Linux != Poltics
+1 Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!! ;-)
On Mon, April 21, 2014 3:51 am, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
+1
-1 :p
Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!!
See, even you *really* like it. We have three LUV lists for discussing technical matters (main, tech, and beginners). True, LUV-talk tends to not have much discussion on local sporting events. Perhaps because there's enough of that on mainstream media. Ditto for celebrity gossip. Part of the prevalence of politics is because everyone has an opinion on the matter, and part of it is the mainstream media doesn't engage in-depth debates on the issue. The combination of the two means that smart people who want detailed discussions on issues have to look elsewhere - and there seems to be a few of such people here. Also, (he says, gently rolling a grenade into the discussion) is that the subject header equation is wrong. Rather than : Linux != Politics It should be : Linux = Politics + Technology There are particular political choices involved in producing a free and open source operating system (and associated utilities, applications, etc), and in the way that the community is organised, and makes decisions. These decisions are (or rather were) different to the normal expectations of commercial or technical organisation. As a result debate is generated as we are still finding who were, and what we stand for. We're still working those issues through - and I suspect we'll continue to do for a very long time. It's in our blood. It's part of who were are. Politics is, and always has been, and always will be, part of the Linux community. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Quoting Lev Lafayette (lev@levlafayette.com):
True, LUV-talk tends to not have much discussion on local sporting events. Perhaps because there's enough of that on mainstream media. Ditto for celebrity gossip.
You haven't embarrassed the All-Blacks lately. ;->
It's in our blood. It's part of who were are. Politics is, and always has been, and always will be, part of the Linux community.
I'm mildly surprised to find an 'Politics is inescapably toxic and must therefore be banned even on explicitly no-topic-required, anything-goes mailing lists' attitude expressed in Melbourne. No offence intended in making the comparison, but I most often find that view expressed by... well... Americans. (Yeah, sorry. I'm sure the resemblance is coincidental.) FWIW, my own unfashionable basic view is that politics is the public's business. Certainly, there are many places where it should _not_ be raised, and it must be raised only with careful civility and caution about both trolling and the accidental or deliberate triggering of tiresome Internet outrage machines. However, the ability to discuss the public's business is a necessary part of citizenhood.
Part of the prevalence of politics is because everyone has an opinion on the matter, and part of it is the mainstream media doesn't engage in-depth debates on the issue.
Let me try to be a gracious guest and attribute a related fault only to the country of which, for good or bad, I'm citizen and resident: The USA's political culture of the past fifty years has done an abysmal job of preparing its citizens for participating in public life. Young people grow up stumbing into the public sphere and concluding that political activity consists of haranguing as large a crowd as you can find, as forcefully as you can manage, to coerce them into adopting your opinions. This of course doesn't work and gets the speaker massively ignored as an annoying prat with no manners. Worse, the syndrome casts such a pall of suspicion over the entire topic that even those speaking civilly and with discipline against self-indulgent personal twaddle get excoriated for delving into matters deemed inherently impossible to discuss. Such is the damage caused by an immature political culture where nobody can imagine articulating anything other than a personal opinion, or persuasion other than via loud and annoying harranguing. Prior to the 1960s, things were a bit different on these shores, and the merits of civil public discourse had more admirers and defenders than they do now.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:55:58 Rick Moen wrote:
I'm mildly surprised to find an 'Politics is inescapably toxic and must therefore be banned even on explicitly no-topic-required, anything-goes mailing lists' attitude expressed in Melbourne. No offence intended in making the comparison, but I most often find that view expressed by... well... Americans.
It seems that the meme that politics shouldn't be discussed is mainly advocated by people who have political beliefs that don't stand up to inspection. One of the recent discussions I saw involved a bunch of people talking about how horrible "Family First" (Australia's main anti-gay party) is. That got a few people saying that we shouldn't discuss politics even though no-one said anything when the relative merits of Liberal and Labor were discussed. On some mailing lists vaguely related to technology there is a meme that we shouldn't be unfair to conservatives. That's correlated with the "fair and balanced" media meme which claims that both sides should be consulted for news stories. Really there's usually a right side and a wrong side and the people who are wrong should be written about not interviewed. It doesn't help to have a Playboy model given equal balance to medical experts when vaccines are discussed, or geologists working for oil companies given equal balance to climate experts when discussing climate change. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
It seems that the meme that politics shouldn't be discussed is mainly advocated by people who have political beliefs that don't stand up to inspection.
I hope this notion of 'inspection' is just a figure of speech - unless perhaps you have self-inspection in mind. Otherwise, the notion of expecting people's views to be submitted for inspection seems a bit extreme. The point is that public discouse is rightly voluntary rather than inquisitory. In that light, your darkly hinting at misogyny concerning Tim Gosling merely because - or so it appeared - he quoted a URL from a hilariously demented 'men's rights activist' Web site comes to mind. You might want to consider being lighter on the guilt by association in the future, nei? ;-> On further reflection, this idea of views not 'standing up to inspection' seems IMVAO[1] problematic, even if it is just a figure of speech: I doubt there is a yardstick for meritorious views on 'political beliefs' as such; if it does exist, I have my doubts about whether you're its designated caretaker.
On some mailing lists vaguely related to technology there is a meme that we shouldn't be unfair to conservatives. That's correlated with the "fair and balanced" media meme which claims that both sides should be consulted for news stories. Really there's usually a right side and a wrong side and the people who are wrong should be written about not interviewed. It doesn't help to have a Playboy model given equal balance to medical experts when vaccines are discussed, or geologists working for oil companies given equal balance to climate experts when discussing climate change.
Above paragraph appears to conflate issues of verifiable fact with 'political beliefs' sui generis - where the latter tend to include large swaths of inherently debatable figurative territory (along with, to be sure, verifiable facts). Conflating those two rather different things does little for clarity, in my view. (I'm sure you don't _intend_ to sound like a doctrinaire nutter, Russell. ;-> ) Anyway, that matter aside, in my experience there's a far more prosaic explanation for the meme that politics shouldn't be discussed: bad history of same. It's a commonplace that most such discussions _do_ devolve into muckslinging. Therefore, the perception that they should be nipped in the bud is quite understandable, without dark suspicions of militant muttonheadedness. [] Like 'IMHO', except 'VA' stands for Very Arrogant. Yr. welcome.
On Mon, April 21, 2014 12:04 pm, Rick Moen wrote:
Anyway, that matter aside, in my experience there's a far more prosaic explanation for the meme that politics shouldn't be discussed: bad history of same. It's a commonplace that most such discussions _do_ devolve into muckslinging. Therefore, the perception that they should be nipped in the bud is quite understandable, without dark suspicions of militant muttonheadedness.
