Well, seems you might be onto something after all, considering how my initial post is now +2 Insightful (and supposedly most of/. audience comes from US).
Fits with few other things they complain about (just complain...actions is what matters), general "corporatism" for example, doesn't it? Or even more generally - system of governance; those are, contrary to what many people like to tell themselves, simply a reflection of societies.
Why do you ignore it isn't "made"? Heck, nothing is made, just transformed. Oil in Germany was "made" simply from another fossil fuel (and introducing a lot of inneficiency in the process), thing like that doesn't help with excessive usage of "global hectares" (past, present or future) at all! Quite the contrary.
We can be sure about conservation or sustainable agriculture - that's what biosphere on Earth has been doing for millions of years! (and when hiccup happens, you end up with ultimate ecological catastrophe, wiping out most complex life and reverting back mostly to microbes...funny thing is that we might be also doing just that right now, essentially, a bit). We can be also certain that oil (fossil fuels generally) is not sustainable, the same way whale oil was not BTW. This resource simply takes too long to replenish itself; again it's relying on the past (and borrowing from the future with overconsumption). We can't be certain about nuclear energy as the source for all industrial processes, because we don't do it even close to the scale that would be required to pump needed energy into the system.
You forget about externalities of nuclear power. No, I'm not talking about some silly "ZOMG, kids will have two heads" stuff, I'm talking about simple fact that this will be a huge industrial infrastructure, which needs to be built and maintained. An infrastructure probably dwarfing our current installed industrial base. From where will come the resources to build it if we're already way beyond sustainability and are unwilling to limit consumption?
But from your sig I take it that's your magical solution which will surely work, no doubt about it...
The thing about present-not present construction workers is that many speeders would notice too late that the workers ar indeed there... Also, constructions zones in case of roads imply often changes / reduction in lanes and heavy equipment left there.
You realise that by this logic we should plow the surface of the Earth flat, right? After all, the stationary objects are certainly the most devastating and the biggest problem for safety of speeders...
Would you kindly shows us the evidence that bigger distances at higher speed aren't offset by decrease in minimal safe time of reaction, increased braking distance and any sudden manouvers being much more dangerous at high speed?
Also, correct for the fact that that, at lower speeds and higher densitis, you can fit more cars on the road.
...or given to it by greedy/lazy voters, that it has used to set these things up and run them... Government is made up of imperfect people...
^this; you almost had it this time. Your government is preciselly how your voters, people of your country want it to be (don't look at what they say when determining what they want, look at their actions - who they choose, whether or not they become part of the structure if given the chance); it's a reflection of the society.
Do not familiarize yourself with them unless it's clear you have their approval. Take over the duty of caring for the cofee machine. If you make some snacks, doing more of them than just for yourself won't be a big strain. Show enhthusiasm in replenishing office supplies (that includes also local supplies of your coworkers). Etc.
The countries which, as a group, dominate all the "nice things" stats show you to be quite incorrect. As a matter of fact, those occupying top of that group, the Nordic countries...have way more social mobility than the US (which is at the bottom of "highly developed" countries, together with the UK). Canada is equally good.
So much for "American dream"; it's just that, a dream that has been sold to you. With "nanny states", as you surely like to call them, actually having more freedom.
PS. Student loans? Trashing good cars? Ridiculous stimulus packages? What's that?
PPS. Governments are a reflection of theor society. Don't kid yourself that isn't the case.
But the point is exactly that your society doesn't choose to find ethical leaders; in practice it prefers the "greedy and corrupt"
Don't look at what your society at large claims to prefer; look at actions! And don't kid yourself that it doesn't value "greedy and corrupt"; it is almost a rule everywhere that members of "underclass", even if complaining at the system of governance in their place, start to play along if they have the chance... (and benefits)
Something close to revolution is sensible though if those on top of oligarchy start to get too "ugly and brutal", not much choise really at this point (and probably only at this point)
There's of course the problem that too many idiots might believe that they are treated in "ugly and brutal" manner, even if its far from the truth...
You know, some places (yes, also in the so called "developed world") rely on paper ballots; and for some reason with no apparent push to change that. Hey, if the paper documentation must be kept anyway and results are routinelly known within few hours...
It is because of people and education (chiefly those two among the factors you listed; though of course work ethics, decent living and a sense of security from good healthcare come into play too)
Ultimatelly, the state of governance ("corruption, greed, politics, and law") is determined by its people, by the society. Or where do you think "public servants" come from?
