191–200 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. You're failing to articulate what you are talking about. 2. Sustainability is what matters.
Sustainability is an over hyped and misunderstood term. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4005
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noting that parent was referring to net primary productivity (on which, Jeffrey Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine", is very strongly recommended: http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange... ), the sustainability of various renewable energy technologies is an open question. But here's the dilemma as I see it: • Modern technological civilization is predicated on abundant cheap (high EROEI) energy sour…
What's your alternative? Nuclear. I notice you don't mention this at all, unless you mean to include it in "electrical generation", in which case your statement that technological civilization is not sustainable strikes me as far too pessimistic. Even if you only consider nuclear to be a temporary energy source while we develop high-grade solar energy, it still can get us a lot further than our remaining fossil fuels…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. You're failing to articulate what you are talking about. 2. Sustainability is what matters.
Sustainability is an over hyped and misunderstood term. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4005
Does this activity add to the likelihood that humanity will cease to enjoy a standard of living similar to the current average at some point before other natural processes (Sun going red giant, etc.) kill us all anyway?
So hey, if they sun's gonna kill us all next year, go hog wild. If what I'm doing now means that somebody 500 years from now will have a more impoverished existence, it's not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You weren't commenting about the article, though. Keep digging that hole deeper.
That's true, also I was too harsh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Species extinction speaks to fundamental underlying changes to the ecosystems in which those species live. Yes, telegenic megafauna capture hearts, but really, as apex predators or other apex species, they're the canaries in the coal mine, so to speak (and my isn't that an unsustainable metaphor...). But the waste being laid to oceans: 80% depletion of fish stocks, mass strandings of numerous cetaceans, algae and jel…
Jesus Christ, I KNOW . But which environmental issue a person chooses to talk about gives us clues to what they are thinking about. My parent's choice of orangutans suggested he was not currently worrying about long-term sustainability of ocean fisheries. I KNOW. But, difficult as it may be to believe, sustainability still isn't what I was talking about. And, no, that doesn't mean I believe it isn't a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future value of a resource is reflected in its resale value. No: the market's present assessment of an asset's future value with relation to the present state of the market is what its (re)sale price shows. There is a difference between "price" and "value", and it's a long, long discussion. Smith reflects on it at length in Wealth of Nations , particularly the distinction between the "natural" and "market" prices…
I think resale value generally refers to its price.
Though yes, "market value" generally equates to "market price". And the pedants will note that "price" needn't be strictly limited to monetary assessments, though that's how I'm using the term here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, are you still eating meat? Fish? What are you doing for your part?
Considering that every single thing we could eat would have an impact on the environment (typically negatively), it's not as simple as abstaining from eating a particular substance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noting that parent was referring to net primary productivity (on which, Jeffrey Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine", is very strongly recommended: http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange... ), the sustainability of various renewable energy technologies is an open question. But here's the dilemma as I see it: • Modern technological civilization is predicated on abundant cheap (high EROEI) energy sour…
There is enough uranium in Australia to last us a few ten thousands years. Sure, fossil fuels are cheaper to harness right now, but they are nowhere near what is possible and feasible.
Mind: the minimum feasible grade for extracting energy-positive uranium is around 0.02% grade (http://www.stormsmith.nl/i05.html)
Generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe your own claptrap you shouldn't you be killing as many humans as possible?
What kind of flippant, useless comment is that? You dismiss his entire experience as "claptrap" and then sarcastically suggest he go on a killing spree? Get the hell out of here.