|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
tesla
religeous or not, when an army is standing at a countries border, the country reacts. even as we now foresee the impending global climate changes that are affecting the planet , we must act. Yes we must act. It is the case that even though there is no certainty of the full mechanisms of climate change we do know that human activity has its role and since this is the only part we can actually do something about then we must.That is the simple outlook though. Since our economies and therefore our standards of living are ties into the engines of industry that pollute{cars airplanes clothing hot water} which ones are we willing as a people to do without or modify? a man who prays and teaches others to pray and self improve, is not as dangerous as teaching humanity to give up on their God or Gods Prayer has no effect. In fact prayer is structured so that it never can fail. If it works it was God's will and if it does not it was not God's will. What,therefore is the point of praying since it is a given that God's will be done regardless? A people that give up on their God's is a people that then face the facts that their actions are what makes or breaks the survival of their society and must thereby focus their future actions on maintaining a planet within limits that the planet itself imposes."Reality must take precedence over public relations for Nature cannot be fooled." a man without hope is dangerous. a people without hope is catestrophic. Bullshit. A man without Gods is not a man without hope. That said, hope is only a focus to aim our efforts towards and not a gaurantee of reaching the goal.Perhaps it is time people give up on hope and concentrate on forging by dint of effort the way we would like our world to operate. But that operation must be bound up in what is sustainable by physical limits that are in nature. To do otherwise is to ensure eventual demise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
the industery and economy:
essentially the issue with global warming is carbons being burned from mined carbons. but feul can be produced from "grown" carbons the fuel would work in the same form as the mined (biodeisel) but stem from agriculter not from mining industeries. the change can be made, and if well planned the only economic devastation would be to the mining and oil industeries. prayer has no effect: this is not true. in perhapts your lifestyle you have found aspects in life that instill "purpose" however, the lack of purpose in the life of many finds its filling in prayer. although, if all religeon dissapeard tommorrow, not eveyrone would find it a problem, the majority would. since the majority, is religeos based. this purpose inspires hope. hope: human phsychology has found hopeless individuals counter productive in life. im not suggesting that all people find their hope in God. but i do suggest that a very large majority do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
tesla
the fuel would work in the same form as the mined (biodeisel) but stem from agriculter not from mining industeries. the change can be made, and if well planned the only economic devastation would be to the mining and oil industeries. And what do we do with the pollutants from the burning of biodeisel? For that matter do you believe you can produce enough biodeisel to replace what we are already doing with oil? How do we replace the solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics that require petroleum? I am not saying we cannot do so. The matter at hand is how much are we willing to pay to do so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is so nice NJ, that you are a glass half full kind of person. I'm just livin' the dream.
It is definitely true that we have more than the 1789 population liveing well. We also have more than the 1789 population starving. You have to look at the entire aggregate for that and go by a per capita basis.
We also have much, much less available untapped land resource (among others) to use. In fact there is very nearly none. But that's just it... We have plenty of untapped land. Your country alone is one of the largest in land mass, yet only houses some 60 million residents. There is plenty of expansion that can occur. Moreover, cities in the US are moving away from the European style cities that we find in New York City, where they build up, not across. I think more cities should go up, not across. Los Angeles has 4 times the amount of land mass than New York City. Yet, NYC houses 3 million more than LA. Building up is better. Building mass transit is better than having millions of motorists on the road. I think any developing city should look towards European models when it comes to their infrastructure.
We have much, much, much less ocean resource to use. In fact the available spare amount is negative -- we are way over exploiting the sea. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Give me an example.
The Malthus limit isn't reached like the edge of a cliff at one calendar day sometime. We are over it but we are running on momentum. We've been waiting ever patiently for the bottom to drop out. The problem is not being concerned about it. The greater problem is what happens as a result of that concern. Eugenics programs pop up to devalue life. The question is, who stays and who goes? If you had your way, what would you do to curb the population, especially when what you as a Canadian has no legal application in, say, India or China? What methods would you use, especially when coming to the same conclusion that Malthus has: "I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations." -Thomas Malthus “First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
the fuel would work in the same form as the mined (biodeisel) but stem from agriculter not from mining industeries. the change can be made, and if well planned the only economic devastation would be to the mining and oil industeries. Wrong. Biofuels are not zero-carbon because of the greenhouse gases emitted in their manufacture. Manufacturing 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer requires 33,500 cubic feet of natural gas. Fertilizers used in agriculture also emit a particularly potent greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. In addition, air emissions from fertilizer manufacturing facilities typically consist of greenhouse gases (typically carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide), other gaseous inorganic compounds, and particulate emissions. A recent report by chemist Paul Crutzen suggested most biofuels contributed more to climate change than fossil fuels as a result of fertilizer use alone. Others have suggested that the net carbon benefit of biofuels is so slight that it's negligible. No one has suggested that the net carbon benefit of biofuels is significant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
biodeisel carbons would be recycled carbons. not carbons mined.
