No.540440[Last 50 Posts]
a thread to discuss anything on your mind related to the interconnected crisis of the three
I've been thinking about the viability of nuclear power
I am unconvinced that solar and wind are viable options for 100 % of the grid 100% of the time, anti nuclear types always say solar and wind is cheaper but they don't seem to account for storage costs, forgetting about money, solar power has a energy return on investment that is a lot lower than nuclear, storage has energy losses, requires rare earth minerals in many cases and in the case of battery storage we don't have enough lithium to that for more than a few decades (if that), and living next to a giant storage battery seems like a something that could be extremely dangerous (you are betting your life on alkali metal staying separate from the moisture in the air).
but at the same time
no reactor can be completely immune to accidents, the cost of those accidents is the affected area could become unlivable for many life times, if nuclear is the main power source for all or most countries at least someone somewhere will cut corners.
I've read articles that state that our proven uranium reserves amount to little more than five years worth at 100% nuclear,
things like thorium, breeder reactors (is every country having plutonium a good thing?) and seawater uranium extraction either have big problems or a just things that might happen, can we bet everything on solutions that aren't yet proven?
what do you guys think?
inb4 climate denialism
mods pls ban those fuckers
>>540440>I've read articles that state that our proven uranium reserves amount to little more than five years worth at 100% nuclear,
The priority of any non-renewable energy source should be to transition to a renewable energy source ASAP, because once non-renewables are gone we aren't getting them back, and without sufficient already-existing renewable energy sources, the production costs of renewable energy sources will be too high. Wind turbines, solar panels, etc all require a large quantity of resources to be mined and processed. If we can't get to a point where we can support an industry of building renewable power generators using only renewable power
then we are doomed for real. Non-renewables are like a booster rocket getting us into upper orbit. If we don't take the opportunity to switch on the next rocket, we are going to fall back to earth again and we won't get any more booster rockets. We will be confined to pre-industrial productivity forever.
It does if the ice is above the water dipshit.
Yes but not all the ice is below the waterline is it?
Our last hopium lies within china and whether their thorium reactors will prove to be successful
>>540543https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_principle>Any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid. — Archimedes of Syracuse
Its already floating in the water, therfore it is already displacing the most amount of water it ever will https://www.burtonsys.com/climate/sea_ice/
Only some of the ice is floating. Most of the southern ice is on top of land, and a large amount in the north is on land. IDK what the actual % is by weight but I'd conservatively estimate about half is sitting on land.
The temperature spikes you can see there were major events that affected global ecology, and if you put the current spike on there it would be steeper than any of those.
But that doesnt change the fact that sea ice melting is not as disastrous as the polar caps themselves breaking apart and melting.
"While they are related to it, the principle of flotation and the concept that a submerged object displaces a volume of fluid equal to its own volume are not Archimedes' principle. Archimedes' principle, as stated above, equates the buoyant force to the weight of the fluid displaced.
One common point of confusion[by whom?] regarding Archimedes' principle is the meaning of displaced volume. Common demonstrations involve measuring the rise in water level when an object floats on the surface in order to calculate the displaced water. This measurement approach fails with a buoyant submerged object because the rise in the water level is directly related to the volume of the object and not the mass (except if the effective density of the object equals exactly the fluid density).">>540549
You're correct that when measures in millions of years, the level of temperature change is not that great, however the SPEED of the change is much, MUCH faster than those events. And also, many of those climactic changes resulted in the majority of species going extinct so it isn't exactly a great argument against care about ACC.>>540554
Humans don't live in a timescale of 'thousands of years ago', climate change is going to have huge effects now, in our lifetimes.
>>540544>>540549>ignore the billions of tons of carbon, methane introduce into the atmosphere to the point where have change the ppm from the upper 200s, to the 400s >ignore the fact the humans effect the ecology of most of the worlds land mass >ignore the megatons of microplasics >ingnore the dead zones cause by artificial fertilizers >ignore all the fact that these are the direct consequence of our actions and can be proved to be so>things happened before humans so it isn't human caused
if a rock hits you in the head, and you feel pain due to the impact on your head, are you doing to argue that the rock didn't cause your pain because you have felt pain in occasions before the rock >>540544>climate change is real but human influence isnt a significant influence due to volcanic eruptions, the fact that water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas
water vapor follow temperature which follows c02 in its a feedback cycle and volcanoes are negligible compared to human industry >https://phys.org/news/2019-10-humanity-emissions-times-greater-volcanoes.htm
Those articles assume we wouldn't use higher efficiency reactors or use uranium from seawater>storage
You can just pump water into a reservoir and use that
>>540571>The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.
>>540570>https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html>Uranium is most often mined from the Earth’s crust, but it can also be extracted from seawater, which contains large quantities of uranium (3.3 ppb, or 4.6 trillion kg). Theoretically, that amount would last for 5,700 years using conventional reactors to supply 15 TW of power. (In fast breeder reactors, which extend the use of uranium by a factor of 60, the uranium could last for 300,000 years. However, Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive.) Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years.
(disclaimer the author might be retarded or senile since he advocates continue to burn gas)
fuck you retard>>540553>not as disastrous
They involve different factors. In some ways it's not as bad. In other ways it's worse. More liquid surface in the ocean decreases the earth's albedo a lot more than exposed land does, which contributes more to absorbing the sun's energy.
You can just pump water into a reservoir and use that
conversion losses, and also hydro electric rapes the environment
>>540573>Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive
I know the article but it all hinges on this.
Imo if we don't figure out how to make fast breeder reactors work or develop solar thermal without relying on gas (there aren't enough resources to convert everything to solar electric and batteries using current technology) we're fucked
to talk about solutions or something more, than just denialtard arguing lets discuss kelp farming and reforestation
kelp actually seems like a viable way to sequester large amounts of carbon,
,and it seems like something to help us feed the world if and when land agriculture starts to lower yields , we could make fuel , polymers, fight ocean acidification, and pollution, and provide fish habitats, to improve commercial fisheries
(and to reduce the impact of fish farming)
unfortunately alot of kelp forrest have collapsed, and are now urchin barrens, (the urchin population is no longer controlled by predators) I think we should cull urchin barrens ,and start a hatchery where we grow urchin predators like the sheephead (if biology allows, or if they'll even eat the starving urchins) and replant all natural areas, then we should (in areas where it won't conflict with local ecology` plant agricultural sea weed)
if there's ever a socialist state again kelp growing and coral planting should be in its five year plan
>>540578>olar thermal without relying on gas
maybe we could use landfill gas,
Kelp is going to massively die off because of ocean acidification. Not to rain on the parade, but we need solutions that work.>reforestation
Now this is viable. One of the biggest problems is going to be retaining moisture in the soil. The interface between biomass and atmosphere re: water retension is shifting toward the air holding more because as anybody who passed high school should know the air holds more moisture the higher the temperature. HOWEVER plants have mechanisms by which they can control gas and moisture exchange. The more plants you have the more moisture the land will be able to hold. This is going to call for DURABLE and PERMANENT plant growth which will render traditional forms of agriculture non-viable as they effectively reset the soil on a yearly basis to grow the plants anew. This is destructive of the soil in general, but with less moisture retention it's going to more and more turn living soil into dust. Agriculture is going to need to change into something along the lines of permaculture: diverse, long-term-to-permanent, mixed-use crops with a heavy mixture of non-food plants that help build the ecosystem up (e.g. nitrogen fixers and biomass accumulators). If we aren't able to design agricultural systems that also function as ecosystems we are straight fucked.
The place we need to be looking at for this in particular is the Amazon, which has been found to have large portions that were managed for agricultural use prior to colonization. Other American cultures had mixed-use farming that was sustainable and produced high yields, and there are other examples in use in other parts of the world. The western method of industrialized monocultures might be "efficient" in a very simplistic sense but it's simply not sustainable in the long term. It also involves huge waste when it comes to shipping, both for the final products and for all the resources required for that type of farming, which includes fuel for farm equipment, fertilizer to keep the soil from dying, and massive amounts of water. Because we won't be able to engage is monocultures at scale like we do now, a major change that needs to happen is massive localization of food production. Bringing the source closer to the people eating is one of the biggest efficiency improvements possible. There are also ways to incorporate the various requirements of crops into a unified (eco)system that doesn't rely on international supply chains and cheap shipping.
I've seen all the objections to this argument before, but here's the really key point. We need to design our own habitat with an understanding of ecosystems so that we can actually fit into biosphere. Ecosystems function just fine all over the world on their own, with the various species able to find enough sustenance to take care of and reproduce themselves. If you think humans are so fucking smart we should be able to improve on that performance. Instead we tend to do shit like ruin the land and cause dust bowls. We need to pull our head out of our ass and understand how to produce our food in ways that not only don't slowly erode the ecosystem, but that actually improve it. Again, natural processes under no guidance can handle that much. If you think we can't at least do that good, you're saying that at our best we're stupider than pure chaos.
kelp counter acts ocean acidification >>540590
yeah I hope we use more restorative agriculture
And the actual hope lies in the complete destruction of all current civilizations. For they are all corrupt to the core and completely irredeemable.
And yes, this of course includes china. Because seriously, why the hell would anyone seriously think they are more competent than any other nation on this planet.
its local, but if we started farming on a truly industrial scale it would only help
Solar is actually quite viable. The reason you don't hear about it much is that the United States / West no longer controls that industry and it's in the hands of the Chinese after they subsidized the shit out of it.
Currently, iirc, it's like what, 20-60 cents per watt of theoretical energy output? It was like 20 cents, but supposedly polysilicon shortages ramped the price up by 3x.
Yeah, the raw module is around 1.5 cents per kWh over 10 years, but you have to factor in the cost of installation, which can easily triple the cost.
Battery storage is like 10 cents per kWh for present individual batteries, but you don't need to store everything., maybe 2/3rds to 1/2th, so perhaps 8 cents per kWh for a pure solar battery solution.
CATL is currently working on Sodium-Ion batteries, which are cheaper than lithium, but really massive. The predicted cost is 40 USD / kWh, or about 4 cents / kWh. That'd easily drop prices down closer to 7 cents / kWh between batteries and panel generation.
In reality, you'll need this in order to truly combat global warming.
Since we're already emitting way too much, we need carbon capture and storage (CCS, hence the weeb gif) to actually deal with global warming. Mitigation is not enough, we actually need to drain the carbon dioxide content out of the atmosphere in order to prevent global warming beyond the 2 C threshold.
On this topic, unfortunately, things look much nastier. While solar and solar bat are roughly mature, or near mature, current atmospheric carbon to carbon storage (formates, methanol, ethanol, etc) technology is extremely expensive, partially due to the energy cost and partially due to the cost of the catalysts, which traditionally were precious metals.
I did a rough estimate a few years ago as to how much it'd cost to drain all the carbon we've dumped into the atmosphere, and as it turns out, we need around 480 quadrillion USD at the present price to do so. Doing it over 20 years, the cost would be 24 quadrillion USD per year. We'd need to drop the cost by at least a factor of 10,000 to make it actually affordable to do so; roughly 2.4 trillion USD per year over like a 100 trillion USD gross world product.
nice to see a climate change thread that does not make me want to immediately kill myself. with that said, there's too much focus on speculative technological alternatives when we have the immediate options of degrowth as well as smart planning in front of us. of course, there are geopolitical issues that prevent this from happening so those options whilst theoretically possible, really presuppose revolution. honestly, it feels as though these threads are never as systematic as say cybersoc. there's loose sources posted here and there but there's a lack of more comprehensive treatments. im not very knowledgable on the subject so i will just list some broad subjects that it would be good to share books for
2. climate models
3. cybernetic social planning geared towards minimizing emissions
4. $$$carbon capture$$$
5. physics of weather and climate
6. surveys on green alternatives: both
7. ecology of mind, politics of climate change
8. engineering texts on energy options
9. surveys on the ramifications of hightened global temperature on different industries and environments>>540539
same for the most part>>540789
cute figure. one thing you aren't taking into account is not merely cost, but also the emissions used for constructing and installing these as well
CCS is an active subject of research, but I think scientists are beginning to approach a consensus that carbon capture and storage is extremely necessary for preventing unmanageable global warming.
We already have some prototypes, it's just that the cost is way too high so far. IIRC there's an attempt to produce methanol powered by solar energy, but the methanol is still substantially above market spot prices and thus is uneconomic without subsidies.
>>540573>Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases
This is wrong, seawater is fully saturated, if you remove uranium from seawater the ocean is going to dissolve more from the ocean floor. The concentration will not drop for millions of years. We can't extract uranium fast enough for this to become a issue, because Seawater uranium reactors are limited by heat output. Basically the amount of reactors you need to actually make the uranium concentration dip would overheat the ocean.
