That's too simplistic, not the least because such perceptions operate mostly on the level of individuals (and directly stemming from them); it's exceedingly easy to find examples in history which are readily percieved now as intrusive, were just a fine trade back then - so it's at the least quite possible.
If you exceed virtually everybody else in resource consumption (and those others themselves are in large part above the threshold...), while accidentally being also primarilly the importer of raw resources and mass produced stuff (don't look merely at monetary value of import/export; yes, you have large export, but of a different kind, much more expensive stuff) at the least - then you have to claim more than your share. And you can't avoid water being part of that.
Very well, I'll go through it (not now, it's getting quite late here - not sure when I get back to it; but I will do it most certainly, decently soon). But one thing stick out just by glancing - the author is a professor of mathematics and CS, and quite fabulous one at that (specialised?). Interested in formalisation of common sense knowledge and reasoning (hence possibly holding "common..." dear? How could that influence him?) And this is somebody who should have quite easy access to colleagues versed in the matter; ease of pushing if if there's merit (plus I guess there might no shortage of support from political world)
Natureally I'm not saying this makes those essays invalid, no. I'm asking why should I get rid of the suspicion that he might be approaching the issues in a bit too simplistic manner, not quite the right approach? (at the minimum as far as trusting too much in rationality of involved agents goes)
Show me the numbers, please. Show me a reasonably lean living society with your wished for (much higher than what you have now, I guess) level of consumption; that's the only valid approach with complex societal factors. (seriously? SUV?...)
You're not introducing efficiency per se, just new processes. That in itself might or might not prove more efficient.
And I don't really know what to think about your inability to find references... oh well, for now - maybe start with the keywords in description of the file, also open the article using the file and find section where it's used? (but other sections are decent, too)
Again, you use more resources per capita than virtually any place in the world...despite some of the much leaner places having the same standard of living. And that's beyond the long term capacity of this planet. You really personally think that just because you manage now to claim (on what grounds apart from corporationism and geopolitics? And we do like to bitch at corporations and politicians here...) resources from other places, on top of what would be your share, it's all...fine? That it doesn't bring any harm?
Ruminants, yes; but out of all of them cattle is not the most optimal. Those animals weren't bred with efficiency (taking all externalities into account) in mind after all. Also, people eat very diverse food; I wouldn't be terriblt surprised if the number eating things we would consider "gross" is larger that those who eat cattle, worldwide.
You didn't adress changes in vegetation (hence also water levels or microclimate) associated with grazing animals. Did you know that Greece and Italy were covered in dense forests quite recently? Plus, such low level of grazing would require limiting greatly the consuption of meat, which was somehow the point.
The figures for water usage aren't theoretical, we use them now to maintain such levels of consumption, as simple as that. AFAIK they don't really improve when the opration is of very small scale; just get effectively hidden (hence, of course, becoming quite tolerable - what the environment could bear; but there's suddenly a lot less of the "product" around)
When mentioning people who don't eat enough, you must remember that "veggies" (on which you rely greatly, too) are the most efficient way of feeding them - it's not a coincidence that diet in places which aren't very prosperous relies to a larger degree directly on plant products.
And yeah, I hear you (sitting atm in front of a machine which is close to a decade old; having quite streamlined life and yet apparently more full than, well, typical "consumers" from my place - and that's coming from those who know me) - that's the general point here, that we are wasteful, and in too many areas of life (though cities are actually more efficient per capita even now, at least when assuming same "standard" of living - and can be made much more efficient (that BTW includes growing notable part of food basically inside of them; yes, requires a change of approach for main modes of transport, among other things); it would get a lot worse if you tried to move present urban populations to farm life...) The thing is - no single streamlining would give huge benefits (though, BTW, it is now more and more understood that the impact of agriculture was greatly underestimated); so we need to start somewhere, in a serious way, across the spectrum. or do you prefer everybody giving excuses?
I see, so you're of the popular position that growth can go on in a finite world... (hey, I don't blame you, was quite popular at your place)
Of course there are limits (but how nice you try now to present it as dismissing it outright) to industrialisation.
Or at the least try to consider that you're looking from the perspective of a place which demostrably is most wasteful...but that doesn't bring it the top standard of living. Which makes it clear the processes are not optimal and there are first and foremost huge gains hidden there (hey, with freed resources from existing infrastructure being perfect to use for improving that infrastructure, not merely expanding without end in sight...untill next recession)
That wasn't nearly how you presented it so far. In face of a problem, you gave wundersolution which might work...but is barely utilised for some reason
Trash gasification is outside of context, it's simply a better in some ways and worse in other method dealing with byproducts... Plus part of what you would like takes too big industrial backbone to be even possible; that not only brings its own problems, most of the world simply can't do it in forseable future (as we can see today). At least finally you mention also many sensible ones...