An interesting point Rick, and one that is very close to my own studies in social theory via Hannah Arendt. Arendt claimed that it was not "politics" that was involved in the grounding of the totalitarian states of the twentieth century, but rather those states made sure that there was no debate about political matters. Whilst she concentrated on Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union (c.f., "The Origins of Totalitarianism") she also could bring it down to the personal level, noting that Adolf Eichmann ("Eichmann in Jerusalem") had no pathological hatred towards Jews, and lacked any substantial interest in politics beyond his desire to be a model and normal citizen. It is from Eichmann's personality that Arendt coined the phrase "the banality of evil". Following this Wiesenthal wrote: "The world now understands the concept of 'desk murderer'. We know that one doesn't need to be fanatical, sadistic, or mentally ill to murder millions; that it is enough to be a loyal follower eager to do one's duty". Arendt's general principle, and one that I agree with, it is societies that do not discuss politics, that destroy their public sphere of critical debate and disagreement, that end up sliding into totalitarian and simplistic authoritarian societies. Even with the trappings of a trivilised happy consciousness where any disturbing matters are pushed out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and preferably somewhere else. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Hi, Lev. I did read Arent's writings on the matter, though it's been longer than I care to remember (high school). Certain things became obligatory reading for we who respect our parents' WWII contributions, and who respect the obligation to remember. One was Arent's _Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil_. Another was Stanley Milgram's writings about his famous experiments about obedience. In consequence, I try to always honour individual acts of conscience (whether I believe in their causes or not), and do everything I can to avoid the peril of confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). A large part of the key to the latter is taking the trouble to talk with -- really talk with, not just talk _at_ -- people with views markedly different from my own, and attempt to understand the world as seen the way they see it. (I may still consider them benighted fools, but a deeper understanding of where they come from is always an extremely good idea.)
Russell Coker wrote:
Really there's usually a right side and a wrong side and the people who are wrong should be written about not interviewed.
That seems a bit simplistic. e.g. what's the "wrong side" of "what proportion of GNP should be spent on national defense?" or "what steps should we take to reduce alcohol-related violence?"
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:33:13 Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
Really there's usually a right side and a wrong side and the people who are wrong should be written about not interviewed.
That seems a bit simplistic. e.g. what's the "wrong side" of "what proportion of GNP should be spent on national defense?"
The wrong side is the one that wants to spend money on useless things (like Abrams tanks) and start wars of aggression without any real plan for how to do it (Iraq and Afghanistan). Starting a war you can't win is wrong no matter how you look at it.
or "what steps should we take to reduce alcohol-related violence?"
The wrong side is the one that wants to protect profits in the alcohol industry and continue the "war on drugs". -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:33:13 Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
Really there's usually a right side and a wrong side and the people who are wrong should be written about not interviewed.
That seems a bit simplistic. e.g. what's the "wrong side" of "what proportion of GNP should be spent on national defense?"
The wrong side is the one that wants to spend money on useless things (like Abrams tanks) and start wars of aggression without any real plan for how to do it (Iraq and Afghanistan).
Starting a war you can't win is wrong no matter how you look at it.
or "what steps should we take to reduce alcohol-related violence?"
The wrong side is the one that wants to protect profits in the alcohol industry and continue the "war on drugs".
Thank you for making my point for me.
On 22/04/2014 9:45 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
The wrong side is the one that [I disagree with] <snip> The wrong side is the one that [I disagree with]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pigheaded
Hello Andrew, On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 02:51 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
+1
Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!!
;-)
When the nights are cool, do you use an extra blanket to keep warm, do you put on extra warm clothing during the day? The basic physics that make that effective are the same as the global warming and climate change. With human law, ignorance is no excuse. With the "laws" of nature, they do not countenance ignorance. What any one of us does is insignificant, but what humanity does as a whole does add up and is highly significant. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and average global temperature has tracked that, albeit with significant noise imposed on the signal. Despite denials, there has been significant changes to sea levels, both from melting ice (land based glaciers and ice caps), and changes in ocean temperature. Some of the so called non warming periods have been when the ocean absorbs more heat, with effects that we are still learning about. If CO2 had no greenhouse effect, this planet would not support life. It is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but it is significant. Another one is the amount of water vapour, and there are others such as methane. The balance has been shifted, significantly, by human activities. To deny is to deny the basics of physics and chemistry, and fluid dynamics and mechanics, which our bodies depend on, as well as all our technology, including the very computer you are using, and the electricity generation from fossil fuels, and the very real alternatives. Andrew, you and Brent Wallis and a few others make this political. It is factual. Trying to dismiss as you do is a disservice to yourselves as well as everything else on the planet, human, animal, vegetable and fungi and whatever I may have omitted. It is a complex web of life. What may look like a nuisance species that is unnecessary, can be crucial. I do not advocate the return of smallpox, but even the elimination of that virus has had significant consequences and effects on the balance. Denial does a disservice to all. Regards, Mark Trickett
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
+1
Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!!
That nasty science, always messing with our ideologies. We should just ban it altogether.
On 22/04/2014 4:33 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
+1
Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!!
That nasty science, always messing with our ideologies. We should just ban it altogether.
Nothing wrong with science, but like many things it can be, [and very often is], manipulated to produce the desired results -- just like in politics. Just about anything can often be argued for and against and many arguments can work or fail depending on other inputs; the truth or *perceived* truth can make a different too, as another input. Cheers A.
Hi Andrew, Based on your first two statements (about science very often being manipulated to produce desired results, and being just like politics in that matter): I'd find it very hard to believe you've gained formal qualifications in either field, nor worked intimately in either field -- as I have, in both. True, there are scientists employed by firms to provide company-friendly data. But (except for job-desperate scientists working in short-lived fly-by-night firms) they also provide cautionary info to management, and research safer & more effective products and/or processes -- to gain a competitive advantage and to protect long-term from litigation. Perhaps you think the marketers and managers making those public "heavily spun" statements are the scientists? And there is the occasional zealot who believes so strongly in his/her theory that s/he fudges the data and/or analysis. (e.g. Mendel and inherited traits.) I'm seeing this constantly in the Alternative Healthcare field. But if it happened as often as you imply, why does it make such big scientific (much less mainstream) news when discovered? The vast majority of modern scientific discovery is based upon detailed publication in peer review journals, followed by critiques (and in most cases requires replication by unrelated scientists) before general acceptance in the field. In essence, the first two statements remind me of people who say "statistics are useless, because they can lie": They end up having no real understanding of statistics, nor do they realise that we can't be certain of a correlation or causal relationship without employing statistics. Really liked your third statement, though, about perceived truth as an input. Rather clued-in to the finesse of it all. Usually the genesis of those ongoing heated "big-endian vs little-endian" debates in science. Enough time and further research usually settles it, though. All the above was said intending not so much to hurt as to assist. Cheers, Carl Bayswater On 22/04/14 20:01, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 22/04/2014 4:33 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
+1
Definitely too much politics here and it would be befit me re-iterate the /political/ nature of the climate gate lies/fraud, which really is purely political [even if science tries to muddy the water] !!!!
That nasty science, always messing with our ideologies. We should just ban it altogether.
Nothing wrong with science, but like many things it can be, [and very often is], manipulated to produce the desired results -- just like in politics. Just about anything can often be argued for and against and many arguments can work or fail depending on other inputs; the truth or *perceived* truth can make a different too, as another input.
Cheers A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
True, there are scientists employed by firms to provide company-friendly data. But (except for job-desperate scientists working in short-lived fly-by-night firms)
These days working for a Fed Gov (scientific) agency under an Abbott Gov ... may just feel pretty much as you describe! D.
Hi Daniel, Ha ha ha. How very sad, but true. Of course, even most politicians have come to learn that: When they arm-twist some job-hungry scientist into making (e.g.) climate-change-denial statements... The other 98% of relevant experts get in front of the media (via their independent professional bodies) and point out where The Emperor's Clothes really are. Net public relations setback. So now the pollies themselves just mumble vague denials and brush-offs, or pointless statements of support and concern. Not easy, when you're getting squeezed between the big donor$ you need and the voters you need. Carl On 23/04/14 11:20, Daniel Jitnah wrote:
True, there are scientists employed by firms to provide company-friendly data. But (except for job-desperate scientists working in short-lived fly-by-night firms)
These days working for a Fed Gov (scientific) agency under an Abbott Gov ... may just feel pretty much as you describe!
