This is what you think. It may even be supported by logic. Unfortunately, politics is not about logic, it is about power and influence and money. Lobbyists in high places will do what they always wanted the last 4 years.
While I do not live in the US, it frightens me what that might have an effect on the EU.
Why should Clinton throw nuclear bombs in Syria? It makes no sense and only kill civilians. Even if she is a war mongering person. Trump however is not a rational person and therefore not easy to understand. This is a problem because your allies do not know if they can trust you and your enemies must expect the worst. Such setup can lead to war.
Before the first industrial revolution, there was always more work available than workers. This triggered in the 18th century the industrial revolution. Since then we have unemployment, which indicates that there are more people needing work than there is work. As other have already pointed out, if productivity increases faster than growth you need less work hours to be performed which results in less jobs.
The number is 40-50% not 95%. Usually jobs which are more repetitive are replaced by jobs which are less repetitive. The latter require more creativity.
BTW: The argument of the article is: New technology creates new jobs while old jobs are lost. The problem with this is, he does not estimate how many new jobs will be created and how many jobs will be lost. If he cannot quantify this, he cannot support his argument. In addition, new kind of jobs are nowadays for people with a more specialized and less repetitive nature. Therefore, those who get unemployed are not the ones getting reemployed into the new jobs. So instead ignoring the issue, like a climate change denier, address it. Just because technology will reduce the number of jobs does not mean people must suffer. We need to find new ways to provide them with something to contribute, to eat, to live, etc. So things will get complicated before we reach a new normality. In addition of this issue, we need to fix climate change and many other sustainability issues.
Yes new technology induces new kind of jobs and may destroy old jobs. However, this is allows to conclude anything. First, there could be less new jobs than old jobs. And in the past this was happening in the manufacturing industry. New jobs were created in services, but they did not always provide the same or better salary. Also these jobs were created independently. There were also new jobs for people who where able to program the new robots, but in total there were less jobs in factories. Second, the new jobs created are usually not for the same people who lost their job.
In addition, the drone pilot argument is void, as before drones people had to fly over that area. In case he is referring to civilian drones, well these are new, but I have not seen many jobs in that area.
I am not arguing that there in only one type of plant. I already stated that some plants absorb under some conditions more CO2. However, these conditions do not apply to areas outside of greenhouses and plants do not produce more O2 when there is more CO2 in form of a linear function. The capacity of a plant is limited by its ability to process CO2 which is dependent on nutritions, energy and cell capacity.
Your logic is flawed, as you argument that one plant may close its pores, but not everyone. If one kind is doing this it is reducing the overall evapotranspiration. It does of course not affect their ability to process CO2. Unfortunately, evapotranspiration amounts to cooling so we loose a cooling mechanism. Furthermore, all plants have this behavior. If you think again on the process of photosynthesis, you will understand why this is the case.
BTW: You cannot build 20 m high dikes in very country. The higher dikes get the more likely they sink in to the ground which makes them less stable. Also in contrast to dikes today, these dikes would be in direct contact to water every day for full 24 hours. This makes it impossible to stabilize the outer layer with grass. It also amounts to water penetrating and destabilizing the dikes. Furthermore, you cannot fix these dikes as easy as today, as you cannot remove one and build a new one at the same location. Higher dikes also require a wider base. All in all upscaling of dikes is hard and the more complicated setup due to 24/7 contact with water makes them hard to maintain. Any failure however, will ruin large land area.
The assumption that you can grow crops in the Sahara and Canada depend on many different factors and do not exist in every scenario. Also an increase of production in Canada must compensate for the loss in the USA. Unfortunately, more vapor in the atmosphere does not necessarily cause more rain in the great plains in Canada, as you still have high mountains in the West. It can also cause increase erosion in the mountains.
And finally, we have to get rid of CO2 based technologies in future anyway.
You shred documents? What do you do in case of legal trouble. A scanned image might be not considered proper for the legal process, as you can manipulate it.
