so the earth is F***ed aparently..
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
I love this one comment by the "Dr Emilio Lizardo" fellow in the article comments;
While I fully support environment-friendly initiatives, this Brad Werner doesn't do much to convince anybody besides those who are already convinced.Dr Emilio Lizardo said:
I think the government (at least the US one) already invests money in clean energy. I'm starting to see more and more solar panels powering things like street lamps, and government gives green energy subsidies.Starik20X6 said:
There's a reason why we don't have clean energy now. It isn't because evil corporations are stopping them, it's because clean energy is really hard to make. Science doesn't just work faster the more money you throw at it. With clean energy, ideas for the main product you want to make often need materials that don't exist yet and need to be invested into. Some of these materials may or may not be possible. Scientists and engineers may just hit a wall with a massive problem that they may or may not be able to solve.
An ideal solar panel is one where it doesn't reflect light at all, but we don't have the technology capture that much sunlight for a decent price. Even if we could capture that much we can't convert most of it into electricity.
The whole green energy thing is very very young. It really started only about 40 years ago, and only became popular about 15 years ago. Massive change doesn't happen quickly.
It's certainly not half of what a US citizen eats, you may want to read it more. The values given were for a "prosperous citizen", and could at times drop well below what was noted due to shortages (no supermarkets, fridges, or the like after all) All that is almost the same as a single large fast food meal, that's not what I would call "good eating". Also, it'd taste very bland, it's almost all bread with some fruit.AstroSmash said:
Compare too to the work listed, taking the average of jobs listed, each peasant would need 4892 calories a day, of which the average diet listed doesn't even cover that much.
Also of note: the hunter-gatherer is likely to spend less time grabbing food than the aforementioned peasant, but that's largely due to a lack of taxes. That tribe won't have much in the way of excess food to enable specialization. A priest and some craftsmen will be all that you can afford.
hmm pre industrial revolution things may have been bearable but I found this on a site about booze:MammothBlade said:
In Britain, 5% proof ales, ciders and mead were the staple drinks of the lower classes from at least the 8th century. This was because of unsafe water supplies contaminated by sewage. The alcohol was regulated and taxed by the church.
The first endemic rise of alcohol "abuse" occurred in the 18th century during the industrial revolution when large numbers of people from rural communities were drawn into urban slums for unskilled labour. This destroyed the lifestyle of the rural classes and the informal social controls and regulations they had developed around alcohol consumption. At the same time new technology was created around alcohol production.
The distillation of juniper berries resulted in 60% proof gin becoming widely available. This was new, experimental and had no historical or cultural regulations of use. Gin became the escapism for the masses living in deprivation and working long hours in factories. From 1700 ? 1735 the amount of gin that was taxed rose from half a million to 5 million gallons. This did not include the illicit market of an estimated 50 million gallons. In 1736 the Gin law was passed resulting in riots and a rise in consumption.
I guess you could say that's one way of dealing with the despair!
corneth said:
So, just because how someone looks you judge them and think they are wrong. Well, where have I heard that before? Oh ya, from racists and supremacists.corneth said:
Also, just out of curiosity, were you that one child in school who would make fun of kids and not listen to them because they looked "weird."
I did not say I totally beleive him, I was just stating I don't judge people by what they look like and others should not either.FelixG said:Yeah if you believe what someone like this
says, you should really be lookin more closely at your sources.
And in an unrelated point, I have a bridge to sell to anyone who thinks this guy knows what he is talkin about!
I do belive that food was probably healthyer due to there being less processed crap and chemicals (however thease days its more about effort/time...of coarse the low hanging fruit is going to be worse off for you), but I interpreted "better fed" as "not starving"AstroSmash said:
[quote/]Vault101 was spot on.[/quote]
....why thank you! [small/]I'm assuming thats a mistake[/small]
I KNOW that we and our technology are poinsing the planet...if we werent here the environment would be finej-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
my issue is everyone has the problem but whats the solution?
I'm not a climate change denyer eather....I just wish the hippies would come up with somthing betterZen Toombs said:
Actually, I was that kid who was bullied most of his childhood and then came out as gay at age thirteen. I think you'll find that White Supremacists generally aren't too kind to gays. Also, I'm a Nazi because I don't trust a pink haired aging Anarcho-Primitavist with my future? Well, this must be a definition of Nazi that I was previously unaware of.Yabba said:
...Bwa? I like... told you what the solution is. If this whole problem is fixable, we need to reduce the bad stuff we are doing. We can do that by doing less bad things (e.g. drive less! burn less fossil fuels!), by making the bad things we do less bad (drive cars with efficient gas mileage! use renewable energy!), or, preferably, both. This isn't a "hippy" problem, it's everyone's problem. Any solution is going to be at least slightly unpleasant.Vault101 said: