i love living in a sci-fi dystopia

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
i think we're still in the developmental stage and that there shouldn't be any timeline expectation..it's great that your car will brake when you fail to is different from autonomous which has a lot to be programmed for every situation.

 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
The way we do renewable now is worse than if we were just using fossil fuels. We're still in the experimental phase to see what could maybe be done, for the purpose of furthering the technology and that's great, but make no mistake, the fossil fuel industry loves the renewable sector right now, because they're making a killing on it. We won't see a transition in our lifetimes, but we probably will see significant pain from the lack of transition in our lifetime.
we installed a solar well on our farm. It pumps water any time the sun shines.....free. We have all the fresh clean water we could ever use to sustain life. Add 2 passive solar greenhouses and your on your way to energy carbon freedom. The initial investment was $50k.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
i think we're still in the developmental stage and that there shouldn't be any timeline expectation..it's great that your car will brake when you fail to is different from autonomous which has a lot to be programmed for every situation.

every mile a Tesla car drives adds data to program self driving cars....they are in the Billions of miles of data.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Good for the planet, but bad for capitalism. Want more kids? Give mothers a better deal, economically and socially, a woman shouldn't have to work her self to death and try to raise a family. Paid maternity and family leave would be a start along with baby bonuses and single payer government healthcare. Make parenting a better deal and less of a burden and even risk, if you want more children. In short more and better government services, from family allowance checks, free healthcare, daycare, family leave and education.

Looks like we will be importing Muslims for quite some time to come or have a shrinking population. Empowered, educated women who have control over their fertility want a better deal. With trends in automation and AI, fewer employees will be required in the future, so perhaps this population decline is not such a bad thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications (yahoo.com)

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.

Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea cannot find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Although some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.

A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women. But the census announcements this month from China and the United States, which showed the slowest rates of population growth in decades for both countries, also point to hard-to-fathom adjustments.

The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. It may also require a reconceptualization of family and nation. Imagine entire regions where everyone is 70 or older. Imagine governments laying out huge bonuses for immigrants and mothers with lots of children. Imagine a gig economy filled with grandparents and Super Bowl ads promoting procreation.

“A paradigm shift is necessary,” said Frank Swiaczny, a German demographer who was the chief of population trends and analysis for the United Nations until last year. “Countries need to learn to live with and adapt to decline.”

The ramifications and responses have already begun to appear, especially in East Asia and Europe. From Hungary to China, from Sweden to Japan, governments are struggling to balance the demands of a swelling older cohort with the needs of young people whose most intimate decisions about childbearing are being shaped by factors both positive (more work opportunities for women) and negative (gender inequality and high living costs).

The 20th century presented a very different challenge. The global population saw its greatest increase in known history, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000, as life spans lengthened and infant mortality declined. In some countries — representing about one-third of the world’s people — those growth dynamics are still in play. By the end of the century, Nigeria could surpass China in population; across sub-Saharan Africa, families are still having four or five children.

But nearly everywhere else, the era of high fertility is ending. As women have gained more access to education and contraception and as the anxieties associated with having children intensify, more parents are delaying pregnancy, and fewer babies are being born. Even in countries long associated with rapid growth, such as India and Mexico, birthrates are falling toward or are already below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family.

The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff.

“It becomes a cyclical mechanism,” said Stuart Gietel Basten, an expert on Asian demographics and a professor of social science and public policy at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. “It’s demographic momentum.”

Some countries, like the United States, Australia and Canada, where birthrates hover between 1.5 and 2, have blunted the impact with immigrants. But in Eastern Europe, migration from the region has compounded depopulation, and in parts of Asia, the “demographic time bomb” that first became a subject of debate a few decades ago has finally gone off.

South Korea’s fertility rate dropped to a record low of 0.92 in 2019 — less than one child per woman, the lowest rate in the developed world. Every month for the past 59 months, the total number of babies born in the country has dropped to a record depth.

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.
Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea cannot find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Although some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.

A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women. But the census announcements this month from China and the United States, which showed the slowest rates of population growth in decades for both countries, also point to hard-to-fathom adjustments.

The strain of longer lives and low fertility, leading to fewer workers and more retirees, threatens to upend how societies are organized — around the notion that a surplus of young people will drive economies and help pay for the old. It may also require a reconceptualization of family and nation. Imagine entire regions where everyone is 70 or older. Imagine governments laying out huge bonuses for immigrants and mothers with lots of children. Imagine a gig economy filled with grandparents and Super Bowl ads promoting procreation.

“A paradigm shift is necessary,” said Frank Swiaczny, a German demographer who was the chief of population trends and analysis for the United Nations until last year. “Countries need to learn to live with and adapt to decline.”

The ramifications and responses have already begun to appear, especially in East Asia and Europe. From Hungary to China, from Sweden to Japan, governments are struggling to balance the demands of a swelling older cohort with the needs of young people whose most intimate decisions about childbearing are being shaped by factors both positive (more work opportunities for women) and negative (gender inequality and high living costs).

