Global warming isn't caused by the heat generated by burning fossil fuels. If that were the case then the only solution would be to stop using energy in any form. It is called the greenhouse effect because the increase in CO2 has a similar effect as the glass in a greenhouse. Energy from the sun gets in, but can't get out. That's why it always much hotter in a car left in the sun than outside the car. Burning fossil fuels is like winding your windows up on a hot day.
Fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas, etc) create large amounts of CO2 when they are used. This CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and begins to decrease the amount of energy from the sun that is radiated back into space. If the energy gets in, but not out, it gets hotter.
Your theory of balancing 'endothermic' and 'exothermic' systems is cute, but it has several fatal flaws, not least of which is that it does not solve the greenhouse effect which is the primary cause of global warming.
There's no contradiction. Everything has some impact. The issue is whether the impact is going to be serious and detrimental.
It would be nice to think that these problems will solve themselves. Its natural to think that, since there very fact that we are here is proof that all previous serious problems have been solved, seemingly by themselves. It doesn't work like that, of course. Problems are solved by people making changes. Its only in hindsight that it looks inevitable.
None of us have the experience of a civilisation collapsing, but it has happened in the past, and there is no reason to think it wont happen again. In fact, we are developing more and more technologies that have the potential to cause the collapse, and on a large and larger scale, so it seems to me that the danger is increasing all the time.
Humans have a tendancy to learn after making mistakes rather than before. Waiting for global warming to cause massive changes that the man on the street can clearly identify as caused by industrialisation before we make changes is going to cause a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Nuclear power is better than coal, it is true. Using less power would be better still. Since that is something most industrialised nations wont even consider, nuclear power should probably be used as a stopgap until better technologies are available. Wind power can never be a replacement, and solar cells are too expensive and inefficient. Nuclear is far from an idea solution, however. The risks may be low, but the consequences are massive.
The thing about risk that most people don't understand is that given enough time, even the lowest probability will happen. It doesn't matter how well you run your nuclear power plant. If there are enough plants, and enough time, eventually there will be accidents. It is impossible to eliminate risk. When humans error is a factor, its even hard to mitigate risk. We were all promised Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island could not happen. We are still promised that accidents wont happen. After the next one, we will again be promised that no more accidents will happen.
The US may be wealthy and stable now, and able to maintain its nuclear power stations and safely store radioactive waste, but can you tell me where the US will be in 500 years? Stronger, safer, cleaner? I hope so, but I wouldn't be betting my great great great granchildren's lives on it.
We are gambling with so many things now. Nuclear power. Nuclear weapons. Global warming. Genetically modified organisms. What's your best guess for the first techno-disaster?
There is no research suggesting wind generators or solar panels cause climate shift. You must mean a change in the local weather, which is very different, and much less of a global problem. Cities, buildings, roads, dams, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc all cause changes in weather patterns, but its local.
Its funny how hard people try to come up with reasons for not believing that our activities are impacting the entirity of the planet. There are billions of us, and the planet is not that big, let alone infinite. How many people burning how many tonnes of fuel per year would it take before you would start to consider the possibility that it might have an impact?
> Americans are not rich, I don't work, my family is living on the street.
I assume you mean that if you don't work, your family will be on the street. Well, yes I guess so, after your unemployment benefits run out, and your savings, and you sell your car, and your tv, and all of your more fortunate family and friends withdraw their help. Most Indians don't have any of that, and to make it worse, they have nearly a billion other people in the same position and an economy much worse than the USA's, reducing their chances even further.
I didn't say living in America means money for nothing and not having to work. I said that on the whole in India, lives are more desperate, and opportunities fewer and farther between, and less means more than in America. Its not a criticism of America - in some ways its a tribute.
I also wouldn't argue that Indian's are better than Americans at any particular job. Certainly cheaper. Perhaps they are more motivated on average, but I suspect their education has to make do with motivation when resources would be more useful. A kid who has mucked about with computers since he was 6 is going to be much more talented a programmer than an equivalent who saw his first computer at university.
Don't blame the call centre staff for not being trained in their products. Its their employer's being penny-pinching. Clearly by offshoring the company has decided that cost is more important than quality. Not because Indians provide poor quality service, but how could they know as much about the product as the people who worked on it, tested it, use it, etc? Not to mention understanding their customer's idiom and context. Actually, its amazing they do so well.
