I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.
But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?
This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”
Sometimes I use the term “psychopathic hoarder class” when referring to this group of people.
Larry Finger, your work has made a significant positive impact on my life and I’m sure many others. Thank you.
Now can you work on a driver to allow communication between the living and the dead?
I’m still on IPv3, haven’t updated yet.
USA! USA! USA!!11!!
That’s like half of the training I got to get my A+ certificate to work on personal computers.
I was shocked about this, I’d assumed it was well trained trauma doctors in the ambulance with you at your most critical moment.
If Ruby is interesting, check out Crystal, it’s like Ruby but static typed and compiled.
Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.
To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.
But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.
I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn’t.
If we don’t develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn’t make up for a collapsed ecosystem.
Sure Ok, now their part of the deal – the corporations making and selling this food agree to (they’d need to be forced to of course) stop propagandizing us, manipulating us, addicting us, and lying to us.
End capitalism, Degrowth
Bummer, I haven’t felt this sad since learning about thermodynamics.
Burger Time is awesome!
Now I just have to hope for some sort of Odyssey 2 comeback.
You’re right, to some insufficient degree, but that’s like reducing your meth habit.
It’s not possible to produce the amount of meat needed to feed our massive population while treating animals humanely.
There are really two options to deal with this:
Most humans in the world become vegan – sounds great but it’s not gonna happen
Reduce our population to sustainable numbers (by eliminating the driver of the population explosion, i.e. fossil energy) – maybe also not gonna happen
Edit: What (do I think) will happen? We’ll continue as we are now as hundreds of billions of animals are tortured until our civilization collapses. This will happen because we were all brought up under a state and told that defending ourselves, our communities, our animals, is wrong and illegal.
Listened to some yesterday and today, I dig it, thanks!
Won’t that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.