D.
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Wed, April 23, 2014 11:31 am, Carl Turney wrote:
True, there are scientists employed by firms to provide company-friendly data. But (except for job-desperate scientists working in short-lived fly-by-night firms) they also provide cautionary info to management, and research safer & more effective products and/or processes -- to gain a competitive advantage and to protect long-term from litigation.
Scientific fraud, often with corporate motivations, is quite notable. e.g., http://retractionwatch.com/ However, the important thing to note it is through the open community of debate and research that these are uncovered.
And there is the occasional zealot who believes so strongly in his/her theory that s/he fudges the data and/or analysis. (e.g. Mendel and inherited traits.) I'm seeing this constantly in the Alternative Healthcare field.
I suspect you're thinking of Lysenko, not Mendel. Cyril Burt is an interesting example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt#.22The_Burt_Affair.22 -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
*Bad* research that is not really science is manipulated to make a point. In *real* science you try to disprove and challenge your hypothesis. Try to find holes in it. Bianca - on my phone, please excuse my brevity.
On 23/04/2014 2:02 PM, Bianca Gibson wrote:
*Bad* research that is not really science is manipulated to make a point. In *real* science you try to disprove and challenge your hypothesis. Try to find holes in it.
Sure, but there are plenty of scientists and non-scientists that are /supporting/ this cause due to brain washing, not actual real facts and if there are actual real facts that are valid, the /supporters/ are not necessarily *qualified* in the actual area concerned -- it becomes to them, another religious position ... a bit like, a cop will stand up for other cops before /possibly/ one day finding out that the cop they are standing up for is in the wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a political situation, not a science situation and perhaps in 10 or 20 years time [but definitely in the future] the fraud will be well proven and the gullibility of the people will also be laughed at. Cheers A.
On Wed, April 23, 2014 3:19 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Sure, but there are plenty of scientists and non-scientists that are /supporting/ this cause due to brain washing, not actual real facts and if there are actual real facts that are valid, the /supporters/ are not necessarily *qualified* in the actual area concerned -- it becomes to them, another religious position ... a bit like, a cop will stand up for other cops before /possibly/ one day finding out that the cop they are standing up for is in the wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a political situation, not a science situation and perhaps in 10 or 20 years time [but definitely in the future] the fraud will be well proven and the gullibility of the people will also be laughed at.
I consider myself a person who is very cautious is coming to conclusions, even if those conclusions are radical. Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct. I am yet to encounter sufficient evidence to the contrary. I have always encouraged people to provide me good reason to think otherwise. I have considered such suggestions as alleged increased solar radiation, cosmic rays, doubts on the temperature record and so forth. I find the evidence of these alternatives lacking convincing power. I invite anyone who does think that the mainstream climatologist community is mistaken, or that there is a massive fraud, to provide evidence so I may reconsider my point of view on the matter. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
I consider myself a person who is very cautious is coming to conclusions, even if those conclusions are radical.
Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct.
Most knowledgeable reviewers of the scientific literature on the subject agree with you, which is a good reason for those of us who haven't read the literature in depth to conclude that they're very likely to be right. We have good reason to believe that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming that will increasingly disrupt the world's climate. At this point I suspect that it's largely a matter of adapting to a warmer world rather than of trying to prevent it, as there seems no prospect of substantial reductions in emissions in the near term.
On Wed, April 23, 2014 5:47 pm, Jason White wrote:
At this point I suspect that it's largely a matter of adapting to a warmer world rather than of trying to prevent it, as there seems no prospect of substantial reductions in emissions in the near term.
Sadly, I suspect you might be right Jason - and adaption is not going to be a fun ride. Our species seems to have the capability to generate global problems, but lacks the institutional structures and motivation to agree to global solutions. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
I agree. Adapting to a warmer world (with wider climate fluctuations) is the most logical action-path for the individual, it seems to me. Pity about the vast majority without the knowledge or resources to do so. (Give me the strength to change the things I can, the peace of mind to accept the things I can't change, and the wisdom to see the difference.) I even migrated to NZ for 4.5 years to put that very strategy into place... Greymouth gets 3 metres of rain each year. Each day (when it wasn't cloudy) I could see snow-capped mountains -- even in the summer. The soil was rich, the vegetation was stunning, and the hunting & fishing was abundant. Pity about all the lifelong Kiwis there running the place into the ground. If only all of them came here, and the best 4 million Aussies went there, it'd be quite Utopic. Cheers, Carl On 23/04/14 16:59, Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Wed, April 23, 2014 5:47 pm, Jason White wrote:
At this point I suspect that it's largely a matter of adapting to a warmer world rather than of trying to prevent it, as there seems no prospect of substantial reductions in emissions in the near term.
Sadly, I suspect you might be right Jason - and adaption is not going to be a fun ride.
Our species seems to have the capability to generate global problems, but lacks the institutional structures and motivation to agree to global solutions.
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
I agree. Adapting to a warmer world (with wider climate fluctuations) is the most logical action-path for the individual, it seems to me.
Pity about the vast majority without the knowledge or resources to do so.
And they're the ones who will suffer most in any case, unfortunately. Those with resources will, I assume, find life to be more difficult and expensive in various ways, but they'll still be better equipped to cope with the changes.
A few years ago, I spent a fair bit of time researching the subject of death by starvation or malnutrition, and finally found out the best estimates were a =minimum= of ~10 million humans every single year! Also, Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" cites a large number of major cities throughout the world that have grown up by "mining water" (i.e. drilling wells), and how most of them are now "getting close to the absolute bottom". Then things will get =really= "interesting", as many aren't by the ocean and/or can't afford desalination plants. But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them. It's a self-inflicted mortal wound, and I'm tired of being an evangelist on the subject. I'm 61, giving up, and looking out for number one from now on. Carl On 23/04/14 17:48, Jason White wrote:
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
I agree. Adapting to a warmer world (with wider climate fluctuations) is the most logical action-path for the individual, it seems to me.
Pity about the vast majority without the knowledge or resources to do so.
And they're the ones who will suffer most in any case, unfortunately.
Those with resources will, I assume, find life to be more difficult and expensive in various ways, but they'll still be better equipped to cope with the changes.
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them.
It's predicted to peak at approximately 8 billion. However, this also coincides with an era of global warming in addition to resource constraints and, of course, risks that are hard to estimate, for example the next influenza epidemic.
Jason White wrote:
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them. It's predicted to peak at approximately 8 billion. However, this also coincides with an era of global warming in addition to resource constraints and, of course, risks that are hard to estimate, for example the next influenza epidemic.
I am surprised by such a low figure; but of course population reduction promises the simplest solution to our environmental woes. Perhaps this anticipates third world nations moving to first world fertility rates ? An interesting problem which doesn't seem to get much attention, because it has thus far seemed unlikely is: What if fertility rates continued to decline and world population collapsed to to say a tenth of that current , ie to say 600 million. Even if this occurred slowly, say over a several hundred years the cultural, industrial and economic effects would be enormous. In that situation vast amounts of skill, technique and knowledge must likely be lost, for the simple reason there is no one to pass it on to; quite aside from the obvious reduction in market sizes; regards Rohan McLeod
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:32:07 Rohan McLeod wrote:
It's predicted to peak at approximately 8 billion. However, this also coincides with an era of global warming in addition to resource constraints and, of course, risks that are hard to estimate, for example the next influenza epidemic. I am surprised by such a low figure; but of course population reduction promises the simplest solution to our environmental woes. Perhaps this anticipates third world nations moving to first world fertility rates ?