Though...
Finally, there's techs I'd love but I don't think they work. Like cold fusion.
^telling it like that reveals your faults. It should be "As a sidenote, there's ideas which would be nice but, with frustratingly high degree of certainity, aren't possible"
If you stand for everything, letting the market decide, you don't stand for much at all...you don't show anything by rooting for every non-utilised tech you can find.
Previously you do supported one tech explicitly, as a cure to everything.
Yes, I have all my eggs in one basket, sure. That's the only basket we are sure to have - conservation which is demonstrably possible and happening (graph...however you will want to dismiss its methodology, the differences in resource usage, while having comparable standards of living, stand) coupled with utilising first and foremost the tech we already have (which is also demonstrably more or less beneficient) while cautiously shifting towards new ones - to awoid costly mistakes. You know, at various points in human history coal, whale oil, or "ground" oil were seen as saviours, too...
You really want to ambarass yourself by using arguments with moving to Africa or Cuba? Hey, maybe you can create a ghetto for people like me? Disconnect me from internet and decision process, will be much more smooth!
It's a graph from Wiki...that website has a habit of listing references (though don't limit yourself only to the small section of article in which the graph was used)
You really don't appreciate the water needed for slaughter, processing and packaging. Or the disrupted water balance from changes in vegetation, grazing, the types of crops which cattle uses to convert them into meat (at which it is quite inneficient - around two times less than most efficient farm mammals, not to mention some other more "exotic" options) - those are not immaterial, if some part of water gets towards satisfying certain need.
Don't pretend people aren't eating too much meat nowadays (plus cattle being quite inneficient in conversion of plant matter), certainly a lot more than what we adapted to. Eating less of it would actually prove more healthy to some societies. Consider that you're talking from the point of view of a place which is probably most overfed...and not at all most healthy (despite spending the leading amount, per capita, on healthcare) Furthermore...why does it has to be as nutrient dense as long as it provides them? (also via cattle; really, sheep, goats or especially pigs (though the last aren't grazers) are more energy efficient; insects beat them all handily)
Yes, the water is wasted; I don't remember exact numbers, but I'm certain it was, in the end & when everything is taken into account, an order of magnitude difference in water usage for the same nutritional value.
And how much the water balance got disrupted by grazing? How much is needed by crops that cattle uses for quite inneficient conversion of those crops into meat? (hence requiring more crops; seriously, cattle is very noticeably more inneficient even from certain other farm mammals, around 2 times; not to mention insects...) How much of it gets spoiled by basically industrial processes of slaughter, meat processing and packaging?
Just a few hints in what ways you can also look at the issue.
Every activity claims some area of land for itself, needs it; in whatever way. Agriculture is easy enough to grasp; topic of TFA, water, needs large and quite unspoiled areas to be of acceptable quality; industrial activity needs resources by itself and isolation of its byproducts. There are overlaps possible of course, some areas better to one kind of things while other for different things; but this metric takes those into account (still assuming the planet works only for us...)
So why do you even bring some more or less pet tech in each discussion (in last one nukes, here "smelter products") if, when it comes down to it, you now claim you supposedly don't even really stand behind any of it? "Let us just try everything and see what works" approach doesn't give us anything beyond what we have.
Water and water of appropriate quality for our needs are two different things. What's worse, it's easy to fall into positive feedback with getting yourself rid of the latter kind. You do need to keep large areas of environment decently unspoiled just to have proper water source
It's nowhere near regional problem...remember Dust Bowl? Especially if you import huge quantities of water hodden in all the mass consumers goods.
The evidence is around you. We're already overextended; being more efficient is the first thing you do in such case because otherwise you fall in viscous cycle of "more, more, more!"
That graph shows total resources (hence also land used to obtain those resources) consumed; and it's nowhere near "smaller than the total surface area of the earth" - the 2.1 hectares even assumes all useful surface area goes for human use
So you did change your pet tech. How come? Come in, the previous ones were so vigorously defended, as the ultimate savior of us all and our decadence...
Implementing them on scales you dream about is from fantasy land. We use too much already - it's not very apparent largely thanks to inertia of our environment; this has its limits.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not saying this; I'm saying it's not unreasonable to look at it like that.
Pushing for strong IP protections only after you're heavily developed is easy, btw...
That's too simplistic, not the least because such perceptions operate mostly on the level of individuals (and directly stemming from them); it's exceedingly easy to find examples in history which are readily percieved now as intrusive, were just a fine trade back then - so it's at the least quite possible.
"Penetration tester" still seems more amusing...