I wasn't implying that being an American means you don't have to work for a living. I was saying that your quality of life is so far beyond that of most of the rest of the world it is truly staggering. Living in the US, surrounded by other Americans, its easy to compare quality of life with the norms there, but those are not the norms in the rest of the world.
Of course you want a nice house, in a nice neighbourhood and the best for your children. Everyone does. For you its a possibility, and I wish you well in achieving it. You can achieve that working in any number of jobs that you can get with only a few years of post-high-school training. In India, it is only the elite who have anywhere near that kind of opportunity. To an Indian, Joe USAverage is so far above them in wealth its like you comparing yourself to Bill Gates.
Of course its true that not everyone in the US is rich. For a first world nation, the poverty and lack of care of bottom percentile disgraceful. But if you are earning more than minimum wage, by world standards you are way out in front.
We are talking computer programmers here. These are relatively priviledged, even amongst a nation of priviledge! No one likes to be told they've got it easy - life is rarely easy for any of us - but fortunately for us slashdotters, most of us have no direct experience of just how hard it can be. If you have the money and time to peruse an internet magazine, you are doing better than most of the rest of the world in ways you probably haven't even given thought to.
Don't feel ashamed, but don't think its your right either.
In many countries, people don't dream of living in the right neighbourhood to feel safe. They dream of having enough money to take their mother to see a doctor to prevent her becoming blind. They litterally can't afford it and watch their loved ones get sick and die. Its not a matter of taking on an extra shift for them. There just is no way for them to make enough money for such luxuries.
It would be great if the world was a level playing field, and success was simply a measure of hard work. It doens't work that way. Hard work helps, but if you are born in the 3rd world, all the hard work you can do will not give you the standard of living of the average 1st world slacker.
Despite being a wealthy nation, US citizens do not travel much. Understandably, many assume the rest of the world is similar to the US. Sadly it is not. This false assumption leads to innacurate judgements and I believe is the only reason an American could really begrudge their job going to India. Learn about life in India. If nothing else, you will be much happier in you own life instead of envious of the Jones's twin engined 24 cylinder, 2 gallons to the mile SUV.
Adjusted for the cost of living a US standard of living vs the cost of living an Indian standard of living, perhaps, but that's apples and oranges, which is exactly my point. The cost of living in the US is certainly much higher than in India, but so is the quality of life. Some people believe that they deserve to be wealthy because they were born in a wealthy country, and therefor those born in the 3rd world must deserve that. I am not one of those.
For an Indian to pay for the same health care, same education, same clean streets, same safety etc. it would take the about the same amount of US$, and even then they best they can do is create an oasis of comfort in a sea of poverty. This can be seen by looking at the hotels. The cheap ones are definately cheap - less than US$1/day, and it shows. If you want to stay in India at the same quality as your US Best Western, it will cost you about the same as in the US. Its very expensive to provide 1st world amenities in a 2nd/3rd world country.
> At the best the loss of my job helps my Indian counterpart to an
> extent equal to my loss.
Even if this were true (its not), India needs more help than the US. When Indians clog their city streets with SUVs because they want the freedom to go offroad oneday maybe, instead of the lucky ones transporting their entire family on a 50cc step through, then the US will have an equal claim.
Its understandable that someone who hasn't been to India might begrudge losing their job to an Indian, but if you take the time to go to India and see for yourself the difference in quality of life, you will be amazed at the reactions from locals who just cannot fathom being so wealthy as to be able to throw away such a fortune on a holiday! The amazing thing is, for the cost of a few month rent, you can fly to India and live like an Indian for months. I highly recommend it.
I can understand being sensitive about losing your job because its been outsourced to somewhere cheaper. It surely must lead to frustration coming to the realisation that your country doesn't really care about any given citizen at all.
Still, the underlying racism is unpleasant. I commend the above authors on their self-confidence, but there's nearly a billion Indians, and for them to think that they are superior coders/managers/widget washers to every single one of them makes the word arrogant seem inadequet.
I feel for anyone who has lost their job, but unless you are the kind of patriot who would happily spend 3 or 4 times over the odds just to buy locally made, how can you expect your employer to do the same?
