The claim was about technology, not about present distribution of resources. Irrelevant distraction
Technology doesn't get you very far without sufficient resources.
reach for the stars.
The stars are too far. You're watching too much Star Trek.
It's called direct democracy and minimum guaranteed income.
You can't guarantee a sufficient minimum income that would turn a country into Utopia, while not even trying to compete with other countries. Where would the money be coming from ?
You can make a claim regarding net emissions, if you can show an equal and opposite uptake. Animals have farted methane for millions of years without disrupting the balance.
Except that actually observed birth rates in developed nations do not support this
You're not looking far enough. Wait a few more generations, and the birth rates will accelerate again. I see plenty of couples choosing not to have kids. Their genes will be gone in one generation. I also see families with 4+ kids. They will double their numbers.
Breathing doesn't produce extra CO2. The carbon comes from plants, who made it from CO2, less than a year ago. Or a few years ago, if you eat meat instead.
We don't have the technology for the whole world to almost live in a utopia, and even if we did, population would outgrow resources at some point in time.
It seems rather obvious that the primary reason for sleep is to conserve energy when being awake isn't very useful (at night when you can't see anything). It also makes sense that the body has then evolved to do other useful things while sleeping.
Google Photos can sort my photos by category. There's Sky, Lakes, Cars, Screenshots, Flowers, Bridges, Forests, Beaches, Hiking, Birds, Towers, Fog, Trains, Cliffs, Sunsets, Boats, Selfies...
And I didn't name or sort any of them myself.
They are useful, but not for predicting short term effects on local scale. And even less so in the Arctic which has extra modelling complications due to the ice. If you keep in mind the errors bars, they are still useful for predicting trends on longer scales and bigger areas. It's better to squint with one eye than to be completely blind.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws can be changed by sufficient power.
That graph only goes to 2004. The 2016 temperature was 0.44 C higher than 2004. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
The claim was about technology, not about present distribution of resources. Irrelevant distraction
Technology doesn't get you very far without sufficient resources.
reach for the stars.
The stars are too far. You're watching too much Star Trek.
It's called direct democracy and minimum guaranteed income.
You can't guarantee a sufficient minimum income that would turn a country into Utopia, while not even trying to compete with other countries. Where would the money be coming from ?
You can make a claim regarding net emissions, if you can show an equal and opposite uptake. Animals have farted methane for millions of years without disrupting the balance.
Delaying the switch to nuclear/renewables will only make it more expensive, plus you have the additional costs of dealing with climate change.
Wild guesses may come true or not. I talked about actually observed data
Extrapolating short term observed data is a wild guess. Applying theory of evolution is not.
Burning petrol doesn't produce extra CO2 you're just giving back the CO2 that the plants that got eaten by the dinosaurs took from the atmosphere.
One process takes a few years, the other takes hundreds of millions.
What are they going to do about imports from industries that still produce CO2 ?
Except that actually observed birth rates in developed nations do not support this
You're not looking far enough. Wait a few more generations, and the birth rates will accelerate again. I see plenty of couples choosing not to have kids. Their genes will be gone in one generation. I also see families with 4+ kids. They will double their numbers.
Breathing doesn't produce extra CO2. The carbon comes from plants, who made it from CO2, less than a year ago. Or a few years ago, if you eat meat instead.
We don't have the technology for the whole world to almost live in a utopia, and even if we did, population would outgrow resources at some point in time.
In order to get a good job, you need to be good at things. Unfortunately you don't get good at things playing games or updating social media status.
most people would rather let a car charge in their garage overnight
I would love too, since that would mean I'm getting a garage.
It seems rather obvious that the primary reason for sleep is to conserve energy when being awake isn't very useful (at night when you can't see anything). It also makes sense that the body has then evolved to do other useful things while sleeping.
Never mind... read too quickly.
Google Photos can sort my photos by category. There's Sky, Lakes, Cars, Screenshots, Flowers, Bridges, Forests, Beaches, Hiking, Birds, Towers, Fog, Trains, Cliffs, Sunsets, Boats, Selfies... And I didn't name or sort any of them myself.
The other engines that went to the bottom of the ocean weren't scheduled to be reused over and over again.
Until a human makes a decision outside of its electro-chemical reactions it's just an algorithm too.
The other day, my toaster called me intelligent.
An important part of intelligence is the ability to recognize patterns. That's what the computers are doing.
The question was about filling batteries. Thanks for playing.
You're forgetting the value of utility. A car that I buy now can take me to a place where I can make more money than at home.
Also: an EV can sell part of its power back to the grid when you're not using your car.
electric vehicles really might be cost competetive with pure ICE in 20 or 30 or 40 years
Let's see what happens to the price of oil in 20, 30 or 40 years.
They are useful, but not for predicting short term effects on local scale. And even less so in the Arctic which has extra modelling complications due to the ice. If you keep in mind the errors bars, they are still useful for predicting trends on longer scales and bigger areas. It's better to squint with one eye than to be completely blind.