401–410 of 508 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But... where does it get the oxygen?
From the water using steam reforming as I understand it, which is recovered 100% when the cell is generating power. The only consumable ends up being the methane.
[1] http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/solid-oxide-fuel-cell-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Make eco damaging behaviours "uncool" As 2016 had shown, we're well past the point where it was possible for a centralized (or even moderately stratified) entity to declare certain behaviors "uncool". Changing human culture without changing human nature introduces huge arbitrage opportunities for malicious actors and demagogues and increases overall existential risk.
>s 2016 had shown, we're well past the point where it was possible for a centralized (or even moderately stratified) entity to declare certain behaviors "uncool". Which event has shown? > Changing human culture without changing human nature introduces huge arbitrage opportunitie... What has "culture" to do with this? Behaviour is not the same as culture. Some one might have a habit of throwing garbage on the roads/pu…
Correct, but the comment I made about culture applies doubly so to behavior. Yes, you can change behavior. Yes, you can make people ashamed of doing X. That is, until certain Mr. Y comes along and shows them how to feel better about themselves, how to improve their self-esteem and show the world a middle finger---by doing precisely X. You will be completely powerless to stop Mr. Y. Powerless. You will be laughed at, and the fingers you thought would point at them will turn upon you.
> That is what I am talking about. It is easy to accomplish, but it is not going to happen. Because that means less consumption
Oh sweet naive innocent child. You think consumerist capitalism is to blame. You're almost right... Almost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50-60 mph on a non-enclosed vehicle violates my requirement for safety. I'm not going to use something that can't be hit by another vehicle without killing me. There's an aggressive attitude toward driving here, and it disproportionately impacts small vehicles like scooters, bikes, mopeds, motorcycles, etc.
Mopeds generally don't do 50-60 mp/h. You would need a larger bike for that, hence the highway comment. They make a lot more sense for suburban/city commutes where there is plenty of slow moving traffic to filter through at a comfortable 40-50 km/h.
I think that, before colonizing other planets, we should start by realizing that Earth can easily sustain human kind for the foreseeable future, given some pretty modest tweaks to our way of life (compared to "going multi-planetary" that is). If we start valuing quality over novelty, stop eating animal-based foods and re-organize to live closer to where we work, we can stop the consumption and that is taxing our ecos…
Do you seriously think that any of the following global political challenges: - convince everyone on Earth to implement changes that are bad for them, like not eating animal-based foods, with only the promise of "maybe in 200 years your descendants, should your line not be extinct by then, will benefit" as compensation - reorganise every single human settlement and/or social structure on Earth to put people closer to…
The two argument against colonization ia that we shouldn't colonize until we know how to avoid destroying it. Don't burn our lifeboat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you seriously think that any of the following global political challenges: - convince everyone on Earth to implement changes that are bad for them, like not eating animal-based foods, with only the promise of "maybe in 200 years your descendants, should your line not be extinct by then, will benefit" as compensation - reorganise every single human settlement and/or social structure on Earth to put people closer to…
> convince everyone on Earth to implement changes that are bad for them, like not eating animal-based foods, with only the promise of "maybe in 200 years your descendants, should your line not be extinct by then, will benefit" as compensation There are millions of people who chose not to eat animals for different reasons (ethical, health, environmental). And this number is growing faster than ever before, as people b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you seriously think that any of the following global political challenges: - convince everyone on Earth to implement changes that are bad for them, like not eating animal-based foods, with only the promise of "maybe in 200 years your descendants, should your line not be extinct by then, will benefit" as compensation - reorganise every single human settlement and/or social structure on Earth to put people closer to…
Of course they are the easier to solve, however your comparison is unfair. One one hand we're trying to solve for the entire human race, on the other hand we're solving for a handful of colonists. Now try expanding your colony for a significant proportion of the planet's population.
Although the atmosphere lacks oxygen, water ice just below the surface could be used to provide oxygen for breathing and to combust hydrocarbons as fuel. Red flag! It's a nonstarter to extract oxygen from water, use it to burn a hydrocarbon, then try to come out with more useful energy than you started with. This might have some use as an energy storage scheme, as storing hydrocarbons can be cheaper and more energy d…
Also I always wonder why these articles gloss over the health issues related to low gravity. Thats not something we've figured out either. Astronauts lose a lot of bone density in space.
[1]https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What activity is obstructing the gravity field?
Before we can have a conversation about this we have to establish how gravity is generated. If we don't, it'll be a bit of a waste of time. For the moment I can tell you that the circulation of gravity requires the ability the maintain a certain balance, and that balance has been broken.
Upvoting for comedic value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a moped. Safer than your pushie if your lacking the infrastructure, the only reason riding a bike is so dangerous anyway is the amount of cars on the road. Notice that basically all the cars on the road have 1 person and 4 empty seats every morning? You're burning all the fuel to basically move an empty car around, a 50cc moped is burning 36 times less fuel per power stroke than my corolla (ignoring combustion ef…
While I love mopeds and bought a 1980 vespa grande in college, I would not advise this. As the song goes, "mopeds are always broke, but they easy to fix". A moped WILL break down on you and be underpowered. My grande with a 70cc kit, performance variator and multiple breakdowns tops out around 41mph. If you are not interested in repairing bikes or paying for their repair (if even possible in your city), avoid mopeds.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that your notion of "real problems" is artificial. If our society prioritizes space colonization above eliminating nuclear stockpiles, and people are willing to accept the risk posed by the existence of those stockpiles, then there is no sense in continuing to refer to it as a "main issue facing our society". Maybe you consider it to be a main issue, but society doesn't. Or maybe society does consider…
What body on the globe is the seat of identifying and listing out "real problems" as canonical list of them?