Population reduction via educating women and providing a better standard of living reduces environmental problems. Population reduction via famine and war causes environmental problems. Environmental problems make war more likely and a good environment makes it easier to provide good education and a high standard of living. So whether things go well or badly in terms of environment and population there are feedback effects.
An interesting problem which doesn't seem to get much attention, because it has thus far seemed unlikely is: What if fertility rates continued to decline and world population collapsed to to say a tenth of that current , ie to say 600 million. Even if this occurred slowly, say over a several hundred years the cultural, industrial and economic effects would be enormous. In that situation vast amounts of skill, technique and knowledge must likely be lost, for the simple reason there is no one to pass it on to; quite aside from the obvious reduction in market sizes;
If the world population declined to 10% of the current size and everyone was well educated then we could have the same number of people involved in scientific research etc. Advances in online education are reducing the incidence of skill loss as long as we avoid an Internet-destroying catastrophy. Once we solve the environmental problems it would be a good idea to invest in technology to prevent "dinosaur-killer" meteorite strikes. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi Russell, I don't think we could get "everyone well educated". There are biological limitations for many, and no matter how advanced a culture is, there will always be the need for a significant proportion of menial jobs (though they'd seem pretty neat to us nowadays). But still: Getting down to 700,000,000 humans (and the cultural wisdom of the costs of going above that) would be great. Remember reading that the Bruce Willis deadly-meteor-destroying movie cost more money to make than all of the $ spent globally in the search for such meteors and in the research for solutions. Sigh. Self-inflicted mortal wounds. Carl On 24/04/14 12:29, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:32:07 Rohan McLeod wrote:
It's predicted to peak at approximately 8 billion. However, this also coincides with an era of global warming in addition to resource constraints and, of course, risks that are hard to estimate, for example the next influenza epidemic. I am surprised by such a low figure; but of course population reduction promises the simplest solution to our environmental woes. Perhaps this anticipates third world nations moving to first world fertility rates ?
Population reduction via educating women and providing a better standard of living reduces environmental problems.
Population reduction via famine and war causes environmental problems.
Environmental problems make war more likely and a good environment makes it easier to provide good education and a high standard of living.
So whether things go well or badly in terms of environment and population there are feedback effects.
An interesting problem which doesn't seem to get much attention, because it has thus far seemed unlikely is: What if fertility rates continued to decline and world population collapsed to to say a tenth of that current , ie to say 600 million. Even if this occurred slowly, say over a several hundred years the cultural, industrial and economic effects would be enormous. In that situation vast amounts of skill, technique and knowledge must likely be lost, for the simple reason there is no one to pass it on to; quite aside from the obvious reduction in market sizes;
If the world population declined to 10% of the current size and everyone was well educated then we could have the same number of people involved in scientific research etc.
Advances in online education are reducing the incidence of skill loss as long as we avoid an Internet-destroying catastrophy.
Once we solve the environmental problems it would be a good idea to invest in technology to prevent "dinosaur-killer" meteorite strikes.
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
I don't think we could get "everyone well educated". There are biological limitations for many, and no matter how advanced a culture is, there will always be the need for a significant proportion of menial jobs (though they'd seem pretty neat to us nowadays).
Julian Savulescu presents interesting arguments in favour of human enhancement, for example, biological interventions to raise the average intelligence of the population or to improve the capacity for impulse control (lack of which is responsible for some criminal behaviour). These are very interesting arguments indeed, and highly relevant to the points you raise.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:56:56 Jason White wrote:
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
I don't think we could get "everyone well educated". There are biological limitations for many, and no matter how advanced a culture is, there will always be the need for a significant proportion of menial jobs (though they'd seem pretty neat to us nowadays).
Julian Savulescu presents interesting arguments in favour of human enhancement, for example, biological interventions to raise the average intelligence of the population or to improve the capacity for impulse control (lack of which is responsible for some criminal behaviour).
There are biological factors for impulse control that are well known. The correlation between lead in the bloodstream and poor impulse control is shown by the drop in crime ~20 years after unleaded petrol was introduced. For intelligence it's not so clear, while there are obvious biological factors that cause low intelligence (EG fetal alcohol syndrome) it's not clear that there is anything significant we can do to improve things. However the link between intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) and parenting/environment is clear. I am not aware of any evidence to show that we can significantly improve the IQ of middle class people in Australia by biological means - at least not without the technology to modify DNA for IQ. But we can improve the education system and help parents teach their children more effectively if money was assigned to the task. But the current government would rather cut education funding and spend money on fighters used to support the US in Afghanistan and other pointless wars. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
But the current government would rather cut education funding and spend money on fighters used to support the US in Afghanistan and other pointless wars.
It has a point: to secure corporate persons' access to oil reserves!
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
There are biological factors for impulse control that are well known. The correlation between lead in the bloodstream and poor impulse control is shown by the drop in crime ~20 years after unleaded petrol was introduced.
Fascinating.
For intelligence it's not so clear, while there are obvious biological factors that cause low intelligence (EG fetal alcohol syndrome) it's not clear that there is anything significant we can do to improve things. However the link between intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) and parenting/environment is clear.
I've heard it claimed that the average scores on IQ tests have increased over time, in certain countries, well beyond anything that could be explained biologically; but I haven't read any literature to confirm or dispute this finding. I think the idea for human enhancement of intelligence, though, would be to increase IQ biologically if appropriate means (genetic selection of children, gene therapy, drugs or whatever) were avilable.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:44:09 Jason White wrote:
For intelligence it's not so clear, while there are obvious biological factors that cause low intelligence (EG fetal alcohol syndrome) it's not clear that there is anything significant we can do to improve things. However the link between intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) and parenting/environment is clear.
I've heard it claimed that the average scores on IQ tests have increased over time, in certain countries, well beyond anything that could be explained biologically; but I haven't read any literature to confirm or dispute this finding.
In recent times most people who live to the age of 35 have children so evolution is going to work slowly. The increase in measured IQ over the last 100 years is obviously not from evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#History_of_human_height Better food etc makes a significant difference. One obvious example of this is average height which varies a lot by country and class. It seems most likely that a difference in diet which causes a group of people to be on average 22cm taller than another group in the same country also has an affect on IQ. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/13/education.educationnews1 Changes in schooling can also have a significant affect. The above article describes the benefits of home schooling which among other things removes class and gender differences in test results. I don't think we'll get to the ideal situation of having ~80% of kids home- schooled any time soon. But even in the education system there is a lot of room for improvement.
I think the idea for human enhancement of intelligence, though, would be to increase IQ biologically if appropriate means (genetic selection of children, gene therapy, drugs or whatever) were avilable.
The human brain is very complex. DNA is more complex than most people realise too and changes to it don't always show up in the next generation. For example consider the way that methyl groups can get added to DNA to modify it's operation, these things can change during someone's life and events when a boy is ~12 or before a girl is born can modify the way the genes work for their children. DNA changes are risky. However breeding for intelligence is happening. There are apparently sperm banks that only accept donations from guys who have a high IQ. That's not going to change the average IQ quickly because so few women use such services. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 25/04/14 00:31, Russell Coker wrote:
I've heard it claimed that the average scores on IQ tests have increased over time, in certain countries, well beyond anything that could be explained biologically; but I haven't read any literature to confirm or dispute this finding.