The other side of the coin is that you almost certainly don't need the job as badly as India (or whereever) does. Compared to even a middle class indian, you live like a king. Unless you've experienced Indian living conditions first hand, you have no idea of the disparity. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a good quality of life. I am saying Indian's deserve a good quality of life too - and every dollar they earn is going to make a bigger difference to them, their communities, and their country, than every $10 you earn will make to you.
As an American, you are born with so many more advantages than any Indian - so many its almost impossible to comprehend. When was the last time you saw 20 Americans sitting in 105+degree sun smashing rocks with a hand hammer to make road base because their labour was cheaper than a machine, and they needed the handful of rupees a day they were paid to survive? Just because they have started competing with you in your chosen profession is no cause for resentment or despair. You can make more money than your 'replacement' flipping burgers, and I'm sure there are better options available to you.
If you want to blame someone, blame your government for not creating a stronger economy and for letting the workforce slip into obsolescence. The India/China thing has been on the radar for years. Everyone who hasn't been in a coma has had the opportunity to diversify and protect their superior quality of life. Blaming foreigners is ugly.
There's nothing wrong with hard work, but there is nothing right about stress.
Stress has been shown to be implicated in all kinds of disease and clearly leads to an early death. If that doesn't send a clear message that stress is bad, I don't know what would.
You might find work more rewarding than daytime TV, but its a big world out there, and daytime TV isn't the only alternative. If you didn't put most of your energy into your 9-5, or 9am-2am, there's plenty of constructive ways you can spend your energy supporting your family, friends, community, country, planet.
Re:Internal conflict is what I worry about...
on
In the Year 2020
·
· Score: 1
The US government has played on its citizens' fears to perfection. Terrorism is a tiny threat to US citizens. Sure, it sounds scarey, but in fact, there are many far greater dangers that deserve more attention and more resources. Terrorism should not be a majory priority, despite all the 'sky is falling' proclamations.
Get some perspective people! In the US, 400,000 people die from poor diet and lack of exercise. That means that in 2001, over 100 times as many US citizens died from preventable disease than were killed by terrorists.
Previous and subsequent years obviously have had far fewer terrorism related deaths, and that is despite the US doing its best to antogonise every disenfranchised muslim in the world.
Of course terrorism is bad, and not to be condoned or trivialised, but please, get some perspective. The vast expense, effort, and waste of human life (soldiers and civilians in occupied countries) can not be justified on any rational basis.
Imagine how many lives could be saved and how much good could be done if the vast anti-terrorism resources were invested in research, health care, nutrition, education, job creation. Even if the money was shredded and used for land-fill, more good would be done simply through the civil rights not eroded, and the enemies the US would not make.
Of course some resources should be spent on preventing terrorist attacks and bringing the perpetrators to justice - but GET SOME PERSPECTIVE!
Why is it that despite their huge brains, most humans have the clear thinking capacity of a goldfish?
Buying an SUV is dumb on so many levels. In fact, its worse than just dumb - it is flat-out anti-social. SUVs are a danger to pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and cars. They are terribly wasteful and environmentally destructive both to build and to run.
Despite the common misperception, they are not safer for the occupants. The most obvious reason why is because the best way to not be injured in a crash is to not have the crash in the first place. SUV's are heavy, slow to stop, more likely to roll, and less sure-footed and predictable than a sedan.
The only safety advantage they have is the better view afforded to the driver by being so high up. It may not actually reduce the number of accidents though, because this height also means that drivers around you can't see anything. Still, owners of SUVs have already decided that they really don't care about other people.
When you do end up in a crash, you are still not safer. SUVs don't crumple - the passengers absorb the shock instead of the chassis. Its not the car being wrecked that injurs people - its the sudden decelleration - and in SUVs, the decelleration is a lot more sudden.
SUVs have their place... but if you think that taking it off-road twice a year justifies all the extra fuel used the other 99% of the time, all the extra maintenance, all the
Part of the reason there are so many SUVs on the road is that they are subsidised. The owners don't pay the real cost of building or running them. In some countries (Australia, USA) they even get tax breaks compared to sedans! The larger subsidy comes from SUV owners not having to pay for the environmental damage they cause, or the medical a societal costs of their crash-victims.
