As for the current path as it is, yes, is pure death - but population growth and people movement will guarantee that there is no such thing as a current path to follow. Current path of now will be much different from current path of the future.
    Mind you, I'm not playing devils advocate here, I'm actually agreeing with you, more than you yourself perhaps. The current path will only get worse, which means it'll keep changing, the factors within, and how we relate to them. They'll only get more impossible :D

    See, you see us spiralling towards doom, and you're looking for a solution. My approach is the usual: What solution exactly? The one that's right in front of us, that nobody will object to, that will be functionally implementable, and that - if it existed - we would have resorted to decades ago?

    I know that I come off a bit jerky, but... you know.
    We know what the solutions are. Well... there's on the surface, and below the surface, obviously...

    On the surface, ban all air-travel, pretty much shut down all global trade (which require non stop air, trucking and shipping), and pretty much ban electronics.
    Below the surface, however, we can untangle the web of human enslavement, the conditions that turn cobalt for example into a precious comodity, and not just another type of dust in the rock that we can make stuff from. Human economical models are always about the exchange, but at what rate and who sets it. And the more words I utter, the closer I'm getting to words such as "blade" and "heads" and "baskets", I know you don't like that much, but I can't help it.

    I honestly, genuinely, truly believe - on a rational observational basis - that we will never fix any of this. Which is why I respond as I do initially: There will continue to be a class of people who rely on global trade, air travel, shipping, trucking, as well as slavery-based economy and all the delicious electronics it brings us. As populations grow, the privileged class will shrink in comparison, but stay stable as is now, or shrink gently, and the rest, the "resource-class" let's call them, will just... grow. Let's wait untill what is the projection, 2050s? to see if global population growth "naturally plateaus", if not, we're in for 11 billion, 12 billion, 14 billion, 18 billion and so on, year after year. If physically this cannot be sustained, we'll be looking at a similarily exponential "waste" of "surplus" (god I hate talking like this), where starvations of the past become marbles compared to the future.

    Don't you just love these little exchanges? :D
  14. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I just think, we havn't reached the point yet where you should give up. That will come soon enough. What is there to loose? In 20-30 years you can tell me, I told you so! But up to to that point, I will believe that we as a species can change eventually. There is still enough time to lament, once shit hits the fan.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  15. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    UN has calculated +3.8 billion global population until end of this century, with +3.2 billion in Africa and +0.6 billion in the rest of the world. They're predicting mass education deficit in African countries, malnutrition, hunger, and diseases, all accelerated by climate changes, with hundreds of millions migrants running from Africa before 2050. That's the real problem.
  16. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Good article. Just going eco-ascesis won't save us.

    The Bishop of Berlin compared Greta Thunberg to Jesus and said that sometimes people need a "real" prophet. Schism is just waiting to happen. Green pharisees against Eco Jesuette.

    /edit2: Ah, after the Diesel it's now going against the gas-powered cars. People now realize that modern direct-injection gasoline engines produce more fine dust, so they'll demand particle filters for them, which leads to higher CO2 levels and more fuel consumption. With all that it will probably be nigh impossible to adhere to the new regulations put forth by the EU for new cars. Individual mobility beyond a few dozen kilometers will not be outright outlawed, but simply be made prohibitively expensive unless you get a shiny special permit.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2019