Exactly. The good thing is, we are capable of doing so. The bad thing is, it seems not everyone has accepted the necessity. On the positive side: We have technology and concepts to save energy in transportation by 30% just with better organizing logistics. Furthermore, we can reduce emissions by utilizing trains for long and mid range transport by 20% without improving existing technology (56% of the present energy requirement; figures relate to the EU). We can save 80% of heating energy by utilizing insulation out of natural eco-friendly materials (lower CO2 footprint) and mineral wool. Polymer foams are more problematic. Theres are things which we already have. Therefore, it is more a thing of implementation then research and development. In other areas, like energy storage, ships, military devices (tanks, planes, trucks), production require some research and development. Fortunately, we can do this too and it will bring lots of jobs for at least 30 years
No do not. Only under certain conditions show some plants with slightly elevated CO2 concentrations in greenhouses show increased growth. In general plants close their stomas to regulate their CO2 intake on higher CO2 levels. As plants also evaporate water vapor with their stomas, evapotranspiration is reduced which also reduces the cooling effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore, this accelerates an growth in temperature. Please note that photosynthesis in plants is driven by sunlight as energy source. Based on that energy amount plant can convert CO2 together with nutritions in to sugar. In case there CO2 is easier available they must limit their CO2 intake.
For more information you may just google stomata co2 effect. You also may google evapotranspiration.
BTW: We do not tell you fish stories. Right now we have the opportunity to act against climate change. By acting we can create new jobs for smaller businesses extra income for home owner etc. True it hurt oil elites like the Koch brothers, but it is in the best interest for the rest of the people on earth.
What have my wearabouts to do with my argument? And why should I be frightened of events which will happen after I am dead? I just pointed out that the time to fix things is 34 years. The effect of non acting will hurt people in Europe and the US in 200 to 300 years. This past of my expected lifetime.
I sincerely hope you are right that the political impact will not hold the US back. However, I am right now very skeptical (this may change in future).
IPCC report [1] and related material. However, the final end day is influenced by how fast we reduce CO2 emissions. The faster we are in the beginning the longer we can rely on them in some areas. In essence the earth has an CO2 -> O2 capacity and we have a maximum limit on CO2 (with a precision range) (co2_max) and we have CO2 emissions. co2_max >= present concentration + pollution(t) - cap(t)
The more sustainable we become as an economy, the longer we can stay. The less sustainable we are the less likely are we able to leave. Presently, we are not able to leave. To be able to leave, we need a machine which is sustainable in all aspects. In case it is not, we run out of material we can transform and entropy will destroy the machine and subsequently all inhabitants of it (yes a space ship/ark is a machine). However, in case we achieve the goal to be sustainable in the context of such space ship, we are also able to apply that on Earth.
Fun fact, we have 34 years to get CO2 neutral (this is being sustainable with the atmosphere) or else we are fucked up. Unfortunately, the US will not go in this direction for the next 4 years. So dear US citizens, 30 years left and the clock is ticking.
Beside the CO2 problem, we have also sustainability problems in electronics, food, water, cement, fishing/oceans, ecosystem-diversity etc. All of them have a point of no return and many of them are linked to others. Therefore, we should get on with it. Now is the time. Not tomorrow. NOW.
Joining Sanders would have been a logical choice, but this is about feelings (yes this is totally not enlightened). Also, Sanders said things which are culturally not compatible with white people in the mid west or people which are labeled white trash (which is super racist btw).
I do not know about this incident. In case that really happened, it did not have anything to do with liberalism. This was stupid violence. In the same way, as people have been threatened by Trump voters because they looked like Clinton voters.
BTW: Trump had an edge with the poor in this vote, as the poor did not consider Clinton to support them.
Anyway, if you have poor people in your country which cannot earn the money they need to live, then it is obvious that they need the support of the society (and the government should be the tool of the society to address the issue).