In recent times most people who live to the age of 35 have children so evolution is going to work slowly. The increase in measured IQ over the last 100 years is obviously not from evolution.
There's a documentary that runs on SBS regularly which puts forward a very plausible reason why IQ is rising, and yes it's not due to evolution. In short, the IQ test is not so much a test of intelligence but a test of a persons ability to think abstractly. Because we live in a world increasingly dependent on technology each successive generation acquires the ability to think in the abstract earlier, and develops it faster. I haven't paraphrased this well so he's a link to the specific part of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE#t=33m55s
I'm all for a drop in leaded fuels, but unleaded fuels have other properties that I think are also cancerous. Much prefer 100% propane myself (where it is feasible), but we should have far more efficient fuels available to use -- I'm sure we can thank big oil for not allowing us to have that tech though :( A.
And this is affect global warming... How? ________________________________ From: luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au on behalf of Andrew McGlashan Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:21:40 AM To: luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Global warming and survivalism (fork from Linux != Poltics) I'm all for a drop in leaded fuels, but unleaded fuels have other properties that I think are also cancerous. Much prefer 100% propane myself (where it is feasible), but we should have far more efficient fuels available to use -- I'm sure we can thank big oil for not allowing us to have that tech though :( A. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
On 24/04/2014 6:25 PM, Pidgorny, Slav (GPM) wrote:
And this is affect global warming... How?
Well, this whole topic has morphed plenty, it started off being: "Linux != Poltics" If you've got time, you'll find a reference about from Russell about lead and it's effect upon removal from fuel... which may have evolved environmental issues .... have fun! Cheers A.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:21:40 Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I'm all for a drop in leaded fuels, but unleaded fuels have other properties that I think are also cancerous. Much prefer 100% propane myself (where it is feasible), but we should have far more efficient fuels available to use -- I'm sure we can thank big oil for not allowing us to have that tech though :(
I'm not aware of the additives for unleaded fuel being necessarily cancer causing, at least not more than chemicals such as benzene which are expected parts of petrol. Diesel cars from the 80's and 90's can run on a mixture of ~95% plant oil (EG canola oil that's been filtered after being used for frying) and ~5% ethanol. Modern Diesel cars use higher pressure for the fuel injectors and plant oil will turn to glue. Fuel that is sold as "bio Diesel" is not just plant oil, it's plant oil that's been through some chemical processes to make it suitable for high pressure injection. I don't know what the pros and cons are of plant oil, bio-Diesel, and regular Diesel. If you really want to reduce health issues with exhaust gasses then investigating those options might be a good idea - although propane seems likely to be better due to being simpler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S But really the best option is an electric car running on solar/wind generated electricity. Electric cars have a range of 400Km+ which compares well with petrol powered cars. The Tesla model S has a range of up to 500Km depending on the test cycle used - my personal record for driving a car without refuelling is 500Km. A Tesla S running on coal generated electricity is still going to produce less emissions than most cars, the big turbines at power plants are more efficient than the light weight engines in cars. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 25/04/2014 12:03 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:21:40 Andrew McGlashan wrote: But really the best option is an electric car running on solar/wind generated electricity. Electric cars have a range of 400Km+ which compares well with petrol powered cars. The Tesla model S has a range of up to 500Km depending on the test cycle used - my personal record for driving a car without refuelling is 500Km.
I've done better than 500km, but it's all relative to a point -- you might have a smaller tank.
A Tesla S running on coal generated electricity is still going to produce less emissions than most cars, the big turbines at power plants are more efficient than the light weight engines in cars.
Don't forget the inefficiencies of transmitting power over power lines for ... there is plenty lost there too. If it wasn't for this problem, there wouldn't be AC power, it would all be DC. But even AC will see losses from transmission. Think about the Bloom box [1] -- if the cost ever gets down as low as expected, then solar will be a very expensive alternative or a similar example [2] that was /invented/ in Victoria, but was exported overseas because of lack of government support (unless I am mistaken). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy_Server [2] http://www.bluegen.info/BlueGen_Technology/ A.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:57:25 Andrew McGlashan wrote:
A Tesla S running on coal generated electricity is still going to produce less emissions than most cars, the big turbines at power plants are more efficient than the light weight engines in cars.
Don't forget the inefficiencies of transmitting power over power lines for ... there is plenty lost there too. If it wasn't for this problem, there wouldn't be AC power, it would all be DC. But even AC will see losses from transmission.
There are losses in transmission, but there is also some inefficiency in transporting and storing petrol.
Think about the Bloom box [1] -- if the cost ever gets down as low as expected, then solar will be a very expensive alternative or a similar example [2] that was /invented/ in Victoria, but was exported overseas because of lack of government support (unless I am mistaken).
But that needs gas and gas prices are going to rise steadily. If we get the fracking that the government wants then gas prices will rise dramatically. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Don't forget the inefficiencies of transmitting power over power lines for ... there is plenty lost there too. If it wasn't for this problem, there wouldn't be AC power, it would all be DC. But even AC will see losses from transmission.
The other day somebody told me that DC's lossiness is a solved problem now, but I can't remember what the keyword was.
Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Don't forget the inefficiencies of transmitting power over power lines for ... there is plenty lost there too. If it wasn't for this problem, there wouldn't be AC power, it would all be DC. But even AC will see losses from transmission. The other day somebody told me that DC's lossiness is a solved problem now, but I can't remember what the keyword was.
Well DC or AC; ohmic losses are just I(rms)^2 .R so the higher the transmission voltage the lower the transmission losses.The advantage of AC originally (as Tesla realised), was that the technology of the day (transformers) allowed simple voltage conversion up and down.With modern solid state technology DC-DC conversion is much simpler and has the additional advantage that one needn't worry about the ratio of the AC wavelength to the length of the transmission line (essentially antennae losses); regards Rohan McLeod
But really the best option is an electric car running on solar/wind generated electricity. Electric cars have a range of 400Km+ which compares well with petrol powered cars. The Tesla model S has a range of up to 500Km depending on the test cycle used - my personal record for driving a car without refuelling is 500Km.