You've got to wonder why we allow our governments to subsidise these vehicles? Do we really want to encourage people to be selfish, dangerous and tragically stupid?
If you want to be safe on the roads your number one priority is to get the best defensive driving training you can. Also, get the widest, best quality tyres, and ensure your car is well maintained. Lastly, do what you can to stop anti-social people from making the roads more dangerous for the rest of us.
While oil is so cheap, and while the fossil fuel producers have so much political power, we will continue to head down this dead end.
Nuclear may be better than fossil fuels, but it is far from ideal. There are better options available, or within reach of our scientific understanding.
While we operate under a capitalist system, we will continue to cause ourselves harm while the true cost of certain things is not relfected. For example, the cost of oil reflects the cost to remove it from the earth, but not the cost to repair/ameliorate that damage its use causes. Include that cost, and suddenly there will be a great deal more investment in alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas, etc) create large amounts of CO2 when they are used. This CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and begins to decrease the amount of energy from the sun that is radiated back into space. If the energy gets in, but not out, it gets hotter.
Your theory of balancing 'endothermic' and 'exothermic' systems is cute, but it has several fatal flaws, not least of which is that it does not solve the greenhouse effect which is the primary cause of global warming.
It would be nice to think that these problems will solve themselves. Its natural to think that, since there very fact that we are here is proof that all previous serious problems have been solved, seemingly by themselves. It doesn't work like that, of course. Problems are solved by people making changes. Its only in hindsight that it looks inevitable.
None of us have the experience of a civilisation collapsing, but it has happened in the past, and there is no reason to think it wont happen again. In fact, we are developing more and more technologies that have the potential to cause the collapse, and on a large and larger scale, so it seems to me that the danger is increasing all the time.
Humans have a tendancy to learn after making mistakes rather than before. Waiting for global warming to cause massive changes that the man on the street can clearly identify as caused by industrialisation before we make changes is going to cause a lot of unnecessary suffering.
Nuclear power is better than coal, it is true. Using less power would be better still. Since that is something most industrialised nations wont even consider, nuclear power should probably be used as a stopgap until better technologies are available. Wind power can never be a replacement, and solar cells are too expensive and inefficient. Nuclear is far from an idea solution, however. The risks may be low, but the consequences are massive.
The thing about risk that most people don't understand is that given enough time, even the lowest probability will happen. It doesn't matter how well you run your nuclear power plant. If there are enough plants, and enough time, eventually there will be accidents. It is impossible to eliminate risk. When humans error is a factor, its even hard to mitigate risk. We were all promised Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island could not happen. We are still promised that accidents wont happen. After the next one, we will again be promised that no more accidents will happen.
The US may be wealthy and stable now, and able to maintain its nuclear power stations and safely store radioactive waste, but can you tell me where the US will be in 500 years? Stronger, safer, cleaner? I hope so, but I wouldn't be betting my great great great granchildren's lives on it.
We are gambling with so many things now. Nuclear power. Nuclear weapons. Global warming. Genetically modified organisms. What's your best guess for the first techno-disaster?
Its funny how hard people try to come up with reasons for not believing that our activities are impacting the entirity of the planet. There are billions of us, and the planet is not that big, let alone infinite. How many people burning how many tonnes of fuel per year would it take before you would start to consider the possibility that it might have an impact?
I assume you mean that if you don't work, your family will be on the street. Well, yes I guess so, after your unemployment benefits run out, and your savings, and you sell your car, and your tv, and all of your more fortunate family and friends withdraw their help. Most Indians don't have any of that, and to make it worse, they have nearly a billion other people in the same position and an economy much worse than the USA's, reducing their chances even further.
I didn't say living in America means money for nothing and not having to work. I said that on the whole in India, lives are more desperate, and opportunities fewer and farther between, and less means more than in America. Its not a criticism of America - in some ways its a tribute.
I also wouldn't argue that Indian's are better than Americans at any particular job. Certainly cheaper. Perhaps they are more motivated on average, but I suspect their education has to make do with motivation when resources would be more useful. A kid who has mucked about with computers since he was 6 is going to be much more talented a programmer than an equivalent who saw his first computer at university.
