OP
OP
Donteventrii
OG
So short sighted. Must resist wasting hours of my time.
29s Politics thread
- Thread starter Donteventrii
- Start date
Druiddroid
OG
This thread reminds me of these two people on a facebook group that always argue with each other, one's republican and one's a democrat, man it's funny how much they try and bang their heads against the wall.
Willyshatner
Legend
The TL; DR is that capitalism is the current system in place in the world today, even socialist countries are capitalists. Capitalism isn't going anywhere unless we are forced to change the way we function as a society, which won't happen until we have completely self destructed. It's great that people are concerned enough to talk about change, but it isn't going to happen until that's the only choice we have as a species.
So enjoy your prius and hot pockets while they last.
So enjoy your prius and hot pockets while they last.
Franchi
Legend
Falkor said:
That's a lithium mine.
“(extracting) enough lithium to meet even 10 percent of global automotive demand would cause irreversible and widespread [environmental] damage ... incompatible with the notion of the ‘green car’.” The Meridian International Research
Plus most of this stuff is in the third world, a large percentage (as much as 50% maybe more) is in the hands of a socialist who in an attempt to make sure that his country doesn't get screwed has decided not to have any partners in the mining endeavors, actually one of the smartest moves we have seen from a south American leader in recent years, the problem is that puts the actual extraction of the lithium even further off in the future. But by all means dream on about your awesome electric cars.
You are aware that wind power requires specific conditions in order to function? That the number of areas that meet this criteria is limited? Add in the environmental impact studies on potential damage to bird populations that must be done and it's no wonder so few companies are interested in wind power. A piece of property that has been in my family for generations actually meets all the requirements, but the company that bought a lease on it was unable to get permits due to the impact such an instillation would have on the bird population, the property is in the Mojave dessert.
Also there are numerous abandoned solar power fields across the country, turns out the cost to operate and maintain them is absurd compared to the amount of power they can create (talking large scale not household use). When i still lived in California we actually leased property to run cattle on from Exxon that they had acquired via government grant to build a solar power plant on, it was built and then promptly shut down and decommissioned, exxon kept the money and the property tho.
Way to go government grants for green power!!!
Hydro electric works, but also has the highest environmental impact of any "green" energy source. It is also prohibitively expensive to build a hydro electric plant. Both because of the amount of money needed for the structure itself and because of the amount of land that must be purchased because when the dam comes on line that ground is gonna be flooded.
I don't see to many more Shasta or Keswic dams in the near future.
Hmm where to start?
First off, there is no way to re tool the American economy to not use oil in any reasonable amount of time, the R&D is going on and has been going on, but its slow going as with most such thing's. If you want massive leaps forward in technology start a war, that always gets the technological advances rolling, but alas our best bet for continued high capacity battery research was submarines, and environmentalists don't like them because of the impact their sonar has on porpoises or some such.
Range is important, especially when you consider that the range of the cars is tied to the batteries, and that in turn the weight of the car is proportional to its range, given the interrelationship between the amount of energy needed to move the weight and the amount of batteries required to provide that power you end up with a vicious cycle, the further you want the car to be able to go the more batteries you have to pack into it the more batteries the more its going to weigh and the more it weighs the more power it takes to move.
And when most of the population is driving those little death traps folks like me will still be driving our large trucks, we will receive wavers do to the necessity of those vehicles for our businesses. Further Big rigs will still be on the road, because we DEPEND on them to deliver what we need when we need it, imagine the united states without those trucks, if you can even grasp the impact that would have. Building one of those that can operate on electricity is a fine idea, but you still have a massive vehicle on the same road as your little death trap. Now of course most folks will bring up trains, the problem here is the cost of building and maintaining the tracks for such trains (I'm not even going to go into the nightmare of obtaining all the right of ways and property), simply put trains could never replace big rigs in this country.
Those rag heads as you call them are already in violation of laws having to do with free trade, monopolies and price fixing, but again both political parties allow and in fact encourage such behavior and we continue to do business with them. the solution? DRILL BABY DRILL, the problem with that is the smart move is STILL to deal with them until we have used up all of their oil, and THEN expand drilling here. But hey you want it all to stop and that's a fine noble goal, the problem is like most fine and noble thing's it has a hard time existing in the real world.
Ohai
OG
I was going to respond, but I will say it is near impossible to find science on the topic of global warming without a conflict of interests on either side. On the one side you have the right wing / oil company funded studies, and on the other side there is just enough pressure that many of those scientists are going in with an answer and fitting the research to match. I don't doubt that it happens on both sides of an argument in an industry that involves literally billions of dollars.
That said I am agnostic that humans have anything to do with climate change, BUT, and here is the kicker... doing nothing potentially ****s us over as a species; taking measures to reduce oil consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and stop climate change... loses us money? I know which gamble is the one I'd rather lose.
Another thing to consider is that oil being finite is a fact, thus moving to quickly find sustainable nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, clean coal, and other such power sources could make our country a leading PROVIDER of such power in the future, if we invest now.
That said I am agnostic that humans have anything to do with climate change, BUT, and here is the kicker... doing nothing potentially ****s us over as a species; taking measures to reduce oil consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and stop climate change... loses us money? I know which gamble is the one I'd rather lose.