The 20th century presented a very different challenge. The global population saw its greatest increase in known history, from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6 billion in 2000, as life spans lengthened and infant mortality declined. In some countries — representing about one-third of the world’s people — those growth dynamics are still in play. By the end of the century, Nigeria could surpass China in population; across sub-Saharan Africa, families are still having four or five children.

But nearly everywhere else, the era of high fertility is ending. As women have gained more access to education and contraception and as the anxieties associated with having children intensify, more parents are delaying pregnancy, and fewer babies are being born. Even in countries long associated with rapid growth, such as India and Mexico, birthrates are falling toward or are already below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per family.

The change may take decades, but once it starts, decline (just like growth) spirals exponentially. With fewer births, fewer girls grow up to have children, and if they have smaller families than their parents did — which is happening in dozens of countries — the drop starts to look like a rock thrown off a cliff.
more...
 
Last edited:

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Basically when the environment starts telling us that there is a "no" in our immediate future. We don't take "no" very well. It won't be instantaneous and there will be a period of "what do you mean I can't have all the energy I want forever?!?". Every resource is finite, yet we treat these resources like a right. History tells us there will probably be a war in there somewhere too.
We drive too much. Actually I will go farther. As a species we move far too much. We do too much, and have over the last 20 years rewritten virtually every rule of how we can be productive with the expansion of the internet and remotely accessing other people instantaneously.

From monoculture farming to the way we farm meat, we really have just been massively inefficient with our resources. Even electricity production being lost due to our outdated power grid.

I am actually struggling to think of anything that we do that is not ass backwards and wasteful.

But I also think that we have been working far too hard as a species as we just gobble up everything we can and can ease off the gas (not meant to be a pun) and are going to need to learn how to relax a lot more than we do now.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
We drive too much. Actually I will go farther. As a species we move far too much. We do too much, and have over the last 20 years rewritten virtually every rule of how we can be productive with the expansion of the internet and remotely accessing other people instantaneously.

From monoculture farming to the way we farm meat, we really have just been massively inefficient with our resources. Even electricity production being lost due to our outdated power grid.

I am actually struggling to think of anything that we do that is not ass backwards and wasteful.

But I also think that we have been working far too hard as a species as we just gobble up everything we can and can ease off the gas (not meant to be a pun) and are going to need to learn how to relax a lot more than we do now.
because we share this country with people who are ass backward, don't read and rely on 'heard'..when the GOP gets involved? why do we need to define 'Infrastructure'. the constant strawman is all they have to run the clock out. they don't have policies or a platform and are being guided by an ex-president madman. sorry if you get primaried because you SUCK and will lose all that money that you're not supposed to have anyway!
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
because we share this country with people who are ass backward, don't read and rely on 'heard'..when the GOP gets involved? why do we need to define 'Infrastructure'. the constant strawman is all they have to run the clock out. they don't have policies or a platform and are being guided by an ex-president madman. sorry if you get primaried because you SUCK and will lose all that money that you're not supposed to have anyway!
I always laugh when they get all pearl clutching about the definition of 'infrastructure' needing to be what it has always been considered, and then they toss in 'and broadband'. Hypocrites, all of the Republicans in the senate and the vast majority in the house, are just trolls.

Vote the Republicans out. And make sure that you are not voting for a Democratic troll in primaries too. We need to be careful not to let the Democratic party fall into the same trap that the Republicans have.
 

Bagginski

Well-Known Member
I truly think they believe that ‘infrastructure’ should be left as profit opportunities for private interests…but that’s the exact *opposite* of what the word even means. There are compelling reasons why the public sphere exists, and the social landscape of feudal Britain displayed the need for them; the Framers cited the many failings of a social structure based on wealth and privilege when they drew up the documents we still use today.

It’s a libertarian tenet that *nothing* should be public but the military and the fire department, that *everything* should be done and owned by private interests, and that - as Margaret Thatcher put it - there’s no such thing as “the public”.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of ‘libertarians’ are either yokels who think it sounds good but don’t actually think about it, or they’re social-Darwinist assholes at heart.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, the vast majority of ‘libertarians’ are either yokels who think it sounds good but don’t actually think about it, or they’re social-Darwinist assholes at heart.
They are Darwinists, until Darwin comes for them, then they whine and bitch about, "replacement theory" and brown people out competing them on a level playing field.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I truly think they believe that ‘infrastructure’ should be left as profit opportunities for private interests…but that’s the exact *opposite* of what the word even means. There are compelling reasons why the public sphere exists, and the social landscape of feudal Britain displayed the need for them; the Framers cited the many failings of a social structure based on wealth and privilege when they drew up the documents we still use today.

It’s a libertarian tenet that *nothing* should be public but the military and the fire department, that *everything* should be done and owned by private interests, and that - as Margaret Thatcher put it - there’s no such thing as “the public”.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of ‘libertarians’ are either yokels who think it sounds good but don’t actually think about it, or they’re social-Darwinist assholes at heart.
The 'I got mine (or maybe knows someone who knows someone who made good), it's not my fault you didn't already get yours, which means you don't deserve the same shot that all kids should get' mentality.
 