Anime girls look like aliens
what about growing e-waste problems?
There is no silver bullet yet but, there is a lot of headroom for improvementshttps://www.specifyconcrete.org/blog/eco-friendly-alternatives-to-traditional-concrete>>540914>what about growing e-waste problems?
if you make devices repairable they can be used at least twice as long, and since there already are small producers that make such devices, it's very doable to basically cut e-waste production in half just by design tweaks that are mindful towards repair work. It's possible to recycle gadgets, but it will use a lot of manual labor because it's production in backwards order. We will need a "reverse proletariat" that does physical deconstruction. So far people who like to deconstruct either go into soft-science-academia if they are intellectually inclined or become smashies if they are more hands on, it will be very difficult to get these people to go for an new de-engineering or a de-manufacturing discipline.
Hempcrete, now die
cockshott video from two years ago about climate change and the effort required to fix it
I like rammed earth (still needs cement in. lesser amount, can't replace all concrete )
Even if the doomer predictions are real, nothing is going to get done about it. Pointless topic.
plankton are projected to go extinct, collapse of marine ecology the majority of oxygen production (I doubt our civilization has 25 years )
Don't forget Canada and Siberia.
antartica is bigger for ice caps https://interactive.pri.org/2019/05/antarctica/thwaites-glacier-collapse.html
reminder that this thing could destabilize one day and just raise sea levels all of a sudden, sea level rise wont be linear, I read that a glacier is showing signs of instability
Not only is sea level rise not necessarily linear, we have to worry about tectonic isostasy lmao.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
A sudden shift in where weight is distributed will likely cause huge earthquakes.
The club of rome are a bunch of bourgeois malthusianist who take great care in not attacking capitalism and were mistaken many times in their predictions. This prediction works, for now, but it's probably wrong even if at some point their very last prediction will be vindicated
Unironically whats wrong with malthusianism?
We cannot keep growing the population without catastrophic consequences for life on this planet.
We dont have infinite land , or infinite resources,
I dont see any flaw in the idea that the earth has a carrying capacity and a limit to the growth in population and resource use that can we shouldn't overshoot
i no longer feel despair
i must feed
All you said is absolutely and resolutely true.
The premise of this kind of thinking, is that "our way of life is non negotiable", the conclusion being: we have to kill a certain number of people to keep it.
But a third of humanity doesn't really participate in pollution, they are too humble. Yet they seem to be the first target of malthusianists. Maybe because they have the wrong skin color?
So even though we could live at, I don't know, 20, 30 billions people comfortably on living standards currently shared by a third of us, we should kill and neuter people because Las Vegas inhabitants like casinos steaks and grass.
So let's be real there, if people are dangerous for the environment and we need to eliminate a portion, we'd want to cull people who are being environmentally dangerous, so you don't begin with starving Yemenite children who will maybe have 5 children with a death rate of 80% at birth, if they survive long enough to have children, you first do away with yacht possessor billionaires possessing the carbon print of a small country… And who happen to share this whole Malthusian ideology.
In conclusion, malthusianism is a big cope, maybe a propaganda tool, for those in power to deny there is another way to manage the human project than capitalism.
Human population is projected to level out in second half I find it difficult to believe that civilisation will last that long. And more import than population is resouce use we already due to wasteful styles of consuming, spend natural resouces twice as fast as the replenish how long do you think that can last. How long can we add greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere without hitting tipping points ??
I agree completely its distrubing how people blame the poorest in the world (sometimes they even fantasize about genociding them) instead of looking at their own wasteful lifestyle
>The earth will survive us easily because whatever effect we hit the earth
the mass of rock orbiting the sun has at least a few billion more years, thats not the point, we could and it looks like we will, irreparably damage the ecology of this planet, and weather patterns that are stable enough to have a civilization
It's disturbing but it's the only way to exteriorize the very real pressing issues we have at hand rather than turning inward and do a little systemic self criticism. If you look at how people and generally the media talk about energy consumption they consider it a given, there is no way we could carefully diminish energy production, wholefully change our methods of bringing goods to people. Having only one color of TP at the supermarket won't cut it, we have to keep this crazy system, and it must grow, but it must grow with solar panels and not only coal plants now.
The only real way to struggle for the survival of human race against this madness is at this point is to challenge the very foundations of this system and to offer a swift process that can offer some sort of damage control, it just happens that socialism/communism is currently the best candidate.
Malthusianism, although based on true assumptions, just crumbles trough careful examination and even reveals some sort of classist genocidal project. It tells people "don't question how we manage our affairs, the growing number of people is threatening though, maybe you should do something about that"
Counterpoint: Genocide the richest 50% of all humanity.
sounds like a lot of trouble to get fraction of surface areas of a ground pv station
This is cool and it would work if we had a good amount helium or if hydrogen wouldn't catch fire so easily
balloon. They work by changing the density of the natural air around them. They don't need hydrogen or helium.there are already solar powered hot air balloons being trialed now
All you have to do to make this work is occasionally blow the heating air from the side effect of the aluminum smelting going on on-board into the balloon, or simply use heat-exchange pipes in a more sealed gas bag over head.>>548896
Not really. You're avoiding the problems that PV cells actually literally generate that everyone ignores
. Aluminum is up there with silicon for bulk raw material but this requires a fraction of the amount of investiture of setup. You are skipping the entire process of needing to drasitcally increase electronics upscaling (which is a VERY polluting process). The hot air balloons themselves can also hypothetcally be used for the transport of goods which avoids much of the problem of other shipping methods, and one which has no solar power plant equivalent.
yes but as it is right now, it will take millions of years for earths ecology to recover, from the point of view of a human with a human lifespan, things will never get better, we will only see it get worse
Every country must have its own public transport system. Even heavily roaded countries, like the US, of which it must have its own bus rapid transit system.
To have a successful transition from private transport usage to public one must ban cars and motorcycles as well as promoting bicycle travel. That way they can start building more stations, bus stops and the like while they ride their bikes to work.
Democrats just took the climate out of their deal to cuck out for manchin, hopefully the progressive have enough political power to sabatage the whole thing out of spite it sucks how countries cannot do even the bare minimum to avoid an existential threat to humanity excpet another cuck out for cop26
I think burp-posting is ok on sfw boards ^:)
this is roughly on the level of arguing that nuclear war is only bad from certain perspectives
More like we will go extinct and the Earth will never recover in the entire history of homo sapiens
Even if we leave some descendant races after us homo sapiens will not live to see a new world>>549290
Nuclear war is only bad from the perspective of the contemporary biosphere :)
Using a solar hot air balloon to power a floating aluminum recycling plant is indeed very bold.
aluminum air batteries produce alumina hydroxide, that has to be reduced to aluminium oxide, by heating it in a calciner to 1100°C, and then in a second step the aluminum oxide has to be electro chemically reduced to pure aluminum. this also takes place at high temperatures because it needs liquid aluminum for it to work, also the electrodes have to be replace frequently. At present all the machines for doing this are humongous heavy industrial equipment that can't be lifted into the air. It takes about 13kilowatt hours per kg of aluminum. Assuming that you can miniaturize and automate a alu-recycler to fit inside the gondola of a standard 18m diameter balloon, it will make about 1.9kg aluminum per hour. (i took the highest process efficiencies, so this is very generous and i would expect that your first prototype will produce maybe 100g to 200g per hour). in 2014 the world already produced 55 million tons. So about 2.7 million balloons for that, assuming they get enough sun for operation of 10 hours at 100 watt per square meter balloon solar collection surface per day.
Lets say we want a lot more aluminum than that once it becomes a energy carrier and we need about 20 million balloons.
Currently we make about 30 kg / labor hour , which means about 45 mins per balloon and all the stuff that needs to happen on the ground to get the aluminum ready to be an input for the rest of the economy, per day. A rough guesstimate of about 105 million workers globally. I'm not saying this can't be done, because those number still are barely plausible numbers, but it's going to be a steep engineering and logistical challenge. i doubled checked nothing, so don't quote me on this, this could be hilariously wrong
Do we really have to lift alu-factories into the sky ?
what's wrong with stringing an electricity cable to the ground ?
This is very well put, I've been trying to articulate that you can't have the car without the horse and buggy first.
it is incorrect, we can use nuclear fission reactors as "a booster rocket" to get to fusion power and than we'll be set for aeons.
Renewables are good and should be expanded, but renewables on their own can't sustain them self, it's got to have something like nuclear power to boost it.
It's an idea I'm still working on.
I'm guessing there's probably better by-weight percentages than refining aluminum. Even if we want to keep mobile power processing, I think using regular giant supercapacitors will probably have a better weight percentage than that. I am leery of things like lithium batteries for a few ecologically-obvious reasons.
The idea of having effectively huge weather balloons that are giant solar facilities and perhaps also touch down from time to time is the main point
>>540440>I am unconvinced that solar and wind are viable options for 100 % of the grid 100% of the time
They probably aren't, and I doubt they could float the major cities. But consider the Swedish city of Skellefteå, population 73,246. Skellefteå is home to a number of innovations in sustainable power, architecture, building materials, heating, and more. It is notable for its wooden skyscraper, which was constructed utilizing special treatment techniques to produce what is called glued laminated timber, which is as strong as steel for its weight, and fire and pest resistant. The entire town runs on sustainable energy without cutbacks or sacrifices. (Excess heat from solar panels, for example, are transfer and used to heat rooms.)
The potential of existing technologies are little explored because of the tremendous lobbying and propaganda efforts by the fossil fuel industry. It remains to be seen if major cities can be retrofitted to incorporate fully operational sustainable practices. It is much harder to remodel outdated structures than it is to build entirely new ones that embody cutting edge principles. Even so, there is a lot of potential for these technologies and they can provide much more energy than we are led to believe https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/oct/14/skelleftea-swedish-plywood-eco-town-20-storey-wooden-skyscraper-worlds-tallest
well let's be honest, "skyscraper" is a bit charitable here, but it is a wooden building on a scale which is quite uncommon in contemporary designs.
Your concept is really complicated. The easiest way to realize it would be to put a water tank and a hydrolysis machine in the balloon. Make hydrogen gas with solar power and use it to fill up the balloon and make it gain buoyancy. Once the balloon goes high enough in the atmosphere where it's really cold. use the solar power to run a refrigeration system to liquefy the hydrogen. The liquefied hydrogen becomes much more dense and the balloon looses buoyancy until it eventually becomes a air filled parachute and gently floats back to earth . Pump out the liquid hydrogen and replace it with new water, to restart the process. There is some risk with hydrogen filled balloons and dropped water tanks, so you want to invent a clever safety system for that.
ecological collapse doomer cult is just the christcuck end of the world retardation but for liberal atheists
sage, downvote, cringe etc
Somethings will take more than that. Like the return of the megafauna.
Liberals literally think the heckin individualistic billionerinos will stop it through innovation and the world will continue under liberal bourgeois capitalism forever, the end.
Doomers are socialists who realize the first world will never have a revolution and just want it to fucking end already (but still support third world attempts at revolution).
Obsession with preservation of nature is inherently rightoid trait.
There is nothing divine about nature, its just… stuff.
I don't understand why so many on the left fall for this shit.
If some forests and species go away, then so what? No rare animal species as valuable as one human life.
I literally don't care about your one human life whatsoever.
>>549473>Liberals literally think the heckin individualistic billionerinos will stop it through innovation and the world will continue under liberal bourgeois capitalism forever, the end.
Wrong and cope. The US' hegemonic state media is paving the way for increased economic pressure on the middle class by socially engineering them to think the coming increased taxes and lowering of quality of life of the westoid middle class will be to answer the "climate crisis xd" instead of boog class warfare
there's just people who like to predict the end-times, and they got on the climate train, they just green-washed the doomsday. We have to rethink science communication. >>549486>Obsession with preservation of nature is inherently rightoid trait. >There is nothing divine about nature, its just… stuff.
You are correct there is a green reaction that just wants to use eco-preservation as an excuse to lash out against the lower classes, to justify suffering. But nature is also useful stuff, it's a life support system that has worked for billions of years. The rational reason to preserve it is because nature has evolved a lot of ways to transform matter. We ought to learn how it works.
Funny, because the majority of capitalists on the planet haven't cared about preserving nature in the slightest and most rightoids have been anti-ecology and believe that humanity is some kind of special, angelic creature beyond animals. The vast majority of "green porkies" have also been just as carelessly and callously destructive of the environment and just used the ecology as nothing more than pure marketing stunts with no bearing behind them.
Eco-fash is a new phenomenon and is nothing more than reaction to the fact that capitalism is obviously going to be severely damaging to the planet.
This is nothing more than pure contratianism to pop-pseudo-left liberalism and you should be ashamed of your anti-scientific views.