Yes, and that would require probably at least around order of magnitude more energy...from somewhere. How can we be certain nuclear one is viable in such case? It's not possible to find a country with installed nuclear energy capacity even of 2 times that of France (proportionally), so what about 10 times... Heck, how can we be certain any source is viable in such case?:/
Don't forget we use oil also as a more literal resource, which is possibly much less efficient than the process of converting it to energy. Heck it's hard for me to find anything in the room I'm sitting in that is not at least partially a byproduct of oil... (yup, an insanely valuable resource; and we burn it...)
Additionally, most of these studies fall short because the numbers arrived at (say, 2.1 hectares) are not accurate, in my limited experience. I know of successful (organic) commercial ventures with only a quarter section of land (or so), as well as families (ie 4-5 people) which are largely self-sustained on 4-6 acres - in Regions 4 and 5. It's all a matter of adapting the techniques used to the environment (and not relying on the assumption that "industrial farming = higher yields/better results").
^That number (around 2.1 hectares) does not provide just the area for agriculture. This is an area which, assuming no borrowing from the past (via hectares irradiated and flourishing back then, energy and raw materials stored as fossil fuels, fresh water stored in large reservoirs) or from the future (via neglecting to conserve unspoiled enough environment, clean water, etc.), must be enough to provide all resources and energy neccessary per capita - because there is simply so little space and so many humans. And that includes also such "cheating" as nuclear or solar energy - after all, the act of building and maintaining the infrastructure also draws from that area (so it better gives more than it takes in scope of that metric)
People living from the organic ventures you mentioned, or "largely" self-sustained families, still certainly need and do use more area than their cultivated land suggests (of course that must not mean they are above the sustainable 2.1 hectares per capita total; but they certainly use more)
But that assumes the "RGB" sensitivity of our eyes lines up with the emmision spectra of RGB screens; which is not true. Perhaps this Sharp screen brings it closer, actually shows more faithfully the colors which are in the signal; as far as human eye is concerned.
But sensitivity of our cones isn't lined up with the emmision spectra of screens. If that tech can bring the latter closer, then it can be an improvement.
You just don't get it that this sustainability measure works on the level of the planet, and represents not production, but consumption needed by one member of each given society.
What is wrong with having a "bad" industrial starting point? Do you think I suggest whole "unsustainable" world destroying its existing infrastructure?! Cuba is doing something right because they have been doing it for the past 2 decades, you can't ride freely on leftovers for so long. Of course, the resources and industrial base they rely as we speak is almost certainly not optimal...but the point is that it can be at all, given their consumption per capita.
Yes, but France did just the small part I mentioned - generating electricity for immediate human consumption. That doesn't cover the energy hidden in many resources for industry, for starters.
I would say it hasn't really been taken into account yet. Not on the scale that would be needed, not even close. For being sustainable, it's not enough to merely replace our "dirty" plants producing just electricity.
Most likely would be borrowing his mom's Protestantism for a few months and lending her their Catholicism mixed with Western African beliefs (similar in principle to Vodou, but distinct) in exchange. Which, arguably, sounds even more cool...
Very little of "communist countries" were atheistic; even if the leadership claimed this, it was trying to intruduce a new kind of religion, really - a cult og...themselves. BTW, I noticed something interesting recently: a) take a world map depicting countries which were "communist" or had some notable amounts of (real) trouble with "communists" b) take a world map depicting countries traditionally Catholic or Orthodox; "mainstream old Christianity", generally c) now compare the two...
Well, in that case we must try harder to change such inevitable consequences. Or are you one of the proponents of popular approach of economists that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world?
I can't say much about other examples, but Eastern Europe is doing fine BTW (and Russia isn't harmed that much by its declining population as the numbers suggest - this is motly due to very high mortality of 40+ year old alcoholics, they wouldn't do you much good anyway...)
The number is not in regards to production, but to consumption; looking at what the average citizen of given country actually consumes, and assigning to it a velue grounded in physical world.
It doesn't matter what are the means of production towards satisfying this consumption; they don't influence the country score at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, seems you might be onto something after all, considering how my initial post is now +2 Insightful (and supposedly most of /. audience comes from US).