Bagginski

Well-Known Member
The 'I got mine (or maybe knows someone who knows someone who made good), it's not my fault you didn't already get yours, which means you don't deserve the same shot that all kids should get' mentality.
‘Just World’ fallacy (not totally unlike the ‘Windows’ ubiquity = superior product’ fallacy)

It kinda tears me up that they simply can’t see that what their pitching, mostly, is themselves as better servants of the comfortable than the ungrateful poor would be…’ course, they’re proud independent businesspeople, not servants, so no cleaning toilets and doing laundry for them - unless they own the laundry so they can hire lesser servants to do all the work for them.

It really feeds into all the traditional aristocratic jumbo-jumbo, too: being entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor, being insulated from hardship by those less well-off than you, being “too good” for this or that chore, task, or duty. Supported by the mass of servants who know that the world is made so that “a job” and “money” are absolute necessities - yet control over such things is almost completely out of reach for almost all of us due to how that structure plays out in real time.

“Them’s that got shall get, them that’s not shall lose -
So the Bible says, but it still is news…
Momma may have, and Poppa may have, but
God bless the child that got his own…that got his own”
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
we installed a solar well on our farm. It pumps water any time the sun shines.....free. We have all the fresh clean water we could ever use to sustain life. Add 2 passive solar greenhouses and your on your way to energy carbon freedom. The initial investment was $50k.
Don't take it the wrong way, because I'm sure your setup is super cool and I love solar and want a small setup myself, but you have to factor in all of time, not just this moment in time where things appear "free". It took and incredible amount of fossil fuel energy to produce $50k in batteries and solar panels and charge controllers/inverters, etc. And those batteries have, what...a ten year lifespan? Then it's another massive amount of fossil fuels to recycle them, though...I think you're up in GV/NC area, in which case you've probably seen that dude on 174 that takes free batteries, presumably for cookin', so I guess that's always an option for a different kind of recycling.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
We drive too much. Actually I will go farther. As a species we move far too much. We do too much, and have over the last 20 years rewritten virtually every rule of how we can be productive with the expansion of the internet and remotely accessing other people instantaneously.

From monoculture farming to the way we farm meat, we really have just been massively inefficient with our resources. Even electricity production being lost due to our outdated power grid.

I am actually struggling to think of anything that we do that is not ass backwards and wasteful.

But I also think that we have been working far too hard as a species as we just gobble up everything we can and can ease off the gas (not meant to be a pun) and are going to need to learn how to relax a lot more than we do now.
Totally agree. It's just gluttony and an inconsideration for....anything but ourselves, but what else would be expected from a nation founded on hyper-individualism?

I know it was virtually impossible to perceive 250 years ago, but I sure wish there were something in the constitution about recognizing growth limitations so that it'd be a lasting culturally embedded idea. I don't know where exactly it comes from in Europe, but somehow the culture over there has developed an appreciation for efficiency and minimalism.

I think about what parts of the world would be most/less disrupted by any type of energy crisis. Rural Europe would barely notice, while we'd be eating each other in the US. South America would fare well too.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Don't take it the wrong way, because I'm sure your setup is super cool and I love solar and want a small setup myself, but you have to factor in all of time, not just this moment in time where things appear "free". It took and incredible amount of fossil fuel energy to produce $50k in batteries and solar panels and charge controllers/inverters, etc. And those batteries have, what...a ten year lifespan? Then it's another massive amount of fossil fuels to recycle them, though...I think you're up in GV/NC area, in which case you've probably seen that dude on 174 that takes free batteries, presumably for cookin', so I guess that's always an option for a different kind of recycling.
We use no batteries.....only pumps water when the sun is out. No inverter, straight from solar panels to pump...pumps water up to 5000gl storage tank up on a hill, property is then gravity fed....
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Well that's pretty cool. Lotta panels and they have a lifespan as well. Some businesses line their entire rooftop with them, then replace them every ten years when the efficiency drops off a bit. Then it's time to bust out the tractors and send the black kids back into the mine again.
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Well that's pretty cool. Lotta panels and they have a lifespan as well. Some businesses line their entire rooftop with them, then replace them every ten years when the efficiency drops off a bit. Then it's time to bust out the tractors and send the black kids back into the mine again.
I didn't say i had all the answers, but im doing everything within my reach to keep the planet as green as i can. Hopefully that will soon include a Tesla.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Don't take it the wrong way, because I'm sure your setup is super cool and I love solar and want a small setup myself, but you have to factor in all of time, not just this moment in time where things appear "free". It took and incredible amount of fossil fuel energy to produce $50k in batteries and solar panels and charge controllers/inverters, etc. And those batteries have, what...a ten year lifespan? Then it's another massive amount of fossil fuels to recycle them, though...I think you're up in GV/NC area, in which case you've probably seen that dude on 174 that takes free batteries, presumably for cookin', so I guess that's always an option for a different kind of recycling.
Nobody says that the solar panels made using today's tech is net carbon neutral. They can be but not yet.


PV works out to about 50g of CO2 per kWh compared to coal's 975g of CO2 per kWh, or about 20x "cleaner."

20x less emissions is a whole lot better than what we get out of coal. Also, hydro sucks. Not because of emissions but because of the widespread harm they cause on ecosystems and salmonids in particular.
 
Top