Most people vote for someone not based on logic, but based on feelings. This is not new. My argument is that people voted for Trump to communicate that they feel outclassed and forgotten (since ever). Furthermore, they feel that Clinton is part of the cause (i.e., the establishment). In case things get still worse for them the next four years, they might feel that they have been betrayed and vote differently. This does not mean that they will vote for the republicans. Maybe the republicans will split up. Unfortunately, the Democrats which sounded like the left party in the past never did something left in the past (not even ObamaCare qualifies as that). Therefore, they have no standing in Congress. As long as they cannot win Congress, there cannot be a positive transformation. Also they need a truthful answer for all those left behind white people. And that is super difficult, because you have to offer them a place in society and in the same answer be against racism, sexism, etc. In short: What is in for them in liberalism? (Hint: Liberalism != Neo-Liberalism)
My outside view tells me that both big parties work in similar ways. I also have the impression that it was stupid to select Clinton over Sanders, not only because of Trump, but of her harmed reputation. I do not know if she is corrupt. However, the Democrats should have understood that many people think that way. Fortunately, Trump might not be that bad for the EU, as it might help our politicians to get their flipping act together. The vote for Trump was a conservative vote (in the sense that people do want the old days back, where they knew which was right and wrong). This happens when people feel threatened by the development in a country.
We have populists in the EU and the only way to stop that is to support those who feel outclassed in society. So politicians have to address this feeling together with fixing capitalism/the economy. The latter is necessary to really stabilize society.
Anyway, Trump is now in office for four years and senate and the house of rep. are in republican (teaparty) hands. So a lot of strange and dangerous things will happen the next four years (or at least two). As long as he does not push the button on the end of humanity, we will survive this.
What has this to do with my argument. In case your police is not capable enough, they need more men/women and better training. In case robberies in Chicago have to do with inequality and lack of work, you need to educate people and fix tour economy. Low taxes will not help with that.
Why? Corruption is the standard in Washington. I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs. Lower taxes is BTW only good for people who earn that.much that they have to pay them.
Slowing down does not mean reduction. Furthermore it is important to know that most plant live on land reduce their CO2 intake at certain higher levels of CO2 by closing their stomas. This results in less water vapor in the air reducing the reflectiveness of the atmosphere resulting in more energy intake.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what you think. It may even be supported by logic. Unfortunately, politics is not about logic, it is about power and influence and money. Lobbyists in high places will do what they always wanted the last 4 years.
While I do not live in the US, it frightens me what that might have an effect on the EU.
Why should Clinton throw nuclear bombs in Syria? It makes no sense and only kill civilians. Even if she is a war mongering person. Trump however is not a rational person and therefore not easy to understand. This is a problem because your allies do not know if they can trust you and your enemies must expect the worst. Such setup can lead to war.
Before the first industrial revolution, there was always more work available than workers. This triggered in the 18th century the industrial revolution. Since then we have unemployment, which indicates that there are more people needing work than there is work. As other have already pointed out, if productivity increases faster than growth you need less work hours to be performed which results in less jobs.
He is not talking about drones. He is talking about economics. Where have you been in high school?
The number is 40-50% not 95%. Usually jobs which are more repetitive are replaced by jobs which are less repetitive. The latter require more creativity.
BTW: The argument of the article is: New technology creates new jobs while old jobs are lost. The problem with this is, he does not estimate how many new jobs will be created and how many jobs will be lost. If he cannot quantify this, he cannot support his argument. In addition, new kind of jobs are nowadays for people with a more specialized and less repetitive nature. Therefore, those who get unemployed are not the ones getting reemployed into the new jobs. So instead ignoring the issue, like a climate change denier, address it. Just because technology will reduce the number of jobs does not mean people must suffer. We need to find new ways to provide them with something to contribute, to eat, to live, etc. So things will get complicated before we reach a new normality. In addition of this issue, we need to fix climate change and many other sustainability issues.
Yes new technology induces new kind of jobs and may destroy old jobs. However, this is allows to conclude anything.
First, there could be less new jobs than old jobs. And in the past this was happening in the manufacturing industry. New jobs were created in services, but they did not always provide the same or better salary. Also these jobs were created independently. There were also new jobs for people who where able to program the new robots, but in total there were less jobs in factories.
Second, the new jobs created are usually not for the same people who lost their job.
In addition, the drone pilot argument is void, as before drones people had to fly over that area. In case he is referring to civilian drones, well these are new, but I have not seen many jobs in that area.
I am not arguing that there in only one type of plant. I already stated that some plants absorb under some conditions more CO2. However, these conditions do not apply to areas outside of greenhouses and plants do not produce more O2 when there is more CO2 in form of a linear function. The capacity of a plant is limited by its ability to process CO2 which is dependent on nutritions, energy and cell capacity.
