I'm flaking out now. When shall we cross meet? http://u.to/iOg3Dw
Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
341–350 of 365 posts
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#342Hey, buzzard, are you cloth-eared? Come on, look at hotchas here http://u.to/gug3Dw
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#343Get hundreds of webcamshow for free. Sign up there http://yis2ar.skhit.in/
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fatalities per kw" is terrible risk management. I really wish nuclear activists would stop making crappy arguments. Risk analysis has two axis - likelihood, and impact . The maximum potential impact of solar/wind plant failure is negligible - what's it going to do, fall over on someone? Meanwhile, the maximum potential impact of virtually any civilian nuclear plant is massive - release of toxins and carcinogens over…
> release of toxins and carcinogens over large residential areas Thought experiment: how big of a nature-only walled-off preserve would we need around a nuclear plant in order to protect against that? And if that amount of area were instead covered with solar panels, how much energy would that produce? My impression given the efficiency of nuclear is that it'd still win, plus you get a sweet nature reserve out of it.
I'm all for investment in nuclear but it would take a really bloody colossal nature preserve. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is only 2,600 km^2 but about 3,900,000 km^2 of Europe - about 40% of it's total land mass - was contaminated with caesium-137 after that disaster and about 2% of Europe was contaminated to 'high' levels. Even as far away as the UK there are restrictions on hundreds of farms related to that radiation.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no consequence for humans then I would find it perfectly normal. It isn't monstrous nor absurd.
The consequence is you've destroyed a species and set a precedent and for what? One life? While human life should be preserved whenever possible, there are situations where you must realize that human life is, from the perspective of our role as planetary stewards, cheap and disposable. Sacrificing some lab animals, even thousands, to cure some obscure but crippling disease that affects a handful of people could be j…
It is highly subjective but of utmost importance. Let's say X species of hamster gives no benefit except diversity and there is plenty of hamster species. And let's say wiping it saves 1 person. You would need to consider if this species brings enough hapiness to human to warrant one death.
What I'm trying to say is (like the parents I believe) that the only thing affecting my judgement is humans qnd what the action does to them.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially "_human_ flourishing and happiness". Why only human? Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?
When someone comes up with an objective measure of consciousness lets consider that. In the meantime I see no issue with optimising for human happiness in the general case.
You don't need an objective measure. An approximate one is already better than just "optimising for human happiness".
And I guess you do what I proposed already anyways: The suffering of a dog or a horse is probably also - to some extent - your concern. The suffering of a piece of rock probably less so. Should we learn that rocks can feel pain, too (granted this is unlikely), we should update our morality. It's also part of most countries' laws to prevent unnecessary suffering of animals. And this is all based on the assumed degree to which they are able to suffer. You will get fined for torturing a dog; you won't for torturing a mosquito.
Careful - fancy thoughts: I could imagine that we will update our morality regarding plants one day (given that we see more and more evidence that they communicate with each other, send stress signals etc.).
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes think they reject the idea that the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness. Yes, many people reject this idea. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone express this idea.
Especially "_human_ flourishing and happiness". Why only human? Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?
Sorry, this thread exploded while I was afk.
I adopted this definition from Sam Harris (it was probably his TED talk on science and morals). What I mean by consciousness (and some people in this thread do not seem to have understood this) is not necessarily human-level consciousness, but the ability to suffer. And of course, there are different degrees to which animals are "capable" of suffering.
I did not expect this concept of morality to be controversial at all. I am surprised by the discussion.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially "_human_ flourishing and happiness". Why only human? Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?
*> Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures? Why only conscious? Why not the well-being of all creatures? I guess viruses and parasites are a bit pesky to deal with, but still...
By using the term 'conscious' I implied the ability to suffer. There is obviously a spectrum of the degrees to which a creature can suffer - and viruses are on the lower end, probably fairly close to rocks and water.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you run the numbers on that - cost, amount of energy stored, how much stuff you need, you'll quickly realize you do in fact need water.
I'd love to see them.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone comes up with an objective measure of consciousness lets consider that. In the meantime I see no issue with optimising for human happiness in the general case.
Not great, but the best we have at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
I don't understand how my cat reacts to a mirror. He notices me in a mirror, but how come he doesn't react to seeing himself, either "hey that's me" or "what's that other cat doing here!?!"