Oh just look at their mortality of their men from around 40 years of age, chiefly alcohol-related.
But it's already intruded; that it's being accepted doesn't change that basic fact.
And possessive fractionalism won't do us much good in the long term.
Look at the graph again...
If you exceed virtually everybody else in resource consumption (and those others themselves are in large part above the threshold...), while accidentally being also primarilly the importer of raw resources and mass produced stuff (don't look merely at monetary value of import/export; yes, you have large export, but of a different kind, much more expensive stuff) at the least - then you have to claim more than your share. And you can't avoid water being part of that.
Very well, I'll go through it (not now, it's getting quite late here - not sure when I get back to it; but I will do it most certainly, decently soon). But one thing stick out just by glancing - the author is a professor of mathematics and CS, and quite fabulous one at that (specialised?). Interested in formalisation of common sense knowledge and reasoning (hence possibly holding "common..." dear? How could that influence him?)
And this is somebody who should have quite easy access to colleagues versed in the matter; ease of pushing if if there's merit (plus I guess there might no shortage of support from political world)
Natureally I'm not saying this makes those essays invalid, no. I'm asking why should I get rid of the suspicion that he might be approaching the issues in a bit too simplistic manner, not quite the right approach? (at the minimum as far as trusting too much in rationality of involved agents goes)
So...the US would, in that case, consider practices potentially greatly destabilising the world to be also a good deal?
I don't really suscribe to any nation, FYI (but it's telling that you assume that might be the reason; nevermind your, ekhem, "manners")
If you missed and/or ignored my previous elaborations on how in this subtopic, what's the point in them now apart from...trolling?
But how much the so called "developed world" outsources to "undeveloped" places?
Show me the numbers, please. Show me a reasonably lean living society with your wished for (much higher than what you have now, I guess) level of consumption; that's the only valid approach with complex societal factors.
(seriously? SUV?...)
You're not introducing efficiency per se, just new processes. That in itself might or might not prove more efficient.
And I don't really know what to think about your inability to find references... oh well, for now - maybe start with the keywords in description of the file, also open the article using the file and find section where it's used? (but other sections are decent, too)
Again, you use more resources per capita than virtually any place in the world...despite some of the much leaner places having the same standard of living. And that's beyond the long term capacity of this planet. You really personally think that just because you manage now to claim (on what grounds apart from corporationism and geopolitics? And we do like to bitch at corporations and politicians here...) resources from other places, on top of what would be your share, it's all...fine? That it doesn't bring any harm?
Ruminants, yes; but out of all of them cattle is not the most optimal. Those animals weren't bred with efficiency (taking all externalities into account) in mind after all. Also, people eat very diverse food; I wouldn't be terriblt surprised if the number eating things we would consider "gross" is larger that those who eat cattle, worldwide.
You didn't adress changes in vegetation (hence also water levels or microclimate) associated with grazing animals. Did you know that Greece and Italy were covered in dense forests quite recently? Plus, such low level of grazing would require limiting greatly the consuption of meat, which was somehow the point.
The figures for water usage aren't theoretical, we use them now to maintain such levels of consumption, as simple as that. AFAIK they don't really improve when the opration is of very small scale; just get effectively hidden (hence, of course, becoming quite tolerable - what the environment could bear; but there's suddenly a lot less of the "product" around)
When mentioning people who don't eat enough, you must remember that "veggies" (on which you rely greatly, too) are the most efficient way of feeding them - it's not a coincidence that diet in places which aren't very prosperous relies to a larger degree directly on plant products.
And yeah, I hear you (sitting atm in front of a machine which is close to a decade old; having quite streamlined life and yet apparently more full than, well, typical "consumers" from my place - and that's coming from those who know me) - that's the general point here, that we are wasteful, and in too many areas of life (though cities are actually more efficient per capita even now, at least when assuming same "standard" of living - and can be made much more efficient (that BTW includes growing notable part of food basically inside of them; yes, requires a change of approach for main modes of transport, among other things); it would get a lot worse if you tried to move present urban populations to farm life...)
The thing is - no single streamlining would give huge benefits (though, BTW, it is now more and more understood that the impact of agriculture was greatly underestimated); so we need to start somewhere, in a serious way, across the spectrum. or do you prefer everybody giving excuses?
I see, so you're of the popular position that growth can go on in a finite world... (hey, I don't blame you, was quite popular at your place)
Of course there are limits (but how nice you try now to present it as dismissing it outright) to industrialisation.
