As they say, "hope for the best, but plan for the worst". You can't leave those matters to the hope for some technology which isn't viable yet, and it might never be; when for example all externalities, all supporting infrastructure is taken into account.
Nobody said they are an ideal society. Doesn't mean they aren't doing something very right as far as topic of discussion goes. Of course it's even more sad if specifically their kind of society is the thing especially suited to make humans act responsibly, long-term...
And please, it's quite well established that the data going into their HDI is pretty much correct; some nationals can easily visit Cuba, you know...
If this won't be done wisely, it will just mean even greater reliance on the area of the Earth which is simply not there. After the time of borrowing from the past (and future...) ends, you will really have a reduction in population (well, what works in the end...)
sunlight + fresh water (that starts to become a problem...) + relativelly unpolluted land + some kind of fertilization (takes additional land however you approach it, but to different degrees of course) -> food (we double this step to too large degree; requires even more water, this time clean one, and energy) -> people
A lot of opportunities for being truly more efficient. And since there's lot of feedbacks involved, that's the most important step we must take - choosing to simply pump more resources into the process gets cought in a vicious cycle.
If you use crops that turn sunlight into food more efficiently, you use less space per person. GMO crops do this.
You're missing the most crucial part. Producing that GMO crop (or rather generally all the infrastructure and resources for "industrial agriculture"; GMO crops by themselves might be perfectly fine) again makes you use more space (just in a different way...), to such a degree that we depend on space "from the past".
But Fischer-Tropsch and ammonia production still use also resources which enlarge that number. If anything, the shift in ammonia production made things much worse - it now relies on fossil fuels, on "past global hectares".
Is "liberal" really that much of a new boogeyman term for some parts of US population? Does it have meaning at all at this point? Anyway, nuclear is nice and we should use it; but it's nowhere near appropriate when supplanting the input to Earth biosphere from the Sun (especially since we rely not only on present one, but also on the past input)
So now you just change this from doubting validity of Cuban score to dismissing the general methodology? (of course, you can always modify it specifically so that negatives of Cuba are pronounced, while negatives of "developed world" - neglected; or dismiss international community)
Cuba does have "a sustainable economy because they recycle materials (in broad meaning) or use "green" technologies". They are at most also "poor" and have very little cars (especially in this part perhaps we should take the hint?)...but a very large part of world population certainly envies their "poverty".
Generally, in conclusion, you again totally miss the point. That graph wasn't about Cuba; where I mentioned Cuba while posting it? That graps was about how wastefull we are. And don't twist what's inconvenient(sic!) to you as a lie - from all the countries living sustainably, Cuba is at the least one of the nicer ones.
Think our treatment of "Dark Ages" is harsh at times? (and mostly unsubstantiated BTW, those were times of great progress and major social restructuring, which led the way to scientific, industrial, and eventually information revolution) Just think with what utter contempt people might look at us in a few centuries - generations which, in large part, lived way beyond their means...despite having within reach the knowledge and tools needed to correct that.
And how could I miss the absurdity you said at the beginning... (and sort of went on with it)
This graph doesn't really deal with agricultural production per se, nevermind its relation to the size of population. It just takes the number of "global hectares" which are used (for whatever purpose) by average member of each country and puts them on the X axis; for convenience it draws a line at "2.1 hectares", to see which populations demand, per capita, more resources than the Earth is able to provide (long term). It just shows consumption (or overconsumption), only in a bit novel unit.
This data comes from UN. I suspect that your country, which probably has some strong representation, would object if there were any serious discrepancies. Personally you might of course dismiss the data as invalid as much as you like...
Anyway, this wasn't really about Cuba per se, but demonstrating the scope of the problem with societies living beyond the long-term capacity of Earth. That population of Cuba manages to not be in that group, while maintaining decent standard of living...well, all the better for them (and for us, if we would want to learn a thing or two)
But it's very frank in the case of Nintendo, you know exactly what you're getting into. No unpleasant surprises as with too large part of PC DRM...so the case is not really comparable.
The way you got at Neverwinter Nights (and surely generally at DRM, "The people who it does affect though are the legitimate customers") doesn't apply in this case. Nintendo DRM doesn't really get in the way...
I wasn't even touching on this subject. Sure, there is a considerable debate if those are really fossil bacteria.
But determining how old those structures are is considerably easier. Likewise - determining from where the meteorite, in which they are embedded, came from and how long it has been on Earth. There is very little uncertainty that those structures are Martian, which was what GP poster doubts.
...because the legal version doesn't work on their platform with the DRM installed...
That's not the case with Nintendo though, or pretty much any console... (yes, there's still some region coding here and there; but it was always upfront)
Yeah, it seems they are doing something right, if they manage to remain sustainable while at the same time having quite decent standard of living.