what we mine and add to our atmosphere is added carbons outside of the geological cycle, where biodeisel comeing from plants would only be a recycling of current carbons. i cant say that all oil products can be manufactured from plants, but it could be possible since carbon is carbon after all. by swapping the transportation to biodeiesel from oil would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emmisions and if nothing else, buy more time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
tesla
what we mine and add to our atmosphere is added carbons outside of the geological cycle, where biodeisel comeing from plants would only be a recycling of current carbons. Wrong again.The breakdown products Carbon Monoxide ,Sulphates and Sulphur Oxides are not recycled into plant life. In fact the acid rain we have to deal with is increased by this activity.This is simply trading one problem for another. This is not to say we should not but what are the consequences of these actions and how do we deal with them and how much does this cost us? We must put limits on human growth in order to curb the demand for these products. Most especially with the 2 most populous nations on earth now working into becoming the greatest consumers of these products. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Biodiesel production - Wikipedia
a biodeisel electric engine in california has been quoted as produceing 100 miles to the gallon. this would mean alot less carbon emmision. but molbio is right in the production process. perhapts the solution is an alternative production method, or refineing electric moters. somewhere out here there has to be a way to combat global warming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
even if the human population was stagnant, in that we retained the current population, there is enough now that the danger must be curbed by our usage.
anyone know any other viable alternative energy ideas? the nations would kill itself with technollogy before nations would part with it. we need new technollogy, and we need to implement it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
perhapts the solution is an alternative production method, or refineing electric moters. First. The manufacturing process of fertilizers, pesticides, plastics and solvents would have to be modified. Second. Nearly all pesticides and plastics and some solvents use petroleum products as the raw material for their production. Third. Electricity comes from fossil fuels, Tesla.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
electricity comes form fossil fuels:
surprised you would say that, because although in the US the majority of electricity is from fossil fuels, asia is mostly nuclear (all nuclear?) dams, wind, and sun are alternatives. the global warming issue is complicated, but if everyone only points out negatives and no steps are made for improvment then we lose. we need to attak global warming and fossil fuel usage on multiple sides, but we need the alternatives before we can rally to logical production and implementation we need : awarness of alternatives scientifically documented and viable. and then find out what is keeping then from becomeing used (like special intrest gruops like big oil) do you assert no viable alternative energy methods exist? Edited by tesla, : wrong word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Tesla writes: somewhere out here there has to be a way to combat global warming. Running out of fossil fuels strikes me as a good bet. The world is certainly united in it's attempt to apply this solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
surprised you would say that, because although in the US the majority of electricity is from fossil fuels, asia is mostly nuclear (all nuclear?) Nope. Wrong again.
In 2004, China had total installed electricity generating capacity of 391.4 gigawatts (GW), 74 percent of which came from conventional thermal sources. In 2004, China generated 2,080 billion kilowatthours (Bkwh) and consumed 1,927 Bkwh of electricity. Since 2000, both electricity generation and consumption have increased by 60 percent. Although it makes up only a small fraction of China’s installed generating capacity, many of the major developments taking place in the Chinese electricity sector recently involve nuclear power. EIA and independent sources forecast that China will add between 15 and 30 GW of new nuclear energy capacity by 2020, but even with this expansion, nuclear power will only represent between 2.5 and 4.5 percent of total installed generating capacity. U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
dams, wind, and sun are alternatives. None of which are sufficient.None of which are economically viable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
None of which are sufficient.
None of which are economically viable. (concernin electricity alternatives) YET. if humanity doesnt try we'll cut our own throats. the automobile wasnt viable initially either. now, who could make it to work 60 miles away on a horse and not loose their job? their is a solution somewhere. do you propose do nothing? not try to assist in the discovery or awarness? Page not found - Daily Reckoning Australia at least there trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
While biofuels may offer some good feelings to folk, in reality they are not that great an option and the way the US is pursuing them is at best stupid and may well be criminal.
First, in the US is looks like the push to biofuels appears to be nothing but another chance to pay off agribusiness and move some more tax dollars into the pockets of the big contributers. Corn and soy beans are among the least effective sources for conversion to fuel. Other sources such as hemp would be far more effective. In addition, any corn or soy beans used for fuel is corn and soy beans that are not available to feed folk. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024