>>549534>wanting control over nature and make it serve humanity is anti-scientific
>>549486>If some forests and species go away, then so what
we depend on ecosystems to survive and life in good, health without thousands of different soil microbes we could not grow a singe crop, with out plants and phytoplankton their would be no oxygen, without vegetation there would be no clean water, for every one species of insect that is a pest, their are 4000, species that are beneficial in some way for humanity, if some Forrests go away we have a dust bowl, if some rare species go extinct it could cause chain extinctions that damage entire ecosystems >>549492>wering of quality of life of the westoid middle class
it is objective reality that modern first world consumption levels are not compatible with the longterm health of nature and the continued existence of civilization >>549526> We can just consume it once and for all.
that would end humanity.>>549535
it already serves humanity in so many ways >>549447>>549450
the Bronze Age civilizations were wiped out by a 1C fluctuation in temperature is there any reason to think that we can survive a 4C change in averages by 2050? we've already shifted 1C up and look at all the ill effects, you are ignorant of the state of the world, and the fragility of civilization if you think this a non issue. actually try reading some papers on the effects . >climate collapse any decade now! just 10 more years bro it's for real this time!
reminder that Exxon accurately predicting what the temperature would be now with in a decimal of degree, when they first did research in the 80s
okay, we are in agreement.
although there are limits to human restoration efforts, even thought they are worth while, replanting for example, still creates Forrests that are not as productive, diverse and life filled as old growth forrest,we need a lot of research to recreate old growth forrest, I don't think we could artificially recreate healthy tops soil , the best we could add nutrients, and plant crops in a way that mimics, the natural processes that keep soil healthy (crop rotation and agro ecology) and it takes way more time to build that to destroy it, (Cuba has turned to this to reduce its dependce on fertilizer)
We don't actually have that much uranium. It's not so much that it's going to run out completely, but that the sources of it get harder and harder to extract over time because we extract from the more accessible ones first.
The machines used to mine uranium, build nuclear reactors, etc still run almost entirely on fossil fuels. We would need to be able to re-develop nuclear power without the fossil fuels to help us power the machines we need to build any of the nuclear equipment. You can't build nuclear reactors using hand tools, and you can't power small scale vehicles with nuclear power (or you really shouldn't). Submarines are the smallest thing nukes can power pretty much, and they have the benefit of being entirely submerged in water to deal with the problem of waste heat. Mining equipment already has a heat problem from drillbits and other equipment building up a lot of friction in an enclosed space. Add nuclear power to that and you are just going to cook the mining workers. You can't just say "nuclear will solve it" and think that's good enough. Real life is not the Fallout video games.
>Renewables are good and should be expanded, but renewables on their own can't sustain them self, it's got to have something like nuclear power to boost it.
First of all "renewable" literally means that you can renew the source indefinitely or infinitely so in theory it could sustain itself and society permanently. The whole point of the post is acknowledging that they are not yet
developed enough to power everything, and because of this premise
we should use our non-renewable energy sources to build up the renewable ones as quickly as possible so that they can
sustain themselves. You think you are doing an ebin debunk but you're just restating the premise of my argument. Worse, your proposed solution is nuclear power, which relies on a finite resource that has similar problems to oil in terms of its natural supply and has even more severe limits on its use because of how generating power with it works. Either sit down and listen to people discussing the topic or go read a book so you can learn something and stop spouting irrelevant nonsense.
We could replace heavy machinery with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or amonia power
>>549568>We don't actually have that much uranium
Enough uranium is dissolved in the ocean to power current level energy consumption for a hundred thousand years. However we want to go to thorium fuel because that has a bunch of technical , political and environmental advantages. Just the thorium waste that has accumulated from digging out neodymium magnets is enough to last us several thousand years. If we consider a realistic planning horizon like the next hundred years, we can't run out of nuclear fuels no matter what. If we can sustain another century with a lot of technological advances, that should be enough for our descendants to figure out something better. Nuclear power is a good bridge technology.>The machines used to mine uranium, build nuclear reactors, etc still run almost entirely on fossil fuels,
Like the other anon said hydrogen or ammonia fuel cells can power big industrial equipment, but even if we couldn't complete development on those for some reason, we still have bio fuel production that could power the legacy industrial tool chain long enough to boot strap the atomic system.>First of all "renewable" literally means that you can renew the source indefinitely or infinitely so in theory it could sustain itself and society permanently.
Renewable energy is nuclear fusion power with extra steps, the sun wont last indefinitely, so in theory you are wrong.>The whole point of the post is acknowledging that they are not yet developed enough to power everything, and because of this premise we should use our non-renewable energy sources to build up the renewable ones as quickly as possible so that they can sustain themselves.
Renewables do not have enough energy return on energy investment, to sustain them self, they need to have other energy sources like nuclear power that help them to be sustainable.
>>549592>Enough uranium is dissolved in the ocean to power current level energy consumption for a hundred thousand years.
These kinds of calculations ignore that most uranium you put into a reactor isn't consumed for power since the reactor only effectively uses a small portion of the uranium. It also ignores the energy cost involved in extracting it and refining it for use.>Nuclear power is a good bridge technology.
I didn't say it's not. What it isn't is a final solution. I was arguing with a post saying we should use nuclear indefinitely instead of making a switch to sources that won't run out.
>Like the other anon said hydrogen or ammonia fuel cells can power big industrial equipment, but even if we couldn't complete development on those for some reason, we still have bio fuel production that could power the legacy industrial tool chain long enough to boot strap the atomic system.
Fuel cells are inefficient and not even nuclear anyway. The process of electrolysis used to separate the hydrogen is more energy intensive than simply storing energy in a battery system charged from the electrical grid (a solution that also centralizes energy infrastructure making it easier to consolidate energy consumption around whatever you reconfigure the grid to be powered by).
>Renewable energy is nuclear fusion power with extra steps, the sun wont last indefinitely, so in theory you are wrong.
And the laws of thermodynamics mean the universe will eventually experience heat death. This has no bearing on the practicality of human energy demands in the short, medium, long, or even very long term. The sun is going to keep burning for billions of years. Our species is about 200k years old and our oldest concurrent civilizations go back about 8k years if we're being generous. This point is well outside the scope of the discussion. And most importantly the sun does fusion for free without any involvement from us. Fusion power that we produce carries a lot of costs. "The sun does it so we can too" is reddit-tier.
>Renewables do not have enough energy return on energy investment, to sustain them self, they need to have other energy sources like nuclear power that help them to be sustainable.
It depends on the methods used. Part of the point of developing renewable sources is that better technology improves the return on investment. The implication here that renewables are somehow inherently
not viable is a canard bandied about by marketers from the petrol and nuclear industries.
Do they not teach basic ecology where you're from? What is this perverse bastardization of Che's famous quote? He would slap you for making such a retarded statement.
unbelievably retarded statement
Why isn't the y axis labeled? Seems like a pretty important metric to include in this data.
uyghur the whole ass universe is fundamentally hostile to us
out in space the cosmic background radiation will cook you alive without proper shielding, before you even have to worry about lack of oxygen
all we have right now is a narrow slice of this planet
we have under 1/3 of the surface
which is only usable to us to a depth of a few hundred feet in most practical terms
and a lot of that has to remain green space for farms and oxygen recycling
our whole existence hinges on the balance and health of a world thinner than the membrane of a fucking bubble
>>540550>Only some of the ice is floating. Most of the southern ice is on top of land, and a large amount in the north is on land. IDK what the actual % is by weight but I'd conservatively estimate about half is sitting on land.
Nah, most of it is on land. Just check out Antarctica and Greenland.
Then there's the issue of fresh water. A lot of it is melting glaciers such as in the Himalayas. But if the snow/ice isn't refilled with snow, it dries up.
>>556344>You are wrong because what you said isn’t what I want to happen
It’s hard to decide whether the people here are merely stupid or also cowardly and weak
More likely this is another spineless cockroach like faggot promoting edgy, anti-scientific viewpoints as a form of bearing his asshole to the morons on /pol/ he would just as quickly pretend to despise
I’d say roughly half of this board is deeply obsessed with looking “cool” to /pol/
>>549624> "The sun does it so we can too" is reddit-tier.
Funny how so much of this board feeds into Elon Musk-tier pop-science nonsense>Bro this thing occurred in Nature so uhhhh humans can do it too!
Alright, uygha, get back to me when we produce:>Cosmic inflation>A star>A black hole>Lab-controlled gravity>Human level consciousness >Or even the mere task of a fully functional living cell comprised of self-replicating information-sharing compounds and proteins that would allow it to reproduce and evolve as an organism wholly unrelated to anything else that exists
People here severely overestimate what humans have accomplished so far and use this to predict truly god-like abilities for future humans, I just don’t understand it
Maybe people here are just utterly ignorant about physics, biology, astronomy, engineering, chemistry, geology, ecology, and basically anything other than history and leftist political theory?
No power source ever will be a final solution, every power source will only ever be a intermediate stepping stone. Renewable energy will not be enough, our needs will outgrow that as well, regardless how long the sun burns. Maybe we already have outgrown renewable power. It's a really reactionary mind set to try to force people backwards to low energy existence, it's Malthusian thinking.
Fuel cells could get up to 80% round trip efficiency with thermal recuperation, batteries could get 90%. The overall amount of energy we can store as hydrogen is order of magnitudes bigger then what can be achieved with batteries, 10% efficiency loss is not a bad trade off for adding capacity. The capitalist market will run into the limitations of batteries soon enough and then scramble to get to Fuel cells. This is because it's a reactive system. You oppose fuel cells because you have internalize the reactive system and think it's the nature of reality it self. But we could also be pro-active and start building out hydrogen and fuel cell infrastructure so we have it ready once we reach maximum battery cap.
Return on energy investment is set by energy density. If energy density is low you will be forced to spend a proportionally bigger amount on the construction of energy capture, transport and buffer devices per given unit of output. The ruling class wants to combine renewable energy with oil and gas, we should instead combine renewable energy with nuclear. it has lower CO² emissions and almost no geopolitical procurement conflicts. (Thorium is abundant on land and uranium is abundant in the ocean).
You have a choice between the renewable-nuclear-combo and renewable-legacy-fossil-fuel-combo, what you don't have is a renewable only option. If you pretend otherwise and demand the physically impossible you choose the status quo renewable-legacy-fossil-fuel-combo, because that's what the current ruling class is steering towards.>>556352
The reddit meme billionaire is not the symbol of optimistic and bold visions for the future, all he did so far is recycle old ideas and make incremental improvement on old technology. The first attempt at building something conceptually related to a hyper-loop dates back to 1799, and they called it a atmospheric railway. The first electric car dates back to 1830. His landing rockets that can be used more than once are an incremental improvement on standard commercial rockets that lift satellites into orbit. Contrast this with future visions from the 70s with plans to build bombastic mass accelerators as successors for rockets. Our future visions are now less impressive then the visions that have become retro futurism.
Our conceptual horizons for human potential have been shrunk by a suffocating neo-liberal assult on the brain and you are dog pilling on it even more ? Why are you so reactionary ? A integral part of socialist ideology is about building a better future using more advanced productive forces.
We can make fusion power, hydrogen-bombs release stupid amounts of energy, what we should strive for is controlled fusion so we can use it to drive machinery. The next step from that will be a singularity reactor that uses lasers to convert a small amount of matter into hawking radiation that gets converted into heat by graphite. We have to work our way to up building the productive forces that can power cosmic experiments.
We could make a gravitational field generator in the lab, there is sound theory about how to make one.https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mathematician-has-proposed-a-way-to-create-and-manipulate-gravitational-fields
wtf why did this dude call anon junko hahahaha
>>556464>The reddit meme billionaire
Is effectively what you believe in>optimistic and bold visions for the future
Are what you desire and not necessarily a reality even remotely>The first attempt at building something conceptually related to a hyper-loop dates back to 1799, and they called it a atmospheric railway
And over 200 years later they haven't produce this thing, is this argument supposed to be in your favor?>The first electric car dates back to 1830. His landing rockets that can be used more than once are an incremental improvement on standard commercial rockets that lift satellites into orbit.
What does this random factoid have to do with hyperloop or other purely hypothetical technologies?>Contrast this with future visions from the 70s with plans to build bombastic mass accelerators as successors for rockets. Our future visions are now less impressive then the visions that have become retro futurism.
I know all this stuff was very deep and meaningful to the likes of Mark Fisher, but what bearing are fictional visions of the future meant to have on the actually existing material world?
Even the Soviets did not accomplish these spectacular technologies you're dreaming up which would imply socialism isn't a magic tool to bypass physics or what mankind is technically capable of at any one time >Our conceptual horizons for human potential have been shrunk by a suffocating neo-liberal assult on the brain and you are dog pilling on it even more ?