Your logic is flawed, as you argument that one plant may close its pores, but not everyone. If one kind is doing this it is reducing the overall evapotranspiration. It does of course not affect their ability to process CO2. Unfortunately, evapotranspiration amounts to cooling so we loose a cooling mechanism.
Furthermore, all plants have this behavior. If you think again on the process of photosynthesis, you will understand why this is the case.
BTW: You cannot build 20 m high dikes in very country. The higher dikes get the more likely they sink in to the ground which makes them less stable. Also in contrast to dikes today, these dikes would be in direct contact to water every day for full 24 hours. This makes it impossible to stabilize the outer layer with grass. It also amounts to water penetrating and destabilizing the dikes. Furthermore, you cannot fix these dikes as easy as today, as you cannot remove one and build a new one at the same location. Higher dikes also require a wider base. All in all upscaling of dikes is hard and the more complicated setup due to 24/7 contact with water makes them hard to maintain. Any failure however, will ruin large land area.
The assumption that you can grow crops in the Sahara and Canada depend on many different factors and do not exist in every scenario. Also an increase of production in Canada must compensate for the loss in the USA. Unfortunately, more vapor in the atmosphere does not necessarily cause more rain in the great plains in Canada, as you still have high mountains in the West. It can also cause increase erosion in the mountains.
And finally, we have to get rid of CO2 based technologies in future anyway.
You shred documents? What do you do in case of legal trouble. A scanned image might be not considered proper for the legal process, as you can manipulate it.
Exactly. The good thing is, we are capable of doing so. The bad thing is, it seems not everyone has accepted the necessity. On the positive side: We have technology and concepts to save energy in transportation by 30% just with better organizing logistics. Furthermore, we can reduce emissions by utilizing trains for long and mid range transport by 20% without improving existing technology (56% of the present energy requirement; figures relate to the EU).
We can save 80% of heating energy by utilizing insulation out of natural eco-friendly materials (lower CO2 footprint) and mineral wool. Polymer foams are more problematic. Theres are things which we already have. Therefore, it is more a thing of implementation then research and development. In other areas, like energy storage, ships, military devices (tanks, planes, trucks), production require some research and development. Fortunately, we can do this too and it will bring lots of jobs for at least 30 years
No do not. Only under certain conditions show some plants with slightly elevated CO2 concentrations in greenhouses show increased growth. In general plants close their stomas to regulate their CO2 intake on higher CO2 levels. As plants also evaporate water vapor with their stomas, evapotranspiration is reduced which also reduces the cooling effect of water vapor in the atmosphere. Therefore, this accelerates an growth in temperature.
Please note that photosynthesis in plants is driven by sunlight as energy source. Based on that energy amount plant can convert CO2 together with nutritions in to sugar. In case there CO2 is easier available they must limit their CO2 intake.
For more information you may just google stomata co2 effect. You also may google evapotranspiration.
BTW: We do not tell you fish stories. Right now we have the opportunity to act against climate change. By acting we can create new jobs for smaller businesses extra income for home owner etc. True it hurt oil elites like the Koch brothers, but it is in the best interest for the rest of the people on earth.
What have my wearabouts to do with my argument? And why should I be frightened of events which will happen after I am dead? I just pointed out that the time to fix things is 34 years. The effect of non acting will hurt people in Europe and the US in 200 to 300 years. This past of my expected lifetime.
And at which protest should I have been lately?
I sincerely hope you are right that the political impact will not hold the US back. However, I am right now very skeptical (this may change in future).
IPCC report [1] and related material. However, the final end day is influenced by how fast we reduce CO2 emissions. The faster we are in the beginning the longer we can rely on them in some areas. In essence the earth has an CO2 -> O2 capacity and we have a maximum limit on CO2 (with a precision range) (co2_max) and we have CO2 emissions. co2_max >= present concentration + pollution(t) - cap(t)
[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
The more sustainable we become as an economy, the longer we can stay. The less sustainable we are the less likely are we able to leave. Presently, we are not able to leave. To be able to leave, we need a machine which is sustainable in all aspects. In case it is not, we run out of material we can transform and entropy will destroy the machine and subsequently all inhabitants of it (yes a space ship/ark is a machine). However, in case we achieve the goal to be sustainable in the context of such space ship, we are also able to apply that on Earth.