The other problem with full electric cars and that is not mentioned as often as range is recharge time. For an electric car to be really practical a few things would ideally need to happen. 1. range to equal or exceed drivable distance during day time say at 100 kms/hr, say for 10-12 hrs = 1000kms to 1200kms, but probably closer to 1500kms to account for load variation. Then one could realistically drive all day and recharge overnight. Thats assuming recharge time 1hr = 1r driving. Or 2. Recharge time to e substantially reduced to say 1 hr = 8-10 hrs driving. Then you could drive for say 4 hrs stop for 1/2 hr recharge and drive another 4 hrs etc ... 3. You could also have a quick battery replacement mechanism, (like swapping your bbq gas bottle), where you basically pay for the charge + a small admin fee. 1. above is probably the most likely scenario to be available sooner than later. I read recently (will have to find reference, unless someone else has it handy?) that 800kms range electric cars is not too far away so thats a 100% improvement on the current ~400kms. All the above assume that people use/own their car as they would use/own a petrol car. But other factors come into play. Cost of electric cars: They are still quite more expensive, although prices are coming down. Car ownership: What do people expect and how do they use their car? Although by far the majority of car trips done by someone owning a car (specially private owners) would be daily commute for work/domestic purposes and would most likely fit in the 400 kms range, people would still want prefer a car that can easily do the "few times a year" 500+ kms holiday trip from Melbourne to Sydney or similar. Those who can afford it could have a small electric car for daily work commute, and a larger "long range (LR)" car for occasional long trips. However this means paying full rego and insurance for a car that sits in a garage most of the time. (thats another debate: I hate paying full rego for a car that only has driven <3000kms/yr in the last 5 yrs - at least I have been able to get substantial insurance discount, but its still grossly disproportionate to the distance driven) Alternatively, one could hire a LR car for holidays. If this scenario became a social norm, that would mean a probable peak demand for such LR cars during holiday times, and these cars sitting unused at other times - economically not an appealing proposition. Note that the above is predicated on a model of individual car ownership. If you do away with individual car ownership and say have a community owned model, other options become possible. For example: You can have daily used of a ESR (Electric Short Range) car, and when you are going on a holiday, you use a ESR car, drive it to a "station" - board a LR vehicle and travel to your far away destination and there gain access to another ESR car. Note you can do this now (rent a car), but its expensive, compared to using your individually owned car. You could already do this right now, even with a 400km range, if you could for example have "car swap stations" within 400 kms to each other spread around. By the way, I believe "John Wayne" did this ... ride his horse to a place and change to a new horse somewhere on the trip and continued his trip on another horse!!! Car share models do exist currently but tend to be localised and I dont think any satisfy the long distance scenario above(?). Car nowadays are generally designed and marketed for individual ownership. Even if they are fleet company cars, they are still designed to satisfy individual comfort preferences mostly. In contrast public transport vehicle are designed for the mass with lesser emphasis on individual preferences, obviously. If cars are to be build for sharing as standard practice, they would probably have to be designed differently, and have features to facilitate sharing. Here is another side to this. As we know them today, cars are actually incredibly inefficient means of transportation and possibly the least efficient peaceful use machine ever invented by man, in terms of energy use!!! The fact is 90%+ of the energy used by a car is wasted energy!!! Think about it: the average car weighs about 1200-1500kg. The average person say weighs between 70-90kgs.......it actually means that for every $1 spent on using a car today, 90c+ is actually spent moving an empty car!!! Why the hell would anyone sensibly want to drive an empty car around??? You could improve on this by loading a car with full passenger load and luggage, but you are still wasting a lot of energy!! Or you could build much lighter cars - but that does not appear to be coming soon, and lighter cars would have to be much much lighter! Thats where public transport becomes so much more energy efficient! In fact flying is more energy efficient than driving the average car on the road today. Riding a motorbike would be more efficient. We have used car for most of a century now, and they have been successful because the cost of using them was relatively low for those who could afford them in the first place - cheap energy/petrol. Btw, simply replacing petrol with electric propulsion and otherwise keep on designing car more or less as they are today, does nothing to improve the energy efficiency issue. We perhaps need to slowly get used to the demise of individual car ownership in the long term and re-invent what we expect and demand of them. When Ford, Holden and Toyota announced the closure of their manufacturing plant here, it nay well be the early sign of this inevitable change. We could start thinking about designing and manufacturing SPVs instead of SUVs: Sharable Personal Vehicles. So until "Scotty is ready to beam anyone of us to our holiday destination" we better also get used to using more of Public/Mass Transportion means or may be look forward to SPV's. Cheers, Daniel.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:08:35 Daniel Jitnah wrote:
But really the best option is an electric car running on solar/wind generated electricity. Electric cars have a range of 400Km+ which compares well with petrol powered cars. The Tesla model S has a range of up to 500Km depending on the test cycle used - my personal record for driving a car without refuelling is 500Km.
The other problem with full electric cars and that is not mentioned as often as range is recharge time. For an electric car to be really practical a few things would ideally need to happen.
1. range to equal or exceed drivable distance during day time say at 100
Range to equal distance that most people actually drive is much easier to achieve. What portion of the population drives more than 400km in one go on a regular basis? A large portion of driving is to work and back, if you can recharge at work (which is being done) then you only need the range for a one- way trip. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/b7f... The ABS has the average driver driving for 87 minutes a day. On a day when an average driver does twice the average driving a Tesla S would still cover them without needing to be charged at work. I don't think I've driven 400km in a day at any time in the last 10 years. A Tesla S and the option of renting a car for longer journeys would do for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_S The "supercharging" feature of the Tesla S allows fully charging the battery in 1 hour. The number of people who will drive 400km and not want a 1 hour break is vanishingly small.
kms/hr, say for 10-12 hrs = 1000kms to 1200kms, but probably closer to 1500kms to account for load variation. Then one could realistically drive all day and recharge overnight. Thats assuming recharge time 1hr = 1r driving. Or 2. Recharge time to e substantially reduced to say 1 hr = 8-10 hrs driving. Then you could drive for say 4 hrs stop for 1/2 hr recharge and drive another 4 hrs etc ...
3. You could also have a quick battery replacement mechanism, (like swapping your bbq gas bottle), where you basically pay for the charge + a small admin fee.
This has already been done in Israel. It could be done for taxis and couriers here and the Tesla S is designed for it (although the battery swap stations haven't been built). Most people won't need it though.
1. above is probably the most likely scenario to be available sooner than later. I read recently (will have to find reference, unless someone else has it handy?) that 800kms range electric cars is not too far away so thats a 100% improvement on the current ~400kms.
Just put more batteries in the car. But then you have to use more energy to transport batteries.
Cost of electric cars: They are still quite more expensive, although prices are coming down.
The Tesla S is designed to be cheaply serviced, according to the Wikipedia page service for everything other than tyres is covered for 4 years and you can pay an extra $4000 to cover the next 4 years. I think that servicing a typical petrol car from the age of 4 to 8 is going to cost more than $1000 per annum.
Car ownership: What do people expect and how do they use their car? Although by far the majority of car trips done by someone owning a car (specially private owners) would be daily commute for work/domestic purposes and would most likely fit in the 400 kms range, people would still want prefer a car that can easily do the "few times a year" 500+ kms holiday trip from Melbourne to Sydney or similar.
It's cheaper to hire a car for that.
Those who can afford it could have a small electric car for daily work commute, and a larger "long range (LR)" car for occasional long trips. However this means paying full rego and insurance for a car that sits in a garage most of the time. (thats another debate: I hate paying full rego for a car that only has driven <3000kms/yr in the last 5 yrs - at least I have been able to get substantial insurance discount, but its still grossly disproportionate to the distance driven)
http://www.goget.com.au/rates/ Owning a larger petrol/Diesel car for the few times a year that you need it is a significant cost too. GoGet charges $89 per day for renting a car on their minimum usage package, other car share companies might have cheaper offers. http://www.rentabomb.com.au/ Rent A Bomb has rates as low as $28 per day if you really want to save money. If you spent 10 days a year on a long holiday trip then that would cost $280 from Rent A Bomb. If you drive an hour to work and an hour home every day then a small electric car would save you a lot more than $280.
Alternatively, one could hire a LR car for holidays. If this scenario became a social norm, that would mean a probable peak demand for such LR cars during holiday times, and these cars sitting unused at other times - economically not an appealing proposition.
The number of people who actually do such long holidays is a lot smaller than you might think. From Melbourne you can drive to Warrnambool, Apollo bay, Phillip Island, or Ballaratt without getting close to the range of a Tesla S.
Car share models do exist currently but tend to be localised and I dont think any satisfy the long distance scenario above(?).