I know this wording gets plenty of support around here but honestly it means nothing to me. The meaningful optimism neoliberalism crushes is the idea of working class resistance, this optimistic Star Trek space adventure future shit largely means nothing to me.
I'd rather you counter what I said about technological limits instead of beating around the bush about meaningless shit like "optimism">We can make fusion power, hydrogen-bombs release stupid amounts of energy, what we should strive for is controlled fusion so we can use it to drive machinery.
Hydrogen bombs producing lots of energy during an explosion is meaningless, what you revealed is all that matters, that being the inability to produce conditions for fusing atoms within a laboratory setting
Do hydrogen bombs even fuse atoms? TNT also produces lots of energy, AFAIK only the cores of stars have the density and heat to fuse atoms
The rest of your post is literally about making hypothetical technologies to make other hypothetical technologies and then a pop science website
You conflate socialist futurism with billionaire tech-hype culture, and you are wrong about that. Superficially you oppose reddit techbros, but you agree with their premise that, capitalism can coopt a better future enabled by technology. On that note you are a status quo warrior, all be it a contrarian one.
The fact is that if the Soviets had fixed there internal problems and won the cold war, there would almost certainly be a colossal magnetic confinement fusion generator somewhere in the arctic ocean generating multiples of current planet-wide energy production. Climate change would already be solved because there would be enough power to suck more CO² out of the atmosphere/ocean, than we would be adding. You can't admit to this because you are committed to upholding ruling ideology or capitalism realism if you will. You are busy attacking anybody who propose stuff that are physically possible but not compatible with capitalist relations of production. And yes Hydrogen bombs fuse hydrogen isotopes into helium, they do have useful civilian applications like diverting asteroids on a collision course with earth.
There are honest primitivists who just despise technology and want to go back to monke, but you are not one of those because those do not spend any energy on policing the premises of ruling ideology. Billionaires are not necessary for a scifi future, they are a hindrance to it, too shortsighted, too risk averse and unable to realize the necessary scale for these projects to succeed. They are not the enablers, they are the ones standing on the brakes. (capitalists just used to be good at financing consumer products) I already have dunked on lord-reddit-bro, so next is Dr Evil, who wants to industrialize space and build O'Neil cylinders in a few decades, despite even the most generous estimations for installing industry in space one rocket tea-spoon at a time, is 200 years.
I'm not shilling the hyped loop, in fairness they may have a potential utility as a replacement for transoceanic flights if the tubes can be submersed in the ocean and float at a specific depth, but conceptually they are an unfinished project. If you completely think through "capsules in a tube" you get the "turbo lift" from startrek that can go vertically and horizontally and move people in 3 ortholinear dimensions.
Every technology starts out as a hypothetical, including primitive technology based on rocks and sticks.
More status quo policing. You are just saying the world as it is today is the only possible world.
>>556705>More status quo policing. You are just saying the world as it is today is the only possible world.
And therefore daydreams that goes VGH, what could have been "An Antarctic reactor that runs on Savitri Devi's farts, designed by Hanns Hörbiger and supervised by Miguel Serrano (that didn't really die in 2009)" are useful.
Also Elon Musk.
But seriously, why didn't the USSR do the same reforms as China did in the 80s?
>>556700> linking an image from reddit< on an imageboard
we are hitting faggot levels that shouldn't be possible
>>556746>cucking for an anarchoprimitivist
Here's an image for Docktor (You)!
In B4 OH NO, NOT MY CRIPPLERINOS!
what do you guys listen to cope, with the dread of knowing its only a matter of time before we entire the age of horrors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6gIFHbGwg
The deconstruction of untouched nature cannot be undone. The idea of human beings controlling and distorting nature on a whim disturbs me greatly. People will damage the environment for short term gain and it is only the willfull opposition of ecological destruction that prevents it from happening.
Should we break down the wonders of the ancient world or turn them into an amusement park? Pretty spooked to preserve them right? Or history for that matter, what use is it to us? If we are only in pursuit of human pleasure and resources then why should anything be taboo? afor that matter why do we not simply stimulate our reward centres directly 24/7 with electrical signals. Why live in the "real"(spooky) world at all? Let's all live in vats hooked up to vr.
Rafiq is full of shit and so are you.
>>540540>ice expands when it freezes, meaning it "contracts" when melted
until it gets above 4°C after which it starts expanding again
this is high school physics anon. I can only assume you live somewhere where the temperature does not go below freezing>>540818
based and cock pilled>>540825
BECCS doesn't require any research. it's mostly just building a shitton of syngas plants. the negative effects of BECCS are mostly non-issues in planning
>>570718> The idea of human beings controlling and distorting nature on a whim disturbs me greatly.
Well that's your personal pathology. You want to have control over what people are doing and therefore you are drawn to environmentalism because that offers you an excuse to tell other people what they aren't allowed to do.
There is no problem with humans interfering in nature, people have done that since forever, it's the most natural thing to modify your environment for your benefit. The only problem we currently have is that a capitalist class is modifying the environment to our detriment. It's the wrong kind of modification.
Socialism doesn't oppose advancing the means of production, because advanced means of production is part of the conditions necessary for socialism to happen.
Our argument is that capitalism is doing too little, that it is holding back the advances that make human interference with nature have beneficial effects, that it is hindering human control over nature in a way that allows us to be stewards of the environment, rather than wreckers.
>>570718>The idea of human beings controlling and distorting nature on a whim disturbs me greatly.
It's something that you have to practically be a literal child to believe in. What's disturbing is the people who think it's possible now or in the foreseeable future and who may act on that delusion and fuck us over because they meddled with systems they did not understand and undermined the material basis of everyone's existence.>>570777>Our argument is that capitalism is doing too little, that it is holding back the advances that make human interference with nature have beneficial effects, that it is hindering human control over nature in a way that allows us to be stewards of the environment, rather than wreckers.
That is absolutely not Rafiq's argument. Obviously you haven't read it. He wants to subjugate nature, not act as its steward. Someone he's arguing with even makes a similar point and Rafiq rants the other side. Don't fucking post something you haven't read and then wildly misrepresent the argument.
You are such a dihonest little creep.>you disagree with me or find my behavior disgusting so it must be your pathology<You want to have control over what people are doing and therefore you are drawn to communism because that offers you an excuse to tell other people what they aren't allowed to do. >people have done that since forever, it's the most natural thing to modify your environment for your benefit.
So if I want to build a house anywhere in the world I can go out and clear an acre of land for it? Rape is pretty natural too right? Does that mean it's healthy or should be allowed?>allows us to be stewards of the environment, rather than wreckers
So you are just being edgy for attention then? Not surprising if you're the guy in particular that is obsessed with this.
In all honesty there’s nothing wrong with what porky is doing, he gives us products to consoom and chemicals to put to make our brains feel happy happy
If we just paved over every forest and killed all the phytoplankton in the oceans we’ll use the red commie rituals to conjure oxygen and also we don’t need a stable climate for agriculture and also since we evolved in Africa if most of the world warped into the Sahara we’d be G2G>t. Average retard lefty/pol/er
This Rafiq dude seems to have serious anger issues, he pretends to be a good materialist but he's quite spooked. For the moment I'll settle with the "grassroots fetishists" who make my life better and delay the catastrophe by struggling against local shitty projects and let the armchair communists prepare the global top to down alternate path of development on their forums.
Why should I care about the words of some worthless forum poster?
I’d much rather have his skull adorning my living room wall than read his verbal excrement
This go go go unrestricted positive feedback loop attitude is insanely unhealthy and serving the worst aspects of human impulse. It needs to be torn apart in the process of building socialism
>>570782>That is absolutely not Rafiq's argument.
I'm only speaking for my self, I told you my opinion, that's it, what's going on ?>>570785
Communism is about empowering the proletariat. >Building a house is totally like raping nature man.
Even anarcho primitives would be tempted to put you against a naturally occurring rock wall and stab you with a spear for that level of retardation. You live in a house, right ? are you raping nature right now ?
>So you are just being edgy for attention then? Not surprising if you're the guy in particular that is obsessed with this.
There are multiple other anons in this thread.
Anyway do you object to humans controlling and modifying nature in a socialist society or not ?
Like for example: what would be your position on genetically modding a plant for the purpose of it growing on buildings and acting like a regenerative surface, so that we have to do less building maintenance.
>>570839>>Building a house is totally like raping nature man.
Is that what you are replying to or are you being dishonest?>Anyway do you object to humans controlling and modifying nature in a socialist society or not?
No not as an absolute but that is completely different from modifying nature in any way that is deemed "beneficial to the proletariat">what would be your position on genetically modding a plant for the purpose of it growing on buildings and acting like a regenerative surface, so that we have to do less building maintenance.
I would very easily support that initiative, I am not anti-gmo
If you support the revolutionizing of bio-tech to rebuild our infrastructure and society such that the contradiction between civilization and nature is resolved I'm all for it
If you support the final extinction of this planet's ecology on the basis of some warped anglo productivism that the now firmly capitalist Russians and Chinese tried to emulate you should be stopped and I would give up my own life to stop fuckers like you
>>570839>I'm only speaking for my self, I told you my opinion, that's it, what's going on ?
replied to a post >>570718
that was arguing against Rafiq's take >>570701
which in context makes it look like you're defending Rafiq's argument. That anon wasn't arguing with you
. They were arguing with Rafiq. If your position is different why did you feel like you needed to defend it?
>>570844>Is that what you are replying to or are you being dishonest?
It's the maximum implication that can be drawn from your arguments. I'm asking the question how can what you are saying be interpreted by somebody with the intention of using ecological argumentation for the sake of justifying austerity. And it turns out that what you say can be interpreted in such a way that you oppose people getting a house on ecological grounds. This is not dishonesty or inability to grasp your intentions, it's an adaptation to how arguments "trickel down" through the political sphere, where the neoliberal cooptation machine tries to attach it's ideological goals and current policy to what normal people are saying. So I'm replying to you on the basis what your line of argumentation is going to turn into in the neoliberal context.
We seem to be in agreement on the rest.>>570847>If you support the revolutionizing of bio-tech to rebuild our infrastructure and society such that the contradiction between civilization and nature is resolved I'm all for it
Yes to bio tech and all the other tech as well, within the context of maintaining and improving a habitable biosphere.>If you support the final extinction of this planet's ecology on the basis of some warped anglo productivism that the now firmly capitalist Russians and Chinese tried to emulate you should be stopped and I would give up my own life to stop fuckers like you
I want full speed ahead on productivity advancing, but i don't see why that would require ecocide. I think that our current technology is causing ecological destruction because it's too primitive.
If we go by an analogy that industrialism is eating the ecology like an invasive predator driving a food species into extinction, my view is that the ecology lacks the necessary energy density to be worth it.
The fossil fuel industry is basically an energetic grave robber of prehistoric ecology.
For example a nuclear power plant which i consider less primitive than fossil fuel because it's got energy that is more densely packed. You see that the step up that is nuclear power also means that it is no longer eating parts of the ecology (living matter) but instead it is eating radioactive rocks (dead matter). So if you make more advanced productive forces they can fundamentally change their characteristics. The machine that is eating the dead rocks will power the system that keeps humans alive which are made out of living matter. This means that on a trophic level more advanced machines will go below the ecology and basically the interactions will become negligible. Advancing productivity also means making the machines larger, and for that to go on we will eventually have to move them offworld, because gravity will become an issue for scaling up primary industries, and that will reduce the ecological impact to zero.
What you call nature is a vast array of self replicating matter. It's a machine that is producing the material conditions for humans to exist. But it's also able to do something that our current machines can't do: change matter in large volume at the molecular level. All the living things you see already are the tiny science fiction robots and they already invaded the earth 4 billion years ago. When "nature" is destroyed we are burning countless libraries filled with blue prints for microscopic robots that have applications we can't even imagine yet.
The contradiction between civilization and nature gets resolved when we learn how it works and i mean exactly at the most fundamental level so the mystification of living things goes away.
Capitalism is very primitive it just sees these living machines as something that can either be strip mined to become a commodity or something that is in the way. Once we leave behind that very dated mode of production we can change our interactions with nature. It will become civilization technology and the lines between natural and synthetic will blur. The living matter that we put close to humans will be very artificial and controlled, while the living matter further away will remain as evolving self adapting systems as a way to keep the administrative overhead at a minimum.