Don't blame the call centre staff for not being trained in their products. Its their employer's being penny-pinching. Clearly by offshoring the company has decided that cost is more important than quality. Not because Indians provide poor quality service, but how could they know as much about the product as the people who worked on it, tested it, use it, etc? Not to mention understanding their customer's idiom and context. Actually, its amazing they do so well.
Of course you want a nice house, in a nice neighbourhood and the best for your children. Everyone does. For you its a possibility, and I wish you well in achieving it. You can achieve that working in any number of jobs that you can get with only a few years of post-high-school training. In India, it is only the elite who have anywhere near that kind of opportunity. To an Indian, Joe USAverage is so far above them in wealth its like you comparing yourself to Bill Gates.
Of course its true that not everyone in the US is rich. For a first world nation, the poverty and lack of care of bottom percentile disgraceful. But if you are earning more than minimum wage, by world standards you are way out in front.
We are talking computer programmers here. These are relatively priviledged, even amongst a nation of priviledge! No one likes to be told they've got it easy - life is rarely easy for any of us - but fortunately for us slashdotters, most of us have no direct experience of just how hard it can be. If you have the money and time to peruse an internet magazine, you are doing better than most of the rest of the world in ways you probably haven't even given thought to.
Don't feel ashamed, but don't think its your right either.
In many countries, people don't dream of living in the right neighbourhood to feel safe. They dream of having enough money to take their mother to see a doctor to prevent her becoming blind. They litterally can't afford it and watch their loved ones get sick and die. Its not a matter of taking on an extra shift for them. There just is no way for them to make enough money for such luxuries.
It would be great if the world was a level playing field, and success was simply a measure of hard work. It doens't work that way. Hard work helps, but if you are born in the 3rd world, all the hard work you can do will not give you the standard of living of the average 1st world slacker.
Despite being a wealthy nation, US citizens do not travel much. Understandably, many assume the rest of the world is similar to the US. Sadly it is not. This false assumption leads to innacurate judgements and I believe is the only reason an American could really begrudge their job going to India. Learn about life in India. If nothing else, you will be much happier in you own life instead of envious of the Jones's twin engined 24 cylinder, 2 gallons to the mile SUV.
For an Indian to pay for the same health care, same education, same clean streets, same safety etc. it would take the about the same amount of US$, and even then they best they can do is create an oasis of comfort in a sea of poverty. This can be seen by looking at the hotels. The cheap ones are definately cheap - less than US$1 /day, and it shows. If you want to stay in India at the same quality as your US Best Western, it will cost you about the same as in the US. Its very expensive to provide 1st world amenities in a 2nd/3rd world country.
> At the best the loss of my job helps my Indian counterpart to an
> extent equal to my loss.
Even if this were true (its not), India needs more help than the US. When Indians clog their city streets with SUVs because they want the freedom to go offroad oneday maybe, instead of the lucky ones transporting their entire family on a 50cc step through, then the US will have an equal claim.
Its understandable that someone who hasn't been to India might begrudge losing their job to an Indian, but if you take the time to go to India and see for yourself the difference in quality of life, you will be amazed at the reactions from locals who just cannot fathom being so wealthy as to be able to throw away such a fortune on a holiday! The amazing thing is, for the cost of a few month rent, you can fly to India and live like an Indian for months. I highly recommend it.
Still, the underlying racism is unpleasant. I commend the above authors on their self-confidence, but there's nearly a billion Indians, and for them to think that they are superior coders/managers/widget washers to every single one of them makes the word arrogant seem inadequet.
I feel for anyone who has lost their job, but unless you are the kind of patriot who would happily spend 3 or 4 times over the odds just to buy locally made, how can you expect your employer to do the same?
The other side of the coin is that you almost certainly don't need the job as badly as India (or whereever) does. Compared to even a middle class indian, you live like a king. Unless you've experienced Indian living conditions first hand, you have no idea of the disparity. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a good quality of life. I am saying Indian's deserve a good quality of life too - and every dollar they earn is going to make a bigger difference to them, their communities, and their country, than every $10 you earn will make to you.
As an American, you are born with so many more advantages than any Indian - so many its almost impossible to comprehend. When was the last time you saw 20 Americans sitting in 105+degree sun smashing rocks with a hand hammer to make road base because their labour was cheaper than a machine, and they needed the handful of rupees a day they were paid to survive? Just because they have started competing with you in your chosen profession is no cause for resentment or despair. You can make more money than your 'replacement' flipping burgers, and I'm sure there are better options available to you.