Fits with few other things they complain about (just complain...actions is what matters), general "corporatism" for example, doesn't it? Or even more generally - system of governance; those are, contrary to what many people like to tell themselves, simply a reflection of societies.
Why do you ignore it isn't "made"? Heck, nothing is made, just transformed. Oil in Germany was "made" simply from another fossil fuel (and introducing a lot of inneficiency in the process), thing like that doesn't help with excessive usage of "global hectares" (past, present or future) at all! Quite the contrary.
We can be sure about conservation or sustainable agriculture - that's what biosphere on Earth has been doing for millions of years! (and when hiccup happens, you end up with ultimate ecological catastrophe, wiping out most complex life and reverting back mostly to microbes...funny thing is that we might be also doing just that right now, essentially, a bit). We can be also certain that oil (fossil fuels generally) is not sustainable, the same way whale oil was not BTW. This resource simply takes too long to replenish itself; again it's relying on the past (and borrowing from the future with overconsumption). We can't be certain about nuclear energy as the source for all industrial processes, because we don't do it even close to the scale that would be required to pump needed energy into the system.
You forget about externalities of nuclear power. No, I'm not talking about some silly "ZOMG, kids will have two heads" stuff, I'm talking about simple fact that this will be a huge industrial infrastructure, which needs to be built and maintained. An infrastructure probably dwarfing our current installed industrial base. From where will come the resources to build it if we're already way beyond sustainability and are unwilling to limit consumption?
But from your sig I take it that's your magical solution which will surely work, no doubt about it...
Trying to adjust to local sense of humor will help, too (as with any social setting really)
The thing about present-not present construction workers is that many speeders would notice too late that the workers ar indeed there...
Also, constructions zones in case of roads imply often changes / reduction in lanes and heavy equipment left there.
You realise that by this logic we should plow the surface of the Earth flat, right? After all, the stationary objects are certainly the most devastating and the biggest problem for safety of speeders...
Would you kindly shows us the evidence that bigger distances at higher speed aren't offset by decrease in minimal safe time of reaction, increased braking distance and any sudden manouvers being much more dangerous at high speed?
Also, correct for the fact that that, at lower speeds and higher densitis, you can fit more cars on the road.
What makes you think that, by the time they get big & important enough, the "independents" won't just revert to the usual state of affairs?...
BTW, Gestapo is a better example here than SS.
...or given to it by greedy/lazy voters, that it has used to set these things up and run them ... Government is made up of imperfect people...
^this; you almost had it this time. Your government is preciselly how your voters, people of your country want it to be (don't look at what they say when determining what they want, look at their actions - who they choose, whether or not they become part of the structure if given the chance); it's a reflection of the society.
Do not familiarize yourself with them unless it's clear you have their approval. Take over the duty of caring for the cofee machine. If you make some snacks, doing more of them than just for yourself won't be a big strain. Show enhthusiasm in replenishing office supplies (that includes also local supplies of your coworkers). Etc.
The countries which, as a group, dominate all the "nice things" stats show you to be quite incorrect. As a matter of fact, those occupying top of that group, the Nordic countries...have way more social mobility than the US (which is at the bottom of "highly developed" countries, together with the UK). Canada is equally good.
So much for "American dream"; it's just that, a dream that has been sold to you. With "nanny states", as you surely like to call them, actually having more freedom.
PS. Student loans? Trashing good cars? Ridiculous stimulus packages? What's that?
PPS. Governments are a reflection of theor society. Don't kid yourself that isn't the case.
But the point is exactly that your society doesn't choose to find ethical leaders; in practice it prefers the "greedy and corrupt"
Don't look at what your society at large claims to prefer; look at actions! And don't kid yourself that it doesn't value "greedy and corrupt"; it is almost a rule everywhere that members of "underclass", even if complaining at the system of governance in their place, start to play along if they have the chance... (and benefits)
Something close to revolution is sensible though if those on top of oligarchy start to get too "ugly and brutal", not much choise really at this point (and probably only at this point)
There's of course the problem that too many idiots might believe that they are treated in "ugly and brutal" manner, even if its far from the truth...
You know, some places (yes, also in the so called "developed world") rely on paper ballots; and for some reason with no apparent push to change that. Hey, if the paper documentation must be kept anyway and results are routinelly known within few hours...