But this, unfortunatelly, leads to a sad conclusion - societies and nations can act responsibly, in those matters, mostly only when they are forced to...:/
But "global hectares per person" isn't just about agriculture...
Virtually everything we make and consume uses some part of this most general "resource". And this measure includes also, say, oil - after all, it's essentially a way of using "global hectares" from the past! (whihc in itself isn't such terrible thing, but will become harder with time).
Yet you wanted to look only at the present land area, which gives US 3x higher result...so what, you consume so much that it's far from enough and you end up far from sustainable (almost at the least sustainable as a matter of fact). Besides, it wasn't really about Cuba, just about countries which end up sustainably...that Cuba manages to have high human development index at the same time is all the better.
Again, 2.1 hectares per person is the number Earth can bear long-term; that it requires industrial agriculture is simply a lie because industrial agricculture itself adds to that number (by taking from the past)
BTW, better not to rely on some hypothetical efficient future technology of converting our source of energy...
So sell on the basis of hardware. Nintendo DS already has some examples. Though I kinda doubt they have such direction in mind, a direction of making the sofware irrelevant without customised (and enhancing the gameplay!) hardware accessory; that way I wouldn't really mind.
Too bad, regarding 2-panel file manager. Maybe I remember things wrong, but people generally could get the hang of it...and weren't so often as lost in their files as it is the case today.
It might even work nice on a small screen and with smooth "touch scrolling" and "touch file dragging", I guess?
That's why I specifically said about long-term workers. I'm perfectly aware lots of students/etc. get this as temporary job - thanks to that I could made those observations (might be also a reason why private security companies aren't that horrible generally...but that's not enough to call thm "responsible")
Don't forget that we manage to continually apply on the windows new layers of stuff that makes them retain more IR inside. Also, the exhaust is redirected inside the cabin.
More often than not people will just read sensational news stories and make their opinion based on incomplete and biased information. It's always good to emphasize that their are always at least two sides to the same story. And the popular account isn't always the most accurate account.
But don't go too far with that line. Sure, there are usually many views at...pretty much anything. Doesn't mean they all warrant the same kind of attention.
Slashdot Mirror
As they say, "hope for the best, but plan for the worst". You can't leave those matters to the hope for some technology which isn't viable yet, and it might never be; when for example all externalities, all supporting infrastructure is taken into account.
Nobody said they are an ideal society. Doesn't mean they aren't doing something very right as far as topic of discussion goes. Of course it's even more sad if specifically their kind of society is the thing especially suited to make humans act responsibly, long-term...
And please, it's quite well established that the data going into their HDI is pretty much correct; some nationals can easily visit Cuba, you know...
If this won't be done wisely, it will just mean even greater reliance on the area of the Earth which is simply not there. After the time of borrowing from the past (and future...) ends, you will really have a reduction in population (well, what works in the end...)
It's actually:
sunlight + fresh water (that starts to become a problem...) + relativelly unpolluted land + some kind of fertilization (takes additional land however you approach it, but to different degrees of course) -> food (we double this step to too large degree; requires even more water, this time clean one, and energy) -> people
A lot of opportunities for being truly more efficient. And since there's lot of feedbacks involved, that's the most important step we must take - choosing to simply pump more resources into the process gets cought in a vicious cycle.
If you use crops that turn sunlight into food more efficiently, you use less space per person. GMO crops do this.
You're missing the most crucial part. Producing that GMO crop (or rather generally all the infrastructure and resources for "industrial agriculture"; GMO crops by themselves might be perfectly fine) again makes you use more space (just in a different way...), to such a degree that we depend on space "from the past".
But Fischer-Tropsch and ammonia production still use also resources which enlarge that number. If anything, the shift in ammonia production made things much worse - it now relies on fossil fuels, on "past global hectares".
Is "liberal" really that much of a new boogeyman term for some parts of US population? Does it have meaning at all at this point? Anyway, nuclear is nice and we should use it; but it's nowhere near appropriate when supplanting the input to Earth biosphere from the Sun (especially since we rely not only on present one, but also on the past input)
So now you just change this from doubting validity of Cuban score to dismissing the general methodology? (of course, you can always modify it specifically so that negatives of Cuba are pronounced, while negatives of "developed world" - neglected; or dismiss international community)
Cuba does have "a sustainable economy because they recycle materials (in broad meaning) or use "green" technologies". They are at most also "poor" and have very little cars (especially in this part perhaps we should take the hint?)...but a very large part of world population certainly envies their "poverty".
Generally, in conclusion, you again totally miss the point. That graph wasn't about Cuba; where I mentioned Cuba while posting it? That graps was about how wastefull we are. And don't twist what's inconvenient(sic!) to you as a lie - from all the countries living sustainably, Cuba is at the least one of the nicer ones.