Or at the least try to consider that you're looking from the perspective of a place which demostrably is most wasteful...but that doesn't bring it the top standard of living. Which makes it clear the processes are not optimal and there are first and foremost huge gains hidden there (hey, with freed resources from existing infrastructure being perfect to use for improving that infrastructure, not merely expanding without end in sight...untill next recession)
That wasn't nearly how you presented it so far. In face of a problem, you gave wundersolution which might work...but is barely utilised for some reason
Trash gasification is outside of context, it's simply a better in some ways and worse in other method dealing with byproducts... Plus part of what you would like takes too big industrial backbone to be even possible; that not only brings its own problems, most of the world simply can't do it in forseable future (as we can see today).
At least finally you mention also many sensible ones...
Though...
Finally, there's techs I'd love but I don't think they work. Like cold fusion.
^telling it like that reveals your faults. It should be "As a sidenote, there's ideas which would be nice but, with frustratingly high degree of certainity, aren't possible"
If you stand for everything, letting the market decide, you don't stand for much at all...you don't show anything by rooting for every non-utilised tech you can find.
Previously you do supported one tech explicitly, as a cure to everything.
Yes, I have all my eggs in one basket, sure. That's the only basket we are sure to have - conservation which is demonstrably possible and happening (graph...however you will want to dismiss its methodology, the differences in resource usage, while having comparable standards of living, stand) coupled with utilising first and foremost the tech we already have (which is also demonstrably more or less beneficient) while cautiously shifting towards new ones - to awoid costly mistakes.
You know, at various points in human history coal, whale oil, or "ground" oil were seen as saviours, too...
You really want to ambarass yourself by using arguments with moving to Africa or Cuba? Hey, maybe you can create a ghetto for people like me? Disconnect me from internet and decision process, will be much more smooth!
It's a graph from Wiki...that website has a habit of listing references (though don't limit yourself only to the small section of article in which the graph was used)
You really don't appreciate the water needed for slaughter, processing and packaging. Or the disrupted water balance from changes in vegetation, grazing, the types of crops which cattle uses to convert them into meat (at which it is quite inneficient - around two times less than most efficient farm mammals, not to mention some other more "exotic" options) - those are not immaterial, if some part of water gets towards satisfying certain need.
Don't pretend people aren't eating too much meat nowadays (plus cattle being quite inneficient in conversion of plant matter), certainly a lot more than what we adapted to. Eating less of it would actually prove more healthy to some societies. Consider that you're talking from the point of view of a place which is probably most overfed...and not at all most healthy (despite spending the leading amount, per capita, on healthcare)
Furthermore...why does it has to be as nutrient dense as long as it provides them? (also via cattle; really, sheep, goats or especially pigs (though the last aren't grazers) are more energy efficient; insects beat them all handily)
Yes, the water is wasted; I don't remember exact numbers, but I'm certain it was, in the end & when everything is taken into account, an order of magnitude difference in water usage for the same nutritional value.
And how much the water balance got disrupted by grazing? How much is needed by crops that cattle uses for quite inneficient conversion of those crops into meat? (hence requiring more crops; seriously, cattle is very noticeably more inneficient even from certain other farm mammals, around 2 times; not to mention insects...) How much of it gets spoiled by basically industrial processes of slaughter, meat processing and packaging?
Just a few hints in what ways you can also look at the issue.
Every activity claims some area of land for itself, needs it; in whatever way. Agriculture is easy enough to grasp; topic of TFA, water, needs large and quite unspoiled areas to be of acceptable quality; industrial activity needs resources by itself and isolation of its byproducts. There are overlaps possible of course, some areas better to one kind of things while other for different things; but this metric takes those into account (still assuming the planet works only for us...)
So why do you even bring some more or less pet tech in each discussion (in last one nukes, here "smelter products") if, when it comes down to it, you now claim you supposedly don't even really stand behind any of it? "Let us just try everything and see what works" approach doesn't give us anything beyond what we have.
Water and water of appropriate quality for our needs are two different things. What's worse, it's easy to fall into positive feedback with getting yourself rid of the latter kind. You do need to keep large areas of environment decently unspoiled just to have proper water source
It's nowhere near regional problem...remember Dust Bowl? Especially if you import huge quantities of water hodden in all the mass consumers goods.
The evidence is around you. We're already overextended; being more efficient is the first thing you do in such case because otherwise you fall in viscous cycle of "more, more, more!"
That graph shows total resources (hence also land used to obtain those resources) consumed; and it's nowhere near "smaller than the total surface area of the earth" - the 2.1 hectares even assumes all useful surface area goes for human use
So you did change your pet tech. How come? Come in, the previous ones were so vigorously defended, as the ultimate savior of us all and our decadence...
Implementing them on scales you dream about is from fantasy land.
We use too much already - it's not very apparent largely thanks to inertia of our environment; this has its limits.