It is because of people and education (chiefly those two among the factors you listed; though of course work ethics, decent living and a sense of security from good healthcare come into play too)
Ultimatelly, the state of governance ("corruption, greed, politics, and law") is determined by its people, by the society. Or where do you think "public servants" come from?
Hm, that migght work too, institution-wise; considering (supposedly) women also work there...
Yes, and that would require probably at least around order of magnitude more energy...from somewhere. How can we be certain nuclear one is viable in such case? It's not possible to find a country with installed nuclear energy capacity even of 2 times that of France (proportionally), so what about 10 times... Heck, how can we be certain any source is viable in such case? :/
Don't forget we use oil also as a more literal resource, which is possibly much less efficient than the process of converting it to energy. Heck it's hard for me to find anything in the room I'm sitting in that is not at least partially a byproduct of oil... (yup, an insanely valuable resource; and we burn it...)
Additionally, most of these studies fall short because the numbers arrived at (say, 2.1 hectares) are not accurate, in my limited experience. I know of successful (organic) commercial ventures with only a quarter section of land (or so), as well as families (ie 4-5 people) which are largely self-sustained on 4-6 acres - in Regions 4 and 5. It's all a matter of adapting the techniques used to the environment (and not relying on the assumption that "industrial farming = higher yields/better results").
^That number (around 2.1 hectares) does not provide just the area for agriculture. This is an area which, assuming no borrowing from the past (via hectares irradiated and flourishing back then, energy and raw materials stored as fossil fuels, fresh water stored in large reservoirs) or from the future (via neglecting to conserve unspoiled enough environment, clean water, etc.), must be enough to provide all resources and energy neccessary per capita - because there is simply so little space and so many humans. And that includes also such "cheating" as nuclear or solar energy - after all, the act of building and maintaining the infrastructure also draws from that area (so it better gives more than it takes in scope of that metric)
People living from the organic ventures you mentioned, or "largely" self-sustained families, still certainly need and do use more area than their cultivated land suggests (of course that must not mean they are above the sustainable 2.1 hectares per capita total; but they certainly use more)
But that assumes the "RGB" sensitivity of our eyes lines up with the emmision spectra of RGB screens; which is not true. Perhaps this Sharp screen brings it closer, actually shows more faithfully the colors which are in the signal; as far as human eye is concerned.
But sensitivity of our cones isn't lined up with the emmision spectra of screens. If that tech can bring the latter closer, then it can be an improvement.
You just don't get it that this sustainability measure works on the level of the planet, and represents not production, but consumption needed by one member of each given society.
What is wrong with having a "bad" industrial starting point? Do you think I suggest whole "unsustainable" world destroying its existing infrastructure?! Cuba is doing something right because they have been doing it for the past 2 decades, you can't ride freely on leftovers for so long.
Of course, the resources and industrial base they rely as we speak is almost certainly not optimal...but the point is that it can be at all, given their consumption per capita.
Yes, but France did just the small part I mentioned - generating electricity for immediate human consumption. That doesn't cover the energy hidden in many resources for industry, for starters.
I would say it hasn't really been taken into account yet. Not on the scale that would be needed, not even close. For being sustainable, it's not enough to merely replace our "dirty" plants producing just electricity.
Most likely would be borrowing his mom's Protestantism for a few months and lending her their Catholicism mixed with Western African beliefs (similar in principle to Vodou, but distinct) in exchange. Which, arguably, sounds even more cool...
Very little of "communist countries" were atheistic; even if the leadership claimed this, it was trying to intruduce a new kind of religion, really - a cult og...themselves.
BTW, I noticed something interesting recently:
a) take a world map depicting countries which were "communist" or had some notable amounts of (real) trouble with "communists"
b) take a world map depicting countries traditionally Catholic or Orthodox; "mainstream old Christianity", generally
c) now compare the two...
Well, in that case we must try harder to change such inevitable consequences. Or are you one of the proponents of popular approach of economists that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world?
I can't say much about other examples, but Eastern Europe is doing fine BTW (and Russia isn't harmed that much by its declining population as the numbers suggest - this is motly due to very high mortality of 40+ year old alcoholics, they wouldn't do you much good anyway...)
The number is not in regards to production, but to consumption; looking at what the average citizen of given country actually consumes, and assigning to it a velue grounded in physical world.
It doesn't matter what are the means of production towards satisfying this consumption; they don't influence the country score at all.