Fun fact, we have 34 years to get CO2 neutral (this is being sustainable with the atmosphere) or else we are fucked up. Unfortunately, the US will not go in this direction for the next 4 years. So dear US citizens, 30 years left and the clock is ticking.
Beside the CO2 problem, we have also sustainability problems in electronics, food, water, cement, fishing/oceans, ecosystem-diversity etc. All of them have a point of no return and many of them are linked to others. Therefore, we should get on with it. Now is the time. Not tomorrow. NOW.
First, what the heck has Merkel to do with it? Are you nuts? Second, ATM machines all look the same. However, printer look different. Very different.
If you cannot a bank statement printer from an ATM you are not very clever. They only coroborrate the truth.
Joining Sanders would have been a logical choice, but this is about feelings (yes this is totally not enlightened). Also, Sanders said things which are culturally not compatible with white people in the mid west or people which are labeled white trash (which is super racist btw).
I do not know about this incident. In case that really happened, it did not have anything to do with liberalism. This was stupid violence. In the same way, as people have been threatened by Trump voters because they looked like Clinton voters.
BTW: Trump had an edge with the poor in this vote, as the poor did not consider Clinton to support them.
Anyway, if you have poor people in your country which cannot earn the money they need to live, then it is obvious that they need the support of the society (and the government should be the tool of the society to address the issue).
Most people vote for someone not based on logic, but based on feelings. This is not new. My argument is that people voted for Trump to communicate that they feel outclassed and forgotten (since ever). Furthermore, they feel that Clinton is part of the cause (i.e., the establishment). In case things get still worse for them the next four years, they might feel that they have been betrayed and vote differently. This does not mean that they will vote for the republicans. Maybe the republicans will split up. Unfortunately, the Democrats which sounded like the left party in the past never did something left in the past (not even ObamaCare qualifies as that).
Therefore, they have no standing in Congress. As long as they cannot win Congress, there cannot be a positive transformation. Also they need a truthful answer for all those left behind white people. And that is super difficult, because you have to offer them a place in society and in the same answer be against racism, sexism, etc. In short: What is in for them in liberalism? (Hint: Liberalism != Neo-Liberalism)
My outside view tells me that both big parties work in similar ways. I also have the impression that it was stupid to select Clinton over Sanders, not only because of Trump, but of her harmed reputation. I do not know if she is corrupt. However, the Democrats should have understood that many people think that way. Fortunately, Trump might not be that bad for the EU, as it might help our politicians to get their flipping act together. The vote for Trump was a conservative vote (in the sense that people do want the old days back, where they knew which was right and wrong). This happens when people feel threatened by the development in a country.
We have populists in the EU and the only way to stop that is to support those who feel outclassed in society. So politicians have to address this feeling together with fixing capitalism/the economy. The latter is necessary to really stabilize society.
Anyway, Trump is now in office for four years and senate and the house of rep. are in republican (teaparty) hands. So a lot of strange and dangerous things will happen the next four years (or at least two). As long as he does not push the button on the end of humanity, we will survive this.
Maybe you knew that. However, answers of his voters show that they voted for him in favor to hurt the establishment/elites.
What has this to do with my argument. In case your police is not capable enough, they need more men/women and better training. In case robberies in Chicago have to do with inequality and lack of work, you need to educate people and fix tour economy. Low taxes will not help with that.
Why? Corruption is the standard in Washington. I wait for the day when Trump voters find out that Trump is also part of a rich elite. That they will stay poor and have no jobs. Lower taxes is BTW only good for people who earn that.much that they have to pay them.
Slowing down does not mean reduction. Furthermore it is important to know that most plant live on land reduce their CO2 intake at certain higher levels of CO2 by closing their stomas. This results in less water vapor in the air reducing the reflectiveness of the atmosphere resulting in more energy intake.
Yes of course. And the bad weather.