If you want to blame someone, blame your government for not creating a stronger economy and for letting the workforce slip into obsolescence. The India/China thing has been on the radar for years. Everyone who hasn't been in a coma has had the opportunity to diversify and protect their superior quality of life. Blaming foreigners is ugly.
Stress has been shown to be implicated in all kinds of disease and clearly leads to an early death. If that doesn't send a clear message that stress is bad, I don't know what would.
You might find work more rewarding than daytime TV, but its a big world out there, and daytime TV isn't the only alternative. If you didn't put most of your energy into your 9-5, or 9am-2am, there's plenty of constructive ways you can spend your energy supporting your family, friends, community, country, planet.
The US government has played on its citizens' fears to perfection. Terrorism is a tiny threat to US citizens. Sure, it sounds scarey, but in fact, there are many far greater dangers that deserve more attention and more resources. Terrorism should not be a majory priority, despite all the 'sky is falling' proclamations. Get some perspective people! In the US, 400,000 people die from poor diet and lack of exercise. That means that in 2001, over 100 times as many US citizens died from preventable disease than were killed by terrorists. Previous and subsequent years obviously have had far fewer terrorism related deaths, and that is despite the US doing its best to antogonise every disenfranchised muslim in the world. Of course terrorism is bad, and not to be condoned or trivialised, but please, get some perspective. The vast expense, effort, and waste of human life (soldiers and civilians in occupied countries) can not be justified on any rational basis. Imagine how many lives could be saved and how much good could be done if the vast anti-terrorism resources were invested in research, health care, nutrition, education, job creation. Even if the money was shredded and used for land-fill, more good would be done simply through the civil rights not eroded, and the enemies the US would not make. Of course some resources should be spent on preventing terrorist attacks and bringing the perpetrators to justice - but GET SOME PERSPECTIVE!
Why is it that despite their huge brains, most humans have the clear thinking capacity of a goldfish?
Buying an SUV is dumb on so many levels. In fact, its worse than just dumb - it is flat-out anti-social. SUVs are a danger to pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and cars. They are terribly wasteful and environmentally destructive both to build and to run.
Despite the common misperception, they are not safer for the occupants. The most obvious reason why is because the best way to not be injured in a crash is to not have the crash in the first place. SUV's are heavy, slow to stop, more likely to roll, and less sure-footed and predictable than a sedan.
The only safety advantage they have is the better view afforded to the driver by being so high up. It may not actually reduce the number of accidents though, because this height also means that drivers around you can't see anything. Still, owners of SUVs have already decided that they really don't care about other people.
When you do end up in a crash, you are still not safer. SUVs don't crumple - the passengers absorb the shock instead of the chassis. Its not the car being wrecked that injurs people - its the sudden decelleration - and in SUVs, the decelleration is a lot more sudden.
SUVs have their place... but if you think that taking it off-road twice a year justifies all the extra fuel used the other 99% of the time, all the extra maintenance, all the
Part of the reason there are so many SUVs on the road is that they are subsidised. The owners don't pay the real cost of building or running them. In some countries (Australia, USA) they even get tax breaks compared to sedans! The larger subsidy comes from SUV owners not having to pay for the environmental damage they cause, or the medical a societal costs of their crash-victims.
You've got to wonder why we allow our governments to subsidise these vehicles? Do we really want to encourage people to be selfish, dangerous and tragically stupid?
If you want to be safe on the roads your number one priority is to get the best defensive driving training you can. Also, get the widest, best quality tyres, and ensure your car is well maintained. Lastly, do what you can to stop anti-social people from making the roads more dangerous for the rest of us.
While oil is so cheap, and while the fossil fuel producers have so much political power, we will continue to head down this dead end. Nuclear may be better than fossil fuels, but it is far from ideal. There are better options available, or within reach of our scientific understanding. While we operate under a capitalist system, we will continue to cause ourselves harm while the true cost of certain things is not relfected. For example, the cost of oil reflects the cost to remove it from the earth, but not the cost to repair/ameliorate that damage its use causes. Include that cost, and suddenly there will be a great deal more investment in alternatives.