You imagine "productivism" to be stuck in the 19 century for ever. And it is very funny that you accuse Russians and Chinese to be like the "Anglo Saxon tribe" which is a way of thinking that is equally outdated. You just looked at what techno industrial society did at a certain historic time and made that into an eternal essence. In reality this was but a brief phase that is not representative of what this trend will do in the long run.>>570874
>>570701>green energy isn't really real because of my made up definition that means if you didn't pull the energy out of your ass, that means it isn't really green (what is different ecological impacts for different power inputs,) >caring about nature is superstitious despite the real world ill effects on humans that come from disrupting ecological process that are beneficial to humanity like oxygen production, fisheries, clean water, a stable climate, these concerns are just superstition because >we could destroy all of nature except for the processes we need to survive even though even the bare minimum of ecological preservation needed for human health is would require more placing more importance on nature than any capitalist (or socialist) society has ever placed >we can mimic ecological process that we don't understand are in larger scale that anything humanity has ever done
wtf I thought rafiq was smart, leftypol lied to me
>>571074> What you call nature is a vast array of self replicating matter. It's a machine that is producing the material conditions for humans to exist. But it's also able to do something that our current machines can't do: change matter in large volume at the molecular level. All the living things you see already are the tiny science fiction robots and they already invaded the earth 4 billion years ago. When "nature" is destroyed we are burning countless libraries filled with blue prints for microscopic robots that have applications we can't even imagine yet.
I think you’re mostly correct, but I want to single this out as a “problematic” view heavily promoted in the modern world. You are severely underestimating nature and severely overestimating humanity. Nature existed before us, it exists independently of us. While what we’ve accomplished far exceeds what any other animal
has done, those same “accomplishments” (subjective) pales in comparison to the power and majesty of Nature itself. Like you’re talking about naturally occurring organisms and natural phenomena as “machines”, in fact machines are human inventions and our attempt to emulate a fraction of the power in nature. Part of why ecocide is suicide is because we are merely a part of nature that, as a species, are increasingly deluded into thinking we are gods over nature. So far we can’t match a fraction of a percent of the power output out Sun puts out in a single day, if not a single hour. So far we’ve not created anything as complex as a single cell, which can simultaneously acquire food, respire, reproduce, and evolve over time, all self-directed, despite being extremely simple organisms that do not even think. This is part of my problem with modern thought, we’re so amazed by the useful things we’ve made for ourselves that we’ve begun to view nature through the lens of the things we’ve produced, when nature is just so much greater than anything we’ve produced. Ffs natural processes created US, yet we can’t produce something as complex or intelligent as a damned cockroach. Humans massively overestimate ourselves, I honestly think mastering biotech and creating sustainable, self-replicating, effectively living and autonomous tech will be the greatest technological leap in all of human history. You are correct that what we have actually is rather primitive, there’s a reason no scientist is deluded enough to call us even a Type 1 civilization.
I think you are selling humanity a little short, much has been achieved in very little time, and we have invented tricks that exist nowhere else in nature. Like we have send living matter outside of the biosphere and brought it back alive, which is the first step of making places where life can't yet exist suitable for life. We also have managed to gain energy from direct matter to energy reactions by using nuclear physics. The rest of nature is still stuck on chemical energy. So while our tech is very simplistic in comparison it is not entirely unimpressive.
we can create a small scale life support system (that requires many inputs outside of its a bubble and can't be sustained with out external labour and resources), we have no experience in creating or mimicking the planetary scale life support systems we are wantonly destroying.
compare to the planetary life support sy
So humans tossed some objects with oxygen and internalized pressure into space
Earth started as an accumulating dust ball that became a molten mass and now is home to trillions of lifeforms and hundreds of complex and interacting ecosystems where life has colonized almost every inch of its surface
See what I mean about underestimating nature itself? If we destroyed ourselves the Earth would continue existing and in a few million years a new global biosphere will have emerged while we will be forgotten, I want you to really ponder and understand that fact
Or how our Sun came be over 93 million miles away and yet we feel its heat on our face on a sunny day
We are nothing compared to the process of the universe or even our very own Earth
yeah but we have only been at it for a few decades, with capitalism trying to hold us down no less. This strange submissiveness to nature is not warranted.
This is almost like a discussion about a cultural hierarchy. The proletariat does not bow to gods, not the old gods of antiquity, not the gods of the middle ages, and it won't bow to any new age nature gods either.
Its not submission to a god or to a social order it is recognizing that it is humanities interest to take care of and help restore nature because we depend on it, this will be until your magic ecosystem service black box is pulled by a protologist from rafiqs ass
Nature isn’t a god dumb dumb, it’s just something you severely underestimate and disregarding it so flippantly is retarded as fuck, pretending like humanity has ever accomplished anything comparable to the world we exist in is outright delusional. Nighur, we are merely seeking to EMULATE a fraction of what occurs naturally, really comprehend that. It’s not about “bowing your head”, it’s about humility and understanding instead of being some arrogant anglo fuckwad.
could we also attach laser beams to them?
stop putting "humanity" on one side and "nature" on the other
this is the very type of thinking that's at the root of our unsustainable way of life
There is objectively a difference between humanity and nature you utter retard, the fact being that the natural world existed before, outside of, and likely will exist after us
Just like there’s a difference between tigers and everything else in nature, how much of a moron are you?
kinda fed up with this meme.
We already have "regular" fast breeders ready for commercial use. France lost Phénix (250MW) and Superphénix (1200MW) because of public opinion but the BN-800 SFR is working fine in Russia.
Basically turn every power station in the country into a SFR and you'll have literally a 1000 years of energy at current consumption ONLY burning the spent nuclear fuel already stored on US soil.
I'm not against thorium but my point is : we don't need to wait for thorium to be ready. We could begin deployment of fast breeders right now.
this. ignore thorium threads. ignore thorium posts. do not reply to thorium posters.
>>573497>difference between humanity and nature>difference between tigers and everything else in nature
humanity is part of nature just like tigers are
imagine calling yourself an anprim and not getting this
The Glasgow summit, climate change, and the case for socialism>The past two years have seen a series of escalating climate disasters in all regions of the globe, including massive wildfires from the Australian bush to the American west, devastating flooding in Europe, Asia and the Americas, and deadly heatwaves the world over.https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/30/pers-o30.html
Unfortunately the whole net zero concept is a false prophet. Net Zero does not mean zero. It means you can offset you emissions by using some type of accounting. As in we use more here but they use less there.
Here's the thing. We are way past the allotment if how much carbon we can out into the air. Plus we have not calculated methane.
Also, if the Amazon is deforested to a certain point it starts to kill itself. With the loss of it we add another 1c to the temperature.
Also, that 1.5c estimate is an average. That is because the temp is lower over water. The actual temp over land will be higher. As in 5-7c above normal.
This will lead to crop failure. Also the weather doesn't change in a normal way. Longer rain or dry spells. Which leads to mass crop failure. Add to this the development of farmland for city sprawl.
This is like an extremely serious situation here.
interesting, I'm a bit confused though, why do you think that spend fuel fast breeders are in competition with thorium ? Everybody reasonable wants those SPRs because they reduce nuclear waste while making that sweet electric juice, regardless what other types of power generations is the preferred one. >>573653
Humans are part of nature because humans are animated matter, but humans are also unlike the rest of nature because humans can do what no other part of nature can do. We can store information externally from our brains and genes, which means we can evolve faster than what is possible with evolution changing genes. We can not only use tools , we can also improve them, and maintain that advancement for more than one lifespan.
>>571074>I want full speed ahead on productivity advancing
it has never been a productivity problem. it has been a distribution problem. capitalism is produces too much and funnels its resources into parasites and garbage>>573421>stop putting "humanity" on one side and "nature" on the other
i can't understand what you were aiming at in saying this. whether or not man is ontologically separable from nature has little do with whether or not we are dependent on complex systems we have little control over and have operated on vaster spatio-temporal scales than human civilization. that's the point. naked monkeys are fucking with shit they do not understand. they think they are like the sky ape now because they have a few toys. hopefully they dont ruin their tribes before the novace
>>570718>afor that matter why do we not simply stimulate our reward centres directly 24/7 with electrical signals. Why live in the "real"(spooky) world at all? Let's all live in vats hooked up to vr.
sounds like paradise tbh
we are going to crash civilization, aren't we?
we got lucky in Cuba in 1962. we got lucky when Stanislav Petrov recognized the computer error, we are out of luck, our ruling class prefers to end the world tomorrow than to give a little up today
>>540440>I've read articles that state that our proven uranium reserves amount to little more than five years worth at 100% nuclear
Sorry if this already got answered ITT, but those estimates are recoverable reserves at current prices for uranium. Since the fuel makes up such a tiny fraction of the cost of the reactor, it has room to rise quite significantly before it has any significant effects on the price of electricity generated from reactors. Raise the price and those recoverable reserves increase quite dramatically.
Fuel prices for nuclear reactors are going to go down on a per kwh of electricity basis because the newer models use more than just a few percent of the energy contained in the fuel. Also more radioactive by-products will be able to have secondary uses after their time in the reactor and that too will lower costs.
In the end you're not gonna spend the equivalent of the world GDP to go 100% nuclear, it makes more sense put those 100T in fusion.
COP26 is a Malthusian depopulation conference.
>>574891>In the end you're not gonna spend the equivalent of the world GDP to go 100% nuclear, it makes more sense put those 100T in fusion.
Who says fusion and fission are mutually exclusive ?
"But what if terrorists break into the breeder reactor and operate it for 20 years to refine kilos of plutonium, then get enough precision manufacturing equipment to make a nuclear bomb?" he asked, as the oil pipeline he sat on sprung its third leak
money is isn't real therefore we shouldn't care about it, what matters how many of the uranium the reserves have energy return on investment above 10x>>574893
we don't have infinite resources therefore Malthus was right, the only flaw is that the wastefulness and consumption of a population is what makes truly destructive instead of just its numbers
fusion isn't real, until we have a viable reactor that has a positive energy return on investment, fusion isn't even worth discussing other than continuing research and keeping our fingers crossed (I really hope it happens)
Why do some people still act that there is other way out of this than red revolution?
Of course SFRs are not in competition with thorium MSRs because thorium MSRs just haven't reached ful scale yet.
To my knowledge, the best you can get with thorium at the moment are the 2MWt chinese reactors.
any second now boys
Can thorium reactors burn up waste from spend feul rods like SPRs ?
i don' know whar SPRs are.
But yeah, MSRs can use spent fuel from regular PWR plants.
>>575781>i don' know whar SPRs are.
Lol it's a typo, i meant to type SFR>But yeah, MSRs can use spent fuel from regular PWR plants.
I guess it's going to be decided by technical detail like at what rate can molten salt thorium reactors burn spend fuel rods compared to SFRs
COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report
<An adviser to the Saudi oil ministry demands "phrases like 'the need for urgent and accelerated mitigation actions at all scales…' should be eliminated from the report".
<One senior Australian government official rejects the conclusion that closing coal-fired power plants is necessary, even though ending the use of coal is one of the stated objectives the COP26 conference.
<Saudi Arabia is the one of the largest oil producers in the world and Australia is a major coal exporter.
<A senior scientist from India's Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, which has strong links to the Indian government, warns coal is likely to remain the mainstay of energy production for decades because of what they describe as the "tremendous challenges" of providing affordable electricity. India is already the world's second biggest consumer of coal.
<A number of countries argue in favour of emerging and currently expensive technologies designed to capture and permanently store carbon dioxide underground. Saudi Arabia, China, Australia and Japan - all big producers or users of fossil fuels - as well as the organisation of oil producing nations, Opec, all support carbon capture and storage (CCS).
<It is claimed these CCS technologies could dramatically cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants and some industrial sectors.
<Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, requests the UN scientists delete their conclusion that "the focus of decarbonisation efforts in the energy systems sector needs to be on rapidly shifting to zero-carbon sources and actively phasing out fossil fuels".
<Argentina, Norway and Opec also take issue with the statement. Norway argues the UN scientists should allow the possibility of CCS as a potential tool for reducing emissions from fossil fuels.
<The draft report accepts CCS could play a role in the future but says there are uncertainties about its feasibility. It says "there is large ambiguity in the extent to which fossil fuels with CCS would be compatible with the 2C and 1.5C targets" as set out by the Paris Agreement.
<Australia asks IPCC scientists to delete a reference to analysis of the role played by fossil fuel lobbyists in watering down action on climate in Australia and the US. Opec also asks the IPCC to "delete 'lobby activism, protecting rent extracting business models, prevent political action'."
<The IPCC says comments from governments are central to its scientific review process and that its authors have no obligation to incorporate them into the reports.
<"Our processes are designed to guard against lobbying - from all quarters"https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445
The nuclear industry just seems to be really bad at playing these kinds of political games.
Why is that. ?
>>577768>It is claimed these CCS technologies could dramatically cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants and some industrial sectors.