Car nowadays are generally designed and marketed for individual ownership. Even if they are fleet company cars, they are still designed to satisfy individual comfort preferences mostly. In contrast public transport vehicle are designed for the mass with lesser emphasis on individual preferences, obviously. If cars are to be build for sharing as standard practice, they would probably have to be designed differently, and have features to facilitate sharing.
The car share companies like GoGet have sorted out the remote unlocking and key sharing aspects. Car manufacturers such as Mercedes have sorted out the adjusting seat preferences to the driver. But a personal car is still more personal than a shared car. It becomes an issue of how much you want to save money.
Thats where public transport becomes so much more energy efficient! In fact flying is more energy efficient than driving the average car on the road today. Riding a motorbike would be more efficient.
I've seen claims that 2 or 3 people in a car can be comparable in terms of fuel per passenger to a mostly full passenger jet. So I guess a Prius with 4+ people will do a lot better. But you are correct that public transport is the way to go. Part of the problem is that people think of driving a car as an issue of freedom, when really driving time is part of work time. I'd rather do 8 hours work and 2 hours of reading a book or playing phone games than 8 hours of office work and 2 hours of driving work. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Daniel Jitnah wrote:
You could already do this right now, even with a 400km range, if you could for example have "car swap stations" within 400 kms to each other spread around. By the way, I believe "John Wayne" did this ... ride his horse to a place and change to a new horse somewhere on the trip and continued his trip on another horse!!!
This was standard practice for messenger services prior to the telegraph (and heliograph?). Permanent stations were set up one day's ride apart. In hostile territory you would bring the 'remounts' with you. IMO mass transit should be promoted where it's appropriate. Cars really ought to be a stopgap for when nobody else wants to go there.
Hi, I'd be very surprised if our population peaked at only 8 billion, too. Have read somewhere that (in spite of so many earlier predictions of total global population peaking or levelling off) it's simply continued to rise in line with previous growth. So, I'll start believing those optimistic predictions as soon as the data begins to fit the projections. Carl On 24/04/14 11:32, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Jason White wrote:
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them. It's predicted to peak at approximately 8 billion. However, this also coincides with an era of global warming in addition to resource constraints and, of course, risks that are hard to estimate, for example the next influenza epidemic.
I am surprised by such a low figure; but of course population reduction promises the simplest solution to our environmental woes. Perhaps this anticipates third world nations moving to first world fertility rates ? An interesting problem which doesn't seem to get much attention, because it has thus far seemed unlikely is: What if fertility rates continued to decline and world population collapsed to to say a tenth of that current , ie to say 600 million. Even if this occurred slowly, say over a several hundred years the cultural, industrial and economic effects would be enormous. In that situation vast amounts of skill, technique and knowledge must likely be lost, for the simple reason there is no one to pass it on to; quite aside from the obvious reduction in market sizes;
regards Rohan McLeod
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Jason White wrote:
Carl Turney <carl@boms.com.au> wrote:
But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them.
It's predicted to peak at approximately 8 billion. However, this also coincides with an era of global warming in addition to resource constraints and, of course, risks that are hard to estimate, for example the next influenza epidemic.
I think it was first year mathematics that they introduced the preditor/prey coupled differential equations otherwise known as the Logistic Equation and variations thereof. We are the predator rather than the prey, but ultimately I suspect the mathematics is the same - resource constraints and famine-induced disease will become the prey. The sudden crashes aren't pretty. Decimation is an understatement. -- Tim Connors
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:01:10 Carl Turney wrote:
Also, Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" cites a large number of major cities throughout the world that have grown up by "mining water" (i.e. drilling wells), and how most of them are now "getting close to the absolute bottom". Then things will get =really= "interesting", as many aren't by the ocean and/or can't afford desalination plants.
How many cities are there that aren't near an ocean and are in arid countries? As for not affording desalination, populations can migrate and spending our tax money on desalination and other water resources would be a much better use of money than spending it on wars. The supposed aims of most wars (removing despotic governments etc) will be better achieved by providing food and water security.
But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them.
Population growth doesn't have to be a problem. Educate women and provide a decent standard of living to everyone and the population isn't going to grow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territor... Quickly scan the above page and you'll notice the correlation between standard of living and birth rate. Now if we want to continue to have a small number of mostly white people (US, EU, Australia, etc) hog most of the world's resources and at the same time not have overall population growth then it's probably not a solvable problems. But if we were to be a little less selfish and use more renewable resources then this shouldn't be a difficult problem to solve. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Hi Russell, Many large cities aren't near an ocean (Australia an exception), and it doesn't need to be arid for people to not have enough to drink or grow food with. Relocating hundreds of millions to billions of people to other locations has significant hardships, and the number of places with sufficient excess water, food, shelter and other supplies to accommodate any of them is probably close to zero. I agree and extend: War (worse than) desalination (worse than) decreased population. "Providing food and water security", whilst humane in the short term, contributes to population growth, which magnifies and delays the inevitable disaster. That was the point of Diamond's description of the growth history of these precarious cities. Agree that the education of women is the most effective method of population control. Ever see the movie "Idiocracy" (2006) with Luke Wilson? So funny, so unsettlingly probable. Even getting the first world to consume far far less, and the third world to do things in a way that's much nicer to the environment, it doesn't seem like an adequate solution. We can recycle all the toilet tissue and containers in the world, live hot in the summer and cold in the winter, ban personal vehicles, go strictly vegetarian, and we'd =still= need x Olympic swimming pools of water and y b-double trucks of food per person per lifetime. Please tell us how we can change the minds of right-wing Tea Party members, and the devout believers that "God wants us to multiply and will make it all OK for us if we do"? My generation made a massive whack at it back in the 60s and 70s, and was promptly followed by the Greed is Good generation of the 80s. Kids have an inescapable habit of rebelling against whatever their parents believe in. Good luck. I'm all used up. Carl On 24/04/14 12:18, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:01:10 Carl Turney wrote:
Also, Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" cites a large number of major cities throughout the world that have grown up by "mining water" (i.e. drilling wells), and how most of them are now "getting close to the absolute bottom". Then things will get =really= "interesting", as many aren't by the ocean and/or can't afford desalination plants.
How many cities are there that aren't near an ocean and are in arid countries?
As for not affording desalination, populations can migrate and spending our tax money on desalination and other water resources would be a much better use of money than spending it on wars. The supposed aims of most wars (removing despotic governments etc) will be better achieved by providing food and water security.
But the vast majority of people still believe that population growth isn't a bad thing, and extremely few politicians and policy-makers who'll dare to educate them.
Population growth doesn't have to be a problem. Educate women and provide a decent standard of living to everyone and the population isn't going to grow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territor...
Quickly scan the above page and you'll notice the correlation between standard of living and birth rate.
Now if we want to continue to have a small number of mostly white people (US, EU, Australia, etc) hog most of the world's resources and at the same time not have overall population growth then it's probably not a solvable problems.
But if we were to be a little less selfish and use more renewable resources then this shouldn't be a difficult problem to solve.
Hi Trent, Here's something I found in < 2 minutes...
... and some stuff that's 20 years old...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_density_1994.png
... and another view...
Done for the day. Cheers, Carl p.s. I'm greatly impressed by most of the posts in the last couple days. Even when I disagree with someone, or their point is heavily opinionated: The level of background knowledge is vast, the English composition is great, the logic of argument is patent. Someone should do a Venn Diagram of Mensa and LUV. On 24/04/14 16:22, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Carl Turney wrote:
Many large cities aren't near an ocean [...]
Citation needed.