Another thing to consider is that oil being finite is a fact, thus moving to quickly find sustainable nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, clean coal, and other such power sources could make our country a leading PROVIDER of such power in the future, if we invest now.
Willyshatner
Legend
I'd respond, but my fingers would be pissed at me and I went blind from reading for so long.
OP
OP
Donteventrii
OG
We already know the most efficient form of personal transportation- the bicycle. It was created in the early 1800s.
Franchi
Legend
Donteventrii said:
There is no penetrating the fantasy world you envision.
Here is my bike of choice
and here is something to make anyone smile.
[video=youtube;o018byLnMFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o018byLnMFM[/video]
Look at those old guys packing em in like sardines and lighting em up.
We have such excellence because despite the mess that this country and the rest of the developed worlds is, excellence is still rewarded. Under true socialism there is no real reward for excellence, and because humans are by nature selfish very few strive for it.
Franchi
Legend
Ohai said:
I say go pure nuclear as far as electricity goes to buy time for something else, then build this bad boy to get rid of the radio active waste
the once we have the waste in orbit use one of these to fire it into the sun
This would buy us a lot of time to figure out other energy sources, as it would replace the need for oil fired electricity.
While i am semi joking about this it is actually a viable solution, and the technology exists to make it work, yes i know mac cannons aren't what they should be yet, but we don't need a full bore faster than light speed mass driver, just one that can sling a heavy payload on a ballistic course fast enough to get past the gravitational forces of the 2 planets between us and the sun or we can just time the firings of our brand spanking new and pathetically underpowered space gun!
just something to think about, and hell it also offers avenues of research to deal with NEO's.
Yes I'm a gun nut. Deal with it.
Anyway as i see it we need to extend our oil supply to carry us over until 2100, optimistically fusion power could be online in 2050 but i don't buy that, and it will take a while from it being practical to it being wide spread and in full use. Basically if we can use nuclear to extend our oil supply and keep us afloat until we can use the cheap clean power from fusion to make hydrogen a practical fuel source.
Anyway gloom and doom drags me down and if i took all of this as seriously as dont does i think i would just slit my wrists.
P.S. if you are not having fun in this debate you are doing it wrong, this is the internet, you are not actually going to change anything by talking about it here, but you can have some fun with it.
OP
OP
Donteventrii
OG
My future could become reality if we had strong leaders that had to make tough choices for a forward looking society. Instead we have politicians that live in the now because the public in general has become lazy.
Franchi
Legend
Donteventrii said:
So how is that future at all relevant? You cannot change people, you cannot change human nature, trying to do either will lead to nothing but frustration and pain, and when/if you succeed bloodshed.
A government with the power and will to make the change you want is a recipe for bloodshed on a scale that can only be dealt with and absorbed by sociopaths.
We can only be what we are, no more, no less.
Willyshatner
Legend
America doesn't elect leaders. They elect figure heads, just like every other country. True socialism can't exist in this world because we are already to the point of no return on our current path. How do you get 7 billion people to start caring about 7 billion people in a way that puts the interests of 7 billion people ahead of the individual? The answer is this: no one in this world is selfless enough to do that, especially those that could financially make it happen.
OP
OP
Donteventrii
OG
You can change people by instituting policies directed towards progress. If we know that we need to get off fossil fuel by decreasing consumption (we already recognized that it's impossible to maintain current energy consumption patterns with renewables), then why not artificially triple the price of gas? People would stop considering living in the burbs. They would be forced to ride a bike (hello healthy lifestyle), or consider carpooling.
Without incentives for change, it will not occur.
Without incentives for change, it will not occur.
Franchi
Legend
Donteventrii said:
Do you have any idea what artificially tripling the cost of fuel would do to the cost of everything else in this country? Any idea how to cram the jobs required into areas small enough for the lazy modern American to ride a bike from home to work? Any idea on how to feed all those people you want to cram in one on top of the other in a world without gasoline or diesel? Any idea how to keep such a society safe from criminals? Any idea where all of that will lead?
Please think about the affects of the things you are talking about before you suggest ideas that will result in food shortages, unemployment on a level we have never seen and eventually riots followed by a full scale revolution.
Opinions like yours are why people who have never run businesses and never held a non entry level job in the public sector should not be allowed to make important decisions for a country. You have no idea what the real world ramifications of your agenda and ideas are. You like to ignore history because you think you are smarter than people were back then, this leads to you having no frame of reference for what you are suggesting.
You don't think we can maintain current energy production lvls, and with the tech we have today it will be a stretch if not impossible when we run out of oil. Thankfully R&D in the energy field is ongoing. Major breakthroughs have been made in fusion power (thanks starwars program) if we can stretch what we have for another 80-100 years we will likely be able to make a smooth transition into an age where fossil fuels have been replaced by cheap clean energy. Either that or nuclear power will continue to get cock-blocked, fusion power will fizzle and the world economy will collapse, doing what you suggest given the mentality/dependency of the modern population will only end badly.
Franchi
Legend
roudy said:
Oh no you misunderstand, evolution isn't even a valid scientific theory my uneducated friend at best it's a hypothesis.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
read up!