CCS is a scam that will never, ever work, and CCUS (what these countries are actually pushing for) literally outputs more carbon into the atmosphere, than just doing nothing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
Very quick, well done video on how Carbon Capture is a complete load of shit.
Also the terrifying thing is all models of staying below 2C rely on it suddenly magically working.
>>573778>Unfortunately the whole net zero concept is a false prophet. Net Zero does not mean zero. It means you can offset you emissions by using some type of accounting. As in we use more here but they use less there.
Yep, "Net" is a scam as well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyKmqEdgR4
Same guys as the CCS video I posted above, goes into how Net is a load of shit. Don't cut down a forest that you were never going to cut down? NET ZERO!
Now make a gif where the ice cubes are floating in an entire ocean instead of on 10mL of water.
How fucked are you /leftypol/?
In a 2.4°C world, I, as a *-year-old from *, will experience
🔥 wildfires 1.6×,
🌊 river floods 1.3×,
🍂 crop failures 1.1×,
🌀 tropical cyclones 2.3×,
🏜️ droughts 4.5× and
☀️ heatwaves 12.2×
more than without climate change.https://myclimatefuture.info/
>>577786>>577787Net Zero Policies Are 'Emperor's New Clothes,' Academics Warnhttps://phys.org/news/2021-10-net-policies-emperor-academics.html
<Net zero targets are a "fantasy" that often just protect "business as usual," a leading expert in environment and sustainability has said.
<Dr. James Dyke, Assistant Director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, criticized net zero targets as a "great idea in principle" but which "help perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminish the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now."
<The excoriating critique is published in "Negotiating Climate Change in Crisis," a new essay volume on the climate crisis featuring prominent social scientists and humanities scholars from around the world, co-edited by the University of Exeter Business School's Professor Steffen Boehm.https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/1488
<In a chapter titled "Why net zero policies do more harm than good," Dr. Dyke and his co-authors Dr. Wolfgang Knorr and Professor Sir Robert Watson argue that the discourse around net zero hinges on deploying potentially dangerous 'fairytale' technologies such as carbon capture.
<Their essay looks at how projecting a future with more trees was first used by the US to "in effect offset the burning of coal, oil and gas now."
<They go on to argue that the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degree Celsius emissions target allowed "untested carbon dioxide removal mechanisms" to be included in climate-economic modeling.
<They describe Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) as a "savior technology," saying "the mere prospect of carbon capture and storage gave policy makers a way out of making the much-needed immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions."
<The authors say: "It has been estimated that BECCS could demand an area of land approaching twice the size of India. How will that be achieved at the same time as feeding eight to 10 billion people around the middle of the century, or without destroying native vegetation and biodiversity?
<"The argument appears to be that net zero technologies will work because they have to work," they add. "But beyond fine words and glossy brochures there is nothing there. The emperor has no clothes."
<"Despite more than 30 years of high-level, global talks on climate change, we are still seeing emissions rising dramatically around the world. Whatever we have done on this planet in terms of climate mitigation over the past thirty plus years has not worked. We are asking what has gone wrong and what now needs to be done, and I hope this book will help us move more radically and urgently in the direction needed."
<Negotiating Climate Change in Crisis," published by Open Book Publishers as an Open Access book and available as a free download, is intended to fill a gap in a climate change debate dominated by environmental, climate and natural science perspectives.
Nice data mining.
I as a 69 year old from Deez, Nuts, will experience heat waves that are no longer heat waves, just permanent heat.
Turns out biofuels are not really interesting because they cost a lot of energy to produce, sometimes more than they eventually give backhttps://youtu.be/OpEB6hCpIGM
Oh I remember watching that but forgot about it.
Bummer, seems there is no way out for automotive world. If ethanol could not caught on then algae foul or electrofuels don't have a chance. EVs suck and Hydrogen is just a meme.
It's damn hopeless.
yeah biofuels are a meme, I don't really see the conventional plants being used on a large scale, maybe if we find a seaweed that can be grown as biofuel that way it wont have compete with land for food like others, I think the in order of meme to non meme its
jototropha and other that grow in areas where no food crops grow
hydrogen vehicles for personal automobiles
battery electric cars
replacing personal automobiles with bikes electric bikes, trolley buses, electric trains and having trucks run on hydrogen or ammonia >>577768
at least the IPCC is exposing these people instead of doing what they want >>577780
they aren't really many independent nuclear companies they are all just side projects of bigger companies
But if previews biofules didn't caught on then why would algae fuels caught on? The issue here is how inefficient the free market
is when it comes to distribute and adopt new technologies.
Algae fuels grow in the ocean and don't compete with agriculture. It's also less energy intensive to move about the industrial harvester boats compared to trucking around harvested land plants. So it might actually create net energy. it would also filter pollution out of the ocean. An Algae fuel industry has a good chance to fill a niche for edge cases where combusting fuel is unavoidable.
I don't feel this tool is granular enough to capture specific details. I live in a big continent with widely diverging regional climates. Where I live there is hardly ever any droughts locally, so 7.5 more droughts sounds scarier than it is. Although I fully recognize that I don't live in a bubble and if those droughts are happening where my food is being grown, I'm in the shit. Although the heatwaves will be a nightmare. >>577816
As if the few data points that site ask for is of any value.
Top climate scientists are skeptical that nations will rein in global warming
A Nature survey reveals that many authors of the latest IPCC climate-science report are anxious about the future and expect to see catastrophic changes in their lifetimes.
As a leading climate scientist, Paola Arias doesn’t need to look far to see the world changing. Shifting rain patterns threaten water supplies in her home city of Medellín, Colombia, while rising sea levels endanger the country’s coastline. She isn’t confident that international leaders will slow global warming or that her own government can handle the expected fallout, such as mass migrations and civil unrest over rising inequality. With such an uncertain future, she thought hard several years ago about whether to have children.
“My answer was no,” says Arias, a researcher at the University of Antioquia in Medellín, who was one of the 234 scientists who wrote a climate-science report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in August (see go.nature.com/3pjupro). That assessment, which makes clear that the world is running out of time to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, will figure prominently in climate negotiations over the next two weeks at the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, UK.
Many other leading climate researchers share Arias’s concerns about the future. Nature conducted an anonymous survey of the 233 living IPCC authors last month and received responses from 92 scientists — about 40% of the group. Their answers suggest strong scepticism that governments will markedly slow the pace of global warming, despite political promises made by international leaders as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
Six in ten of the respondents said that they expect the world to warm by at least 3 °C by the end of the century, compared with what conditions were like before the Industrial Revolution. That is far beyond the Paris agreement’s goal to limit warming to 1.5–2 °C.https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02990-whttps://archive.today/w2kiP
there was some climate stuff in the US infrastructure bill just passed but idk how significant it is, barely skimmed it yet
>breeder reactors (is every country having plutonium a good thing?) and seawater uranium extraction either have big problems
Where is problem?
Don't the Americans always say an armed society is a polite society?
if only it got any enough funding to be at scale
https://oceana.org/reports/restoration-seagrass-meadows>Although seagrasses account for less than 0.2% of the world’s oceans, they sequester approximately 10% of the carbon buried in ocean sediment annually (27.4Tg of carbon per year)*. Per hectare, seagrasses can store up to twice as much carbon than terrestrial forests*. The global seagrass ecosystem organic carbon pool could be as high as 19.9 billion metric tons*.
the fact that the COP26 bans gasoline cars but not private jets only shows how phony it is.
where does it say that? are saying cop or climate change is fake?
The fact that the single biggest delegation from COPE26 was fucking fossil fuel industry representatives shows how phony it is
They had fucking Obama get on stage and shit from his mouth ffs
this is actually fucking retarded.
legitimately, genuinely retarded.
at this point I will surprised when this guy says something smart>>593145
we are doomed right?
I just saw in the new that the treaty that will come out of the COP will ban gasoline cars.
I don't have further details, I just want to be outraged.>>593145
We should have no mercy with these people.
by when? aside from the failure to ban private jets what's wrong with phasing out gasoline? I would phase out cars in general if people would go for it
>>593201> what's wrong with phasing out gasoline?
Because it’s like “fixing” a shotgun wound to the face with a bandaid
your right but the alternative is apathetically do nothing while our species and the biosphere dies, at least the conference exceeded my low expectations (we are still going to die lol)
The alternative is the proletariat somehow pulling its head of its ass and sticking every last porky’s head on a pike
But our class is fucking retarded so we’re probably doomed yea
2035 or 2040, a ridiculous date going by what governments have done before to meet these treaties.
They want common people to do the heavy lifting in this manner, sacrificing all the commodities they used to bribe them away from socialism, developed countries will have black out under the excuse of saving energy.
the shittiest take
To be fair saying that "humans" are to blame for climate change, that's more than a little unfair, most people have little influence over CO2 emissions. The big capitalists are the ones that made the decisions that led to climate change. They get the blame for it.
And people are to blame for letting them get away with that. If we weren't so fucking retarded as a race, we would already have communism.
Now there is almost a zero chance that we even have a revolution before our civilization collapses. The sad part is that 99% probability that we aren't gonna learn any lessons from this and repeat every fucking mistake several times again.
>>594811>people are to blame
No, the system is capitalism, therefor the capitalists are to blame>Dooom
No, fuck you, capitalism will collapse, but society will go on.
>>594817>No, the system is capitalism, therefor the capitalists are to blame
And what is the reason that we still have that system, pray tell? Is it not because people are frankly dumb and lazy and not gonna do anything unless they are put in hellish conditions like Russian Empire was in the end? Not because people are easily bought off with some pretty baubles (even is some congolese child slave needs to make them)? We have exactly the system that we deserve.
>No, fuck you, capitalism will collapse, but society will go on.
Humanity will, but the climate change will bring the destruction of the majority of industrial chains that our modern society relies on for existance. We will have to go way back technolgically and socially. Think Bronze Age Collapse.
Also, capitalists as much slaves to the system as proles are. Might as well absolve them of their guilt if you are going in that direction
I think it's a false flag it's pushing 2 mainstream talking points:
-the masses are to blame for the problems of the world
-capitalism realism (imagine the end of capitalism as the end of the world)
Which serves to divert away blame from the ruling class and suffocate the imagination that a better world is possible.
Kek, i think you retarded. I at least don't make capitalism to be something like curse of an evil god that was put on our society and we have no agency in it or that aliens landed on a planet and brought us capitalism (i do love They live tho). We didn't overthrew current regime therefore we are to blame for it. We CAN do it, but we don't for many reasons.
>capitalism realism (imagine the end of capitalism as the end of the world)
That's not what that term means and that's not what i was talking about. I guess you are some sort of shitlib or anarkiddie (not much of a difference tbh) that doesn't understand how historical materialism works. Productive forces dictate what relations of production are possible and therefore what social structures are possible. Unless socialist revolutions happen in a next three decades (chances are pretty small) we gonna experience destruction of our trade routes due to changing sea level and coast lines, mass migrations due to many places becoming uninhabitable and major disruption of production chains probably to the point of complete collapse. We need a planned economy to deal with such major changes so we need a socialist revolution on a significant amount of territory and time for that revolution to establish functioning planned economy otherwise we gonna have a major setback. And it's not like it's the first one, i already metioned bronze age collapse. This one is gonna be bigger of course. It is not the end of history, more like a loop back. We are not gonna live in caves, but most likely we gonna go to pre industrial societies.
If you are too retarded to understand something so simple and gonna continue to twist my words, you can fuck off.
>>594862>lib complaining about the result of their imperial wars
Haha burgers will never fail to amaze me
Carbon Dioxide is good for plants.
CO2 also is not a really much of a green house gas. It is given the lowest level of warming impact of 1. Nitogen oxide is over 265. Methane is over 28.
You can test this by blowing up a balloon in the sun with pure CO2 and another balloon with natural air. The temperature difference after sitting in the sun is nothing even with 100% CO2. C02 levels in the atmosphere are 400 / 1,000,000, so anyone being honest would question why CO2 is being targeted if not for the taxable revenue.
your stupid ass fucking graph implies that we are on way to reaching the 180ppm lower limits of photosynthesis threshold, the ppm in the atmosphere is the 400s and rising, you are ignorant for suggesting thats a probability >Carbon Dioxide is good for plants.https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/19/616098095/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients
for once in this thread you are right, yet its still more bad news than good, what little crops survives the nightmarish weather patterns climate change creates, will be less nutritious. (bad news for everything that eats plants )
its funny that retards like you always act like we are in any danger of losing the c02 we need from plants, when we are in fact closer to reaching the other limits of photosynthesis, the thermal limits, most plants can't photosynthesize above 95f 35c. (every day above 35c hurts corn crops), and none of them can above 104f, this is the temperature where the enzymes required denature (same temperature to denatured the enzymes in the human brain, I hope this never happens to you, you clearly have so little to lose).
as this place heats up there will be longer and longer periods of time when plants can't photosynthesize https://phys.org/news/2021-04-terrestrial-carbon-declines-future.html
so c02 being good for plants isn't a good argument
which brings me back to my earlier question :
do you enjoy being retarded?>>595265>he doesn't know about the c02 water vapor feed back
Water vapor makes clouds and clouds reflect the sun.
CO2 has a multiplying factor of 1. Can you even math bro?4
The problem with "CO2 is good for planet anyway" is that "CO2 starvation" would probably never happen, since last time there was big ice age (Late Paleozoic) the CO2 concetration didnt drop bellow pre-industrial levels of ppm, which was on average 250-300 ppm back then (pic1 rel.).
Even the study that plotted the original graph didnt even discuss the posibility of CO2 levels dropping to 150 ppm in the hypotetical emisionless future scenario.
(OG study: http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
So I have some reason to believe that G. Wrightstone just made an empty assumption based on actual data to fit his narative.
And Im not going to touch topic of positive CO2 effects on plants, but Im going with the position that it CO2 is good for the plant life.
But, the problem isnt the amount of CO2 at the time, the problem is how quickly is the CO2 released.
Last time the 800+ ppm was present in the atmosphere was 50 million years ago in Eocene. The CO2 levels change very slowly along side temperature (in human timescales atleast) but we are releasing carbon WAY to fast (pic2 rel.).
Basically theres nothing wrong with slowly adding water into hot oil, problem is when you pour it all at once.
Nitrogen Oxide is 200-300 times more GWP value, and Methane is 20-30 times. So the effective GWP would leave Co2 as a small fraction of the "problem".
Saying you don't understand something like clouds reflective qualities without showing your understanding is kind of low autism score. Explain your argument with science instead of insults, or just admit you are a smooth brain blindly trusting the dogma.
surface water vapour ≠ clouds
Yes, clouds are reflective, but they are useless when they dont form quickly enough.
So this excess water vapour generated by extra heating has much more time to trap the solar energy, before it even turns into clouds.
Also some clouds trap in more energy (just like greenhouse) and in line with projections, those clouds will be far more common in the future.
Thats why some weird solutions, like releasing more basic aerosoles into the air to stimulate thick cloud cover formation, isnt that weird for me.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL3AZGw9xZM
All that says is that we are definitely totally fucked, not that carbon isn’t a threat you fucking jackass
Honestly the aggressive retardation of the people here almost makes me happy to think how people like you will die like the rest of us
Shittiest strawman Ive ever seen.
Not even bothering to show detailed current trend. Showing a larger picture over large period of time and then zooming in to produce a low res shitty jpeg is extremely dishonest at best
'>greenland gisp2 ice corehttps://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
Read before you post garbage, faggot
Nighas who make arguments consisting of shitty /pol/ infographs should be shot in the face and impaled, Transylvania style, in a public square
On them should read a sign:
>Here lay a dumbass
The minonian and medieval climate optimum were fucking regional you uyghur this is world wide
>points to warming periods that all lead to massive global migrations and civilizational collapse
<See! Totally not a problem
The latest data also says the present warming period is at least unprecedented for the past 24,000 years, and is also occurring during an already warm period on Earth, and is accompanied with other destructive and ecocidal forms of pollution, such as plastic pollution, oil spills, methane, imperialist wars, deforestation, etc
the progressives don't even need to vote against it because manchin will still end up doing so anyways
listen to https://ashesashes.org/
for the most comprehensive, leftist and non-doomer analysis of what's coming
It's not "leftists" but the bourgeoisie who stand to benefit from Green Imperialism and malthusian mass killing.
>>597961>non-doomer analysis<Ashes Ashes is a show about systemic issues, cracks in civilization, collapse of the environment, and if we’re unlucky the end of the world.
I dread to think what is doomer then. Not that i disagree with the fact that it is a distinct possibility/
actual prepper/collapse resources, like r/collapse which is depressing disaster circlejerk
AA is more about a catabolic collapse and organizing locally to counter-act its effectshttp://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Catabolic_Collapse
They are wrong then. It's not gonna be long and slow. The issues gonna build up initially in a gradual fashion, but then we hit the limit and everything will collapse very fast due to how interdependent our industrial infrastructure is.
I don't think you're ever going to see real change based on climate change, no matter how bad it gets because we just normalize everything, and something esoteric like Climate Change is the easiest if all to normalize
This is the most low lQ argument possible
Did nobody here like dinosaurs or science or anything real as children?
All but one mass extinction in Earth’s history was primarily caused by climate change, the worst extinction event in history was the most comparable one to what is happening now
“Normalizing” fucking welfare going away isn’t comparable to normalizing a collapse in predictable seasons, the global ecology, most animal populations, and eventually crop yields, states, and the global supply chain
>When your meme is based on an argument you invented in your head to feel smart and dunk on the heckin scientists who never said what you decided they saod
This board literally is nothing but dumb as shit knuckle dragging neanderthals who believe in nothing but dogshit commie memes and literally nothing of substance now, huh?
People are loosing their homes because the oceans are rising but still weirdos from their ivory towers find the way to make money on sheltered and gullible people
I doubt it's gonna end in extinction. As a specie we will survive, we are adaptable enough for that. Just not as a civilization. Or at the very least not as industrial civilization.
Still, i agree that his argument was incredibly retarded.
Don't react, that schizo been posting pasta from his schizo blog for at least a day now in every thread.
The reports were right, idiot. The ice caps have melted to a large degree, lol. Stop promoting this weird schizo blog. >>600576
You're a retard, just so you know. Don't feel too smug about anything in general.
>>600583> As a specie we will survive, we are adaptable enough for that. Just not as a civilization. Or at the very least not as industrial civilization.
Do you have any actual proof or reason to believe humans could survive a mass extinction on the scale of the K-PG Extinction or the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event? You can believe that maybe if you’ve never read a book on Earth’s history, but I am severely doubtful that humanity could somehow survive an event that kills the majority of species on the planet. I doubt mankind can even survive without civilization at this point. People here say “civilization will die but mankind will survive” without considering how
civilization will probably go down, how specialized people are in civilization, and how old forms of pre-modern living will be rendered unworkable due to a collapse in agricultural capacity and collapse in animal populations for hunting.>>600587> You're a retard, just so you know. Don't feel too smug about anything in general.
You’re irrelevant, I’ll always be smug to you monkeys
>>540818>3. cybernetic social planning geared towards minimizing emissions
Or, how about taxing greenhouse gas emissions. And the taxed money is divided equally between all citizens?
It's funny that when Ende Gelände had their - whatever we're gonna call it when they think they are accomplishing anything by running around in white jumpsuits - they didn't know that or didn't care that in the immediate area there was a thing that could remove 90% of the CO2 emissions.
Yes, 10% emissions isn't still 0% emissions. But the point is that because there was no tax, it wasn't profitable for them to even run it.
>>600577>People are loosing their homes because the oceans are rising
Not totally true. Some of the house losses can be chalked up to bad zoning policies.
Do YOU have proof that climate change will bring mass extinction on that scale? No model that i know of predicts anything even close to it.
You are not much different from the schizos who deny climate change.
>>600598> Do YOU have proof that climate change will bring mass extinction on that scale?
All that there is is the fossil record and comparing past climate change trends, mass death, and the associated effects
And most climate change projections do not go past this century to begin with, despite the fact that global warming would continue past this century and likely for thousands of years
One thing that has been predicted in this century would be at least 1/3 of animal species going extinct, which would be a mass extinction at that point anyway> No model that i know of predicts anything even close to it.
What exactly do you think scientists are arguing when they compare what’s occurring now to the big five extinction events? Do you think the only problem is global warming alone? Maybe this argument is circling around the drain endlessly because this anglo board doesn’t have the faintest clue how thoroughly civilization has fucked this planet.
Honestly were it just climate change we would be considerably lucky.
Concrete proofs please, with actual model showed, not your schizo rambling.
I think you may be just a /pol/yp trolling, given the level of your arguments.
>>600606https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825214000750https://earth.stanford.edu/news/what-caused-earths-biggest-mass-extinction#gs.gmrxpu> New research from the University of Washington and Stanford University combines models of ocean conditions and animal metabolism with published lab data and paleoceanographic records to show that the Permian mass extinction in the oceans was caused by global warming that left animals unable to breathe. As temperatures rose and the metabolism of marine animals sped up, the warmer waters could not hold enough oxygen for them to survive> Researchers ran a climate model with Earth's configuration during the Permian, when the land masses were combined in the supercontinent of Pangaea. Before ongoing volcanic eruptions in Siberia created a greenhouse-gas planet, oceans had temperatures and oxygen levels similar to today's. The researchers then raised greenhouse gases in the model to the level required to make tropical ocean temperatures at the surface some 10 degrees Celsius (20 degrees Fahrenheit) higher, matching conditions at that time.> To analyze the effects on marine species, the researchers considered the varying oxygen and temperature sensitivities of 61 modern marine species – including crustaceans, fish, shellfish, corals and sharks – using published lab measurements. The tolerance of modern animals to high temperature and low oxygen is expected to be similar to Permian animals because they had evolved under similar environmental conditions. The researchers then combined the species' traits with the paleoclimate simulations to predict the geography of the extinction. > "At the end of the day, it turned out that the size of the dead zones really doesn't seem to be the key thing for the extinction," Deutsch said. "We often think about anoxia, the complete lack of oxygen, as the condition you need to get widespread uninhabitability. But when you look at the tolerance for low oxygen, most organisms can be excluded from seawater at oxygen levels that aren't anywhere close to anoxic." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25019-2> Climate change is a critical factor affecting biodiversity. However, the quantitative relationship between temperature change and extinction is unclear. Here, we analyze magnitudes and rates of temperature change and extinction rates of marine fossils through the past 450 million years (Myr). The results show that both the rate and magnitude of temperature change are significantly positively correlated with the extinction rate of marine animals. Major mass extinctions in the Phanerozoic can be linked to thresholds in climate change (warming or cooling) that equate to magnitudes >5.2 °C and rates >10 °C/Myr. The significant relationship between temperature change and extinction still exists when we exclude the five largest mass extinctions of the Phanerozoic. Our findings predict that a temperature increase of 5.2 °C above the pre-industrial level at present rates of increase would likely result in mass extinction comparable to that of the major Phanerozoic events, even without other, non-climatic anthropogenic impacts>Figure 1a shows the maximum magnitudes (ΔT) of temperature change within each of the 45 time bins through the past 450 million years. Each time bin is defined by one or several contiguous geologic stages with an average duration of 9.71 Myr. Figure 1b shows the rates (R) of temperature change (Fig. 1b), where R is defined as the maximum magnitude of change within a time bin (i.e., ΔT) divided by the time interval over which ΔT occurs (Supplementary Fig. 1). Figure 1c shows GF extinction rates of marine animals, including the Big Five mass extinctions that occurred at the end-Ordovician, Frasnian-Famennian transition, Permian-Triassic transition, Triassic-Jurassic transition, and Cretaceous-Paleogene transition1. All Big Five extinction events occur within intervals associated with both high magnitudes and high rates of climate change (Fig. 1).> Most major and minor mass extinctions occurred on very short geological timespans rather than across a whole stage/series14. Thus, using the extinction rates calculated for bins that encompass one or several stages could, in theory, bias our analysis of the relationship between climate change and extinction. To test this, we compared the timing of major and minor mass extinctions with the timing and timespan of the largest magnitudes of climate change within the bins containing these extinction events. Within the resolution of the available data, we find that all the Big Five extinctions and five out of six minor extinctions occurred within the interval of the most significant temperature change (Fig. 4). In other words, the timing of extinction is typically contemporaneous with the most significant climate change in a given time bin. The exception to this is the end-Devonian extinction (Fig. 4), where a paucity of temperature measurements in the latest Devonian precludes establishing an unequivocal link between temperature change and extinction. Nevertheless, the temporal coincidence between the latest Devonian glaciation and the end-Devonian extinction suggests a causal link between cooling and extinction15.> Our analysis shows that for all the Big Five mass extinction events, magnitudes of temperature change (ΔT) likely exceeded 5.2 °C (Fig. 3). Specifically, the Permian-Triassic mass extinction occurred during the warming of >10 °C, and at a rate (defined at the million-year timescale) of 102–103 °C/Myr8,11. The end-Ordovician mass extinction occurred during cooling of ~8.4 °C at a rate of 101–102 °C/Myr7,16. The Triassic-Jurassic extinction event occurred during the warming of ~7.4 °C at a rate >10 °C/Myr17, while the Frasnian-Famennian and the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinctions were associated with cooling of ~5.2 °C at a rate of 101–102 °C/Myr18,19,20. As noted above, the precise timescales of extinction during these events are likely to be short11 and are hard to quantify in the geological record. As such, rate estimates such as ours cannot reveal the true pace of temperature changes that biota may have experienced across very short timescales21.> Observations in laboratory experiments and oceanographic surveys show that a significant increase/decrease in temperature can lead to mortality of marine organisms when temperatures reach upper/lower thermal limits21. For example, global warming of ~1 °C has triggered mass bleaching of corals22. Model studies suggest that coral reef demise will be more widespread if the global mean temperature exceeds 2 °C above the pre-industrial level23. Climate change can also lead to diversity decline via changing species interactions24. The inability for species to track their preferred habitat under climate warming would also increase extinction risk25. Additionally, the rate of climate change plays an essential role in habitat availability. Rapid changes in temperature can lead to less time for ecosystems to adapt, and result in significant habitat loss26,27.> There are clear resolution limitations of both the data and the geological record that, coupled with the potential biases noted above, complicate any attempt to apply the climate thresholds for extinction established in this study (defined on million-year timescales) to the rates of climate change and biodiversity loss observed at the present day37. In particular, as noted above, maximum rates of temperature change are underestimated in the fossil record37, and knowledge of the peak rates of warming during Phanerozoic mass extinctions on societally relevant (decadal to millennial) timescales is not readily recoverable from geological data. Nevertheless, global mean temperatures have already risen by ~1 °C since 185038, and the heavy fossil fuel use scenario trajectory of anthropogenic carbon emissions (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, SSP5-8.5) predicts that a temperature increase matching our geologically defined magnitude threshold for mass extinction (i.e. 5.2 °C above the pre-industrial level) would be reached by ~210039. The potential achievement of our defined magnitude threshold on this timescale would lead to mass extinction comparable to the major Phanerozoic events, regardless of other, non-climatic anthropogenic changes that negatively affect animal life.