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
Carl Turney wrote:
Please tell us how we can change the minds of right-wing Tea Party members, and the devout believers that "God wants us to multiply and will make it all OK for us if we do"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull They're even creepier than regular theists. AFAIK they're not affiliated with the Tea Party.
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Carl Turney wrote:
Please tell us how we can change the minds of right-wing Tea Party members, and the devout believers that "God wants us to multiply and will make it all OK for us if we do"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull They're even creepier than regular theists.
I agree. Note that an effective public policy doesn't require convincing members of such groups that they're mistaken. In a democratic society, the policies are set by elected representatives, who are ultimately responsible to the public through the voting mechanism. Lobbyists can have an unreasonably large influence in practice, of course, and this is a real problem for democracy.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Carl Turney wrote:
It's a self-inflicted mortal wound, and I'm tired of being an evangelist on the subject. I'm 61, giving up, and looking out for number one from now on.
Heh. Agreed. A while ago I came to the conclusion humans don't have the maturity to deal with a global problem or elect actual leaders, and this is not going to change in my lifetime. Humans are too selfish to make short term sacrifices for the good of the future. And very much more recently, I started to not care anymore. Ironically, it is now I that have become selfish. Deliberately not having children, I'm OK, Jack. I suspect my part of the world won't be too much more difficult to handle by the end of my time, but those who have had kids will probably regret the world they have set up for their kids, but hey, it's all self inflicted. They needed that SUV to ferry their brats to school across the road. -- Tim Connors
Hi Tim, I'm a bit confused... You're suggesting that deliberately not having children is =selfish=? I'm thinking precisely the opposite than that. Stopped at 0, myself. Step-fathered a few in my time, though. Carl On 24/04/14 15:44, Tim Connors wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Carl Turney wrote:
It's a self-inflicted mortal wound, and I'm tired of being an evangelist on the subject. I'm 61, giving up, and looking out for number one from now on.
Heh. Agreed. A while ago I came to the conclusion humans don't have the maturity to deal with a global problem or elect actual leaders, and this is not going to change in my lifetime. Humans are too selfish to make short term sacrifices for the good of the future.
And very much more recently, I started to not care anymore. Ironically, it is now I that have become selfish. Deliberately not having children, I'm OK, Jack. I suspect my part of the world won't be too much more difficult to handle by the end of my time, but those who have had kids will probably regret the world they have set up for their kids, but hey, it's all self inflicted. They needed that SUV to ferry their brats to school across the road.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:27:40 Lev Lafayette wrote:
Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct.
When discussing these things we should consider the consequences of being wrong. What happens if we are wrong about climate change and we reduce coal use anyway? Well we have less pollution in the air, lower cancer rates, less destruction of farmland (mines are big), and fewer injuries and deaths in mining. What happens if we do nothing about climate change and it turns out that we needed to do something? Then we get sea level rises destroying a lot of valuable property (most of the most expensive land in the world is near the coast), floods, new deserts, lots of destroyed farmland, famine, and war. Doing something is the prudent thing to do. My confidence in not having a serious car crash or house fire is much greater than 90% but I still pay for insurance. Not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
Doing something is the prudent thing to do.
My confidence in not having a serious car crash or house fire is much greater than 90% but I still pay for insurance. Not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision.
On Thu, April 24, 2014 12:55 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:27:40 Lev Lafayette wrote:
Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct.
When discussing these things we should consider the consequences of being wrong.
Well yes, that's basic risk analysis; probability multiplied by cost is impact risk.
What happens if we are wrong about climate change and we reduce coal use anyway? Well we have less pollution in the air, lower cancer rates, less destruction of farmland (mines are big), and fewer injuries and deaths in mining.
Pro-forma, the denier crowd would argue that acting as if global warming was real and a problem results in lower economic growth, unemployment etc. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Hi, Regarding "not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision". Only 60% of the annual income of the average insurance company goes back to the punters as honoured claims. The other 40% covers their advertising, wages, utilities, consumables, depreciables, shareholder's dividends, lawyers arguing why claims should be rejected, etc. That's why "self insurance" is so appealing to organisations large enough to bear/cushion the risk. If I'd bought full-coverage car insurance all my life, I'd have spent enough to buy a few new cars outright. Of course, I protect myself against getting sued a million bucks for giving someone whiplash, but I never buy insurance for anything that I own. The money's =much= better spent on having impartial experts come in and conduct fire audits, security audits, and safety audits. Money can't bring Nana or the old family photos back. Carl On 24/04/14 11:55, Russell Coker wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:27:40 Lev Lafayette wrote:
Having reviewed a great deal of the literature on the subject, I have a very high level of confidence (over 90%) that the mainstream scientific view of global warming is correct.
When discussing these things we should consider the consequences of being wrong.
What happens if we are wrong about climate change and we reduce coal use anyway? Well we have less pollution in the air, lower cancer rates, less destruction of farmland (mines are big), and fewer injuries and deaths in mining.
What happens if we do nothing about climate change and it turns out that we needed to do something? Then we get sea level rises destroying a lot of valuable property (most of the most expensive land in the world is near the coast), floods, new deserts, lots of destroyed farmland, famine, and war.
Doing something is the prudent thing to do.
My confidence in not having a serious car crash or house fire is much greater than 90% but I still pay for insurance. Not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision.
Carl Turney wrote:
Regarding "not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision".
Only 60% of the annual income of the average insurance company goes back to the punters as honoured claims.
Because contracts of insurance have many features in common with wagers, insurance contracts are often distinguished under law as agreements in which either party has an interest in the "bet-upon" outcome BEYOND the specific financial terms. [...] Nonetheless, both insurance and gambling contracts are typically considered aleatory contracts [...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling#Insurance I never understood how that's enough of a difference to yield the "insurance good! gambling bad!" logic that people tend to hit me with.
On 24/04/2014 2:15 PM, Carl Turney wrote:
Regarding "not paying for insurance is just a stupid financial decision".
Only 60% of the annual income of the average insurance company goes back to the punters as honoured claims.
The other 40% covers their advertising, wages, utilities, consumables, depreciables, shareholder's dividends, lawyers arguing why claims should be rejected, etc.
That's why "self insurance" is so appealing to organisations large enough to bear/cushion the risk.
If I'd bought full-coverage car insurance all my life, I'd have spent enough to buy a few new cars outright.
Of course, I protect myself against getting sued a million bucks for giving someone whiplash, but I never buy insurance for anything that I own.
The money's =much= better spent on having impartial experts come in and conduct fire audits, security audits, and safety audits. Money can't bring Nana or the old family photos back.
Totally agree Carl, insurance can be very costly indeed and if you can afford self insurance, so much better for you. Cheers A.
On 24/04/2014 11:55 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
What happens if we are wrong about climate change and we reduce coal use anyway? Well we have less pollution in the air, lower cancer rates, less destruction of farmland (mines are big), and fewer injuries and deaths in mining.
All of those ideas are perfectly good whether or not there is any real issue with so called "Climate Change" ... On the issue of mining, there should be no such thing as "coal seam mining", that, with the chemicals in use is a far greater risk than almost *anything* else to our farming lands, the marine life is also at risk to mining "collateral damage" .... Cheers A.
participants (16)
-
Anders Holmström -
Andrew McGlashan -
Bianca Gibson -
Brent Wallis -
Carl Turney -
Daniel Jitnah -
Geoff D'Arcy -
Jason White -
Lev Lafayette -
Mark Trickett -
Pidgorny, Slav (GPM) -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Tim Connors -
Trent W. Buck