Think our treatment of "Dark Ages" is harsh at times? (and mostly unsubstantiated BTW, those were times of great progress and major social restructuring, which led the way to scientific, industrial, and eventually information revolution) Just think with what utter contempt people might look at us in a few centuries - generations which, in large part, lived way beyond their means...despite having within reach the knowledge and tools needed to correct that.
And how could I miss the absurdity you said at the beginning... (and sort of went on with it)
This graph doesn't really deal with agricultural production per se, nevermind its relation to the size of population. It just takes the number of "global hectares" which are used (for whatever purpose) by average member of each country and puts them on the X axis; for convenience it draws a line at "2.1 hectares", to see which populations demand, per capita, more resources than the Earth is able to provide (long term).
It just shows consumption (or overconsumption), only in a bit novel unit.
This data comes from UN. I suspect that your country, which probably has some strong representation, would object if there were any serious discrepancies. Personally you might of course dismiss the data as invalid as much as you like...
Anyway, this wasn't really about Cuba per se, but demonstrating the scope of the problem with societies living beyond the long-term capacity of Earth. That population of Cuba manages to not be in that group, while maintaining decent standard of living...well, all the better for them (and for us, if we would want to learn a thing or two)
But it's very frank in the case of Nintendo, you know exactly what you're getting into. No unpleasant surprises as with too large part of PC DRM...so the case is not really comparable.
And what when there's really no free alternative? (especially when looking not only at the hardware but also at huge library of fine games)
The way you got at Neverwinter Nights (and surely generally at DRM, "The people who it does affect though are the legitimate customers") doesn't apply in this case. Nintendo DRM doesn't really get in the way...
I wasn't even touching on this subject. Sure, there is a considerable debate if those are really fossil bacteria.
But determining how old those structures are is considerably easier. Likewise - determining from where the meteorite, in which they are embedded, came from and how long it has been on Earth.
There is very little uncertainty that those structures are Martian, which was what GP poster doubts.
...because the legal version doesn't work on their platform with the DRM installed...
That's not the case with Nintendo though, or pretty much any console... (yes, there's still some region coding here and there; but it was always upfront)
Yeah, it seems they are doing something right, if they manage to remain sustainable while at the same time having quite decent standard of living.
But this, unfortunatelly, leads to a sad conclusion - societies and nations can act responsibly, in those matters, mostly only when they are forced to... :/
But "global hectares per person" isn't just about agriculture...
Virtually everything we make and consume uses some part of this most general "resource". And this measure includes also, say, oil - after all, it's essentially a way of using "global hectares" from the past! (whihc in itself isn't such terrible thing, but will become harder with time).
Yet you wanted to look only at the present land area, which gives US 3x higher result...so what, you consume so much that it's far from enough and you end up far from sustainable (almost at the least sustainable as a matter of fact). Besides, it wasn't really about Cuba, just about countries which end up sustainably...that Cuba manages to have high human development index at the same time is all the better.
Again, 2.1 hectares per person is the number Earth can bear long-term; that it requires industrial agriculture is simply a lie because industrial agricculture itself adds to that number (by taking from the past)
BTW, better not to rely on some hypothetical efficient future technology of converting our source of energy...
So sell on the basis of hardware. Nintendo DS already has some examples. Though I kinda doubt they have such direction in mind, a direction of making the sofware irrelevant without customised (and enhancing the gameplay!) hardware accessory; that way I wouldn't really mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_welfare_and_ecological_footprint_sustainability.jpg
It's like the chips keep getting faster and faster, and people keep getting dumber and dumber.
I believe somebody said once "the amount of intelligence on Earth remains constant"...
Too bad, regarding 2-panel file manager. Maybe I remember things wrong, but people generally could get the hang of it...and weren't so often as lost in their files as it is the case today.
It might even work nice on a small screen and with smooth "touch scrolling" and "touch file dragging", I guess?
In all the languages I can write in? Oh, and robots don't have to sleep...that's one of their benefits in regards to TFA, too.
That's why I specifically said about long-term workers. I'm perfectly aware lots of students/etc. get this as temporary job - thanks to that I could made those observations (might be also a reason why private security companies aren't that horrible generally...but that's not enough to call thm "responsible")
Don't forget that we manage to continually apply on the windows new layers of stuff that makes them retain more IR inside. Also, the exhaust is redirected inside the cabin.
More often than not people will just read sensational news stories and make their opinion based on incomplete and biased information. It's always good to emphasize that their are always at least two sides to the same story. And the popular account isn't always the most accurate account.
But don't go too far with that line. Sure, there are usually many views at...pretty much anything. Doesn't mean they all warrant the same kind of attention.