The last paper is very long
The prediction about about temperature change by more than 5.2C by the 2100 relies on assumption that we still gona be full blown industrial society, which is not gonna happen because of the reasons already discussed in this thread. By the time we hit 4C we not gonna have most of our coasts already, so regular trade routes are fucked. With that a lot of fertile arable land will become either risk agriculture zones or comletely unarable. That means we are gonna face insane food crisis. With that we also gonna face mass migration due to climate, so many production chanes gonna be disrupted. All that will lead to civilization collapse, but that also means that ti will drastically reduce our carbon footprint.
Besides even if we hit extinction levels comparable to PT (which requires ΔT to be twice as the worst prediction) we are still gonna survive as a species. We are too adaptable. Even before industrialization humans already lived in almost any region on our planet, from dezerts to frozen tundras. We can make tools and clothing, we can prepare food for storage and cook the food meaning that on top of being already omnivores we can tap into many sources of energy that other animals can use only through specific evolutionary adaptations. The question is only how far back our society gonna go.
>>600627> By the time we hit 4C
By the time we hit a mere 2C the Earth’s feedback loops will have been triggered if they haven’t been already and human impact will pale in comparison to feedback warming that the Earth will start to experience on its own
Past a certain threshold you have stored carbon and methane getting released from the Earth directly instead of just dug up and burned by humans> Besides even if we hit extinction levels comparable to PT (which requires ΔT to be twice as the worst prediction) we are still gonna survive as a species. We are too adaptable
We could adapt to a world with a flourishing biosphere and an entire world’s worth of cultivatable lands. Nothing humans have “adapted to” is comparable to the Permian and regardless every continent humans arrived at were easier to survive in than Africa.> Even before industrialization humans already lived in almost any region on our planet, from dezerts to frozen tundras. We can make tools and clothing, we can prepare food for storage and cook the food meaning that on top of being already omnivores we can tap into many sources of energy that other animals can use only through specific evolutionary adaptations. The question is only how far back our society gonna go.
Where exactly do you people think these materials for production come from? Where do you think food comes from? What do you think food is? Clothing, even a simple axe. Almost everything we could build in a post-industrial world is reliant on the biosphere. And of course our food systems are heavily reliant on a stable climate and nutrient-rich soil.
Doesn't mean we gonna turn into a sun, dumbass. If you wanna real numbers, not meaningless dribble, use the prediction models that the article you linked uses. https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/253/2021/
If we go back to preindustrial levels, using lowest possible estimate would suffice.
>We could adapt to a world with a flourishing biosphere and an entire world’s worth of cultivatable lands. Nothing humans have “adapted to” is comparable to the Permian and regardless every continent humans arrived at were easier to survive in than Africa.
Just shows that you know shit about the subject. Even large scaled extinction like PT didn't mean that there were no animal life and the planet was barren. What remain would suffice to survive for our species, even if only as hunter-gatherer society. I really suggest you hit some anthropology books to not spew the shit about easy to survive continents or that Permian was worse than living in a fucking desert like Tuaregs.
>Where exactly do you people think these materials for production come from?
From hunting and gathering as the worst possible scenario.
>Almost everything we could build in a post-industrial world is reliant on the biosphere
Yes. And unless there would be no animals to hunt, no wood to chop and no grass to cut we would still be able to make those. You really think that mass extinction looks like the Road movie ro something? My guess was right, you know absolutely shit about this and you just linked first article that you googled without understanding what it says there.
>Almost everything we could build in a post-industrial world is reliant on the biosphere. And of course our food systems are heavily reliant on a stable climate and nutrient-rich soil.
You can't even make a consistent argument, you shitbrains. First you are arguing for extinction of humanity as SPECIES, but now you claim "but we can't make axes like we can in industrial society". No fucking shit, sherlock. That's why i was talking about going to pre-industrial levels of development as a result of climate change.
Anarkiddies and /pol/yps are most mentally challenged people i ever talked to. I think you are both.
>>600649 > Doesn't mean we gonna turn into a sun, dumbass
No, just potentially the world between the Permian and Triassic which is indeed enough for human extinction> Just shows that you know shit about the subject. Even large scaled extinction like PT didn't mean that there were no animal life and the planet was barren. What remain would suffice to survive for our species, even if only as hunter-gatherer society. I really suggest you hit some anthropology books to not spew the shit about easy to survive continents or that Permian was worse than living in a fucking desert like Tuaregs
I think you honestly just don’t know shit about humans. The Tuaregs live in the Sahel for starters, which is a grassland, and the culture is not older than agriculture, civilization, and land trade-routes. How many cultures actually exist in the desert itself, just the desert, not grasslands near the desert, not a river near the desert, not a forest near the desert, not the desert by the sea, just the desert, and without trade as well. I’d say very very few in any, yea? You realize humans have a fucking huge food requirement? We starve quite easily, our brains need lots of food to maintain themselves. Will the world be entirely bereft of all life? Obviously not. Can it be bereft of what people need to survive? It could be.> From hunting and gathering as the worst possible scenario.
The fuck are you hunting exactly? The fuck are you hunting that can sustain 8 billion people specifically? Tf would there be to hunt after a cataclysm that wipes out 8 billion people? What are you even hunting with, flint hand axes? Scavenging metals? > Yes. And unless there would be no animals to hunt, no wood to chop and no grass to cut we would still be able to make those. You really think that mass extinction looks like the Road movie ro something? My guess was right, you know absolutely shit about this and you just linked first article that you googled without understanding what it says there.
A mass extinction can make the world pretty damn close to the Road.
You’re posting smug gotchas going “haha don’t you know that even if 90% of all life died out, there’d still be 10% left?”
I mean, sure, but 10% spread out over an entire planet and seven continents, there can be entire regions largely devoid of plants and animals and likely will be. I doubt you can have an entire society that subsists on a small amount of rats.> Yes. And unless there would be no animals to hunt, no wood to chop and no grass to cut we would still be able to make those. You really think that mass extinction looks like the Road movie ro something? My guess was right, you know absolutely shit about this and you just linked first article that you googled without understanding what it says there.
I’m stating I don’t even think humans can survive outside of civilization at this point, that if civilization collapsed there wouldn’t be either the resources, knowledge, or experience to “return to nature” and there would be nothing to return to anyway
I’m stating that it’s aggressively retarded to pretend that the biosphere now, that’s continuing to collapse, is somehow comparable to what our ancestors encountered, which was a world full of animals to hunt, plants to harvest, and land to cultivate. If we fuck the Earth enough that civilization collapsed you don’t just get a reset bucko, that’s not how the passage of time works, there aren’t herds of animals to hunt anymore, there sure as shit won’t suddenly be more plants and animals once civilization is gone.> Anarkiddies and /pol/yps are most mentally challenged people i ever talked to. I think you are both.
No, you just can’t discuss something without seething that someone disagrees with you and without resorting to puerile insults and name calling like a child
You people are living in a delusion. Seriously, the climate boogaloo isn't going to end civilization or anything close to that. You're just projecting your own fears that technocracy would abandon you, which is already what they've been pushing for the past 50 years. Technology is very stubborn and difficult to remove, so long as any reading material survives that would allow people to reconstruct a gun. The greater problem is that the inherent diseases within technocracy were left to run amok, and so the failure of the technocratic system can only be understood as the bourgeois conceit of "general collapse". The periods of mass death and despair in human history in the past did not work in anything like this. The Black Death - a confluence of war, nobles' brutality, disease, persecutions, and just about everything bad - did not put much of a dent in technological society. Technocrats of a eugenicist bent even declare that this mass death and slaughter was a good thing, "creative destruction", just as they tried to proclaim the Mongols were great.
The answer to all this climate boogaloo nonsense is very simple - KEEP USING FUCKING OIL, DINGBATS. The problem, of course, is that oil resources are jealously monopolized and kept out of the hands of the people as much as possible. But even if for some reason you couldn't use oil - and we aren't running out of oil for a very long time - the supply of uranium would be vastly increased if renewed speculation wanted to look for it. Finding deposits of anything is not 100% free or obvious, and the existing uranium supply was deemed sufficient by firms since the only buyers would be states or firms that have to comply with state regulations. They don't want more uranium mined than they can control.https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-estimates-40-million-pounds-potential-uranium-resources-parts-texas-new-mexico-and
There's lots of uranium that is undiscovered but estimated to exist based on geological estimates, and if you got over the mythology of oil, you'd probably see oil reserves deeper in the ground.
<b-b-but the climate!
Bullshit. That whole thing is a gigantic fudge factor to try making the predictions of famine come true. Every famine in the 21st century has clear political or economic causes, rather than any natural limit being reached. There are a lot of problems with mechanizing agriculture from an economic point of view. There isn't a country that converted to mechanization that didn't experience social upheaval and usually economic crashes. You had a similar transition period in the early 19th century. The industrial revolution was a bloody one. The new plans for agriculture intend to accelerate purposely the bloodiness of the next transition.
Oh yea I forgot eugene made it easy to filter him
That fish on the top is a troonfish. If there are not enough males, the female will turn into a male.
Lol, what a humorous way to put it!
>>600658>The fuck are you hunting that can sustain 8 billion people specifically?
At this point you are obviously trolling or just being an obnoxious retard. Back to /pol/
So nothing, you really are a fucking moron
>>600565>All but one mass extinction in Earth’s history was primarily caused by climate change, the worst extinction event in history was the most comparable one to what is happening now
That's why dinosaurs is a really bad symbol. Ok, dinosaurs are cool & everyone knows about them. But they had just really bad luck.
>>601963>implying that Andreas Malm isn't squaring the circle when he rags on XR for kicking a black commuter in the face
WELL HOW ARE WE GONNA REACH THE 1.488 GOAL WITHOUT SUM 1488 GOSHDARNIT!?
Oh i don't even know what Andreas Malm is
i just want to do a terror
Andreas Malm is a Hamas apologist that think we should sabotage oil pipelines.
Local environmental disasters, really good. Yeah!
No, actually, my eco-preservation actually just makes me want to boil every billionaire, millionaire, and government shill who worked for them alive in a vat of oil. lower classes can be left untouched, although cultural consumer habits should be changes away from the hyperconsumption habits forced upon them by the boiled ones
As when he ruined this seminar?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_pamp3oi78
Three letter agent
Glows so hard
I bring photoelectric
Retard, how about you just read? I never said climate change is a non issue, you fucking imbecile, i specifically claim that it will bring collapse of the civilization and return to pre industrial levels of development. What i am arguing against is moron's claim that climate change will wipe 90% of the biosphere and humans as species.
How fucking stupid you have to be, you mongoloid?
The things we have to do to protect the environment for our own benefit are coincidentally those same things that will protect the endangered species. Guess what - we are going to be the endangered species soon.
Unique IPs: 129