Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Encouragingly, having met its air quality targets in Beijing last year, China has launched a nationwide initiative to crack down on polluters. Meanwhile the Trump administration continues to relax key controls on toxic air pollution. 

Yeah, in recent times the problem has become such in magnitude that even the Chinese ruling party can't ignore it. 

 

It's encouraging that as a nation tends to develop, green initiatives tend to happen as a matter of course. Unless they begin to regress, as the US seems to be attempting to do.

[Vardinio'sCat]

On 3/23/2018 at 18:51, Buce said:

Paul Ehrlich: 'Collapse of civilisation is a near certainty within decades'

 

Fifty years after the publication of his controversial book The Population Bomb, biologist Paul Ehrlich warns overpopulation and overconsumption are driving us over the edge

 

A shattering collapse of civilisation is a “near certainty” in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world that sustains all life on Earth, according to biologist Prof Paul Ehrlich.

In May, it will be 50 years since the eminent biologist published his most famous and controversial book, The Population Bomb. But Ehrlich remains as outspoken as ever.

 

The world’s optimum population is less than two billion people – 5.6 billion fewer than on the planet today, he argues, and there is an increasing toxification of the entire planet by synthetic chemicals that may be more dangerous to people and wildlife than climate change.

Ehrlich also says an unprecedented redistribution of wealth is needed to end the over-consumption of resources, but “the rich who now run the global system – that hold the annual ‘world destroyer’ meetings in Davos – are unlikely to let it happen”.

The Population Bomb, written with his wife Anne Ehrlich in 1968, predicted “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s – a fate that was avoided by the green revolution in intensive agriculture.

Many details and timings of events were wrong, Paul Ehrlich acknowledges today, but he says the book was correct overall.

“Population growth, along with over-consumption per capita, is driving civilisation over the edge: billions of people are now hungry or micronutrient malnourished, and climate disruption is killing people.”

 

Ehrlich has been at Stanford University since 1959 and is also president of the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere, which works “to reduce the threat of a shattering collapse of civilisation”.

“It is a near certainty in the next few decades, and the risk is increasing continually as long as perpetual growth of the human enterprise remains the goal of economic and political systems,” he says. “As I’ve said many times, ‘perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell’.”

It is the combination of high population and high consumption by the rich that is destroying the natural world, he says. Research published by Ehrlich and colleagues in 2017 concluded that this is driving a sixth mass extinction of biodiversity, upon which civilisation depends for clean air, water and food.

 

The solutions are tough, he says. “To start, make modern contraception and back-up abortion available to all and give women full equal rights, pay and opportunities with men.

“I hope that would lead to a low enough total fertility rate that the needed shrinkage of population would follow. [But] it will take a very long time to humanely reduce total population to a size that is sustainable.”

 

He estimates an optimum global population size at roughly 1.5 to two billion, “But the longer humanity pursues business as usual, the smaller the sustainable society is likely to prove to be. We’re continuously harvesting the low-hanging fruit, for example by driving fisheries stocks to extinction.”

Ehrlich is also concerned about chemical pollution, which has already reached the most remote corners of the globe. “The evidence we have is that toxics reduce the intelligence of children, and members of the first heavily influenced generation are now adults.”

He treats this risk with characteristic dark humour: “The first empirical evidence we are dumbing down Homo sapiens were the Republican debates in the US 2016 presidential elections – and the resultant kakistocracy. On the other hand, toxification may solve the population problem, since sperm counts are plunging.”

 

Reflecting five decades after the publication of The Population Bomb (which he wanted to be titled Population, Resources, and Environment), he says: “No scientist would hold exactly the same views after a half century of further experience, but Anne and I are still proud of our book.” It helped start a worldwide debate on the impact of rising population that continues today, he says.

The book’s strength, Ehrlich says, is that it was short, direct and basically correct. “Its weaknesses were not enough on overconsumption and equity issues. It needed more on women’s rights, and explicit countering of racism – which I’ve spent much of my career and activism trying to counter.

 

“Too many rich people in the world is a major threat to the human future, and cultural and genetic diversity are great human resources.”

Accusations that the book lent support to racist attitudes to population control still hurt today, Ehrlich says. “Having been a co-inventor of the sit-in to desegregate restaurants in Lawrence, Kansas in the 1950s and having published books and articles on the biological ridiculousness of racism, those accusations continue to annoy me.”

But, he says: “You can’t let the possibility that ignorant people will interpret your ideas as racist keep you from discussing critical issues honestly.”

 

 

 

Not a big fan of Paul Erlich. As I understand it, he is a neo-Malthusian, and given he has a pretty poor track record of population prediction, I would recommend other sources. When Malthus said pretty much the same thing as Erlich said in the 70's, over 200 years ago, he was just plain wrong, and the population in 1800 was what? Estimated to be less than 1 billion.

 

The carrying capacity of the earth has grown a great deal since Malthus, and the probability is it will grow more, despite the many challenges we face.

 

Now I support many of the solutions Erlich talks about and the concerns he has, and it has to be recognised he has responded to most of the criticisms of his work over the decades, so it is not as bad a view as he held in the past. But this kind of work, communicated in this kind of way, gives an excuse for us (relatively) rich folks to ignore our responsibilities, and for the very rich 'super-consumers' to carry on their profligate waste of our limited resources. Why bother even trying when population growth is out of control?

 

The reality is that apart from in some areas of Africa, population growth isn't the big problem, and even there we know how to address the issue (and tbf, using many of the tools Erlich suggests). The big problem is consumption amongst the relatively wealthy, which is why Erlich makes reference to''over-consumption per capita', as well as population.

 

The key limitation with me is that by hyping the population problem, he ignores the relatively good news on population growth, which has been happening over many decades. If people were well informed, Erlich would not be a problem, as people would have good context in which to judge his work. But they really don't.

 

I'm going to offer a few links to the work of the late lamented statistician Hans Rosling, who spent a fair portion of his life trying to educate us about some relatively positive stories, but ones that rarely get into the papers, and certainly never got onto the front pages. He repeatedly proved that we have less of an understanding of current population trends than a bunch of chimpanzees. The interesting thing is why we are so ignorant, and perhaps Erlich (and people like him) is one part of the answer.

 

One last thing, Rosling is not saying that everything is rosy, so much as saying that panicking about population doesn't really help. A calm and methodical approach will do on this issue at least, because we know the things that have worked in the past.

 

 

...........

 

 

Here is a short little piece from Newsnight, just under 5 mins, to give you a taste of how his stuff works. It is quite basic, but when I first came across him, I was absolutely staggered to realise how little I knew about the world.

 

 

 

 

Here is one of his famous TED talks from about  10 years ago, when he was probably funnier and more energetic. It is just 20 minutes of your time.

 

Here is the final and most up to date version of his landmark lecture that I could find, for the BBC, entitled 'Don't Panic - The truth about population'. At about an hour, it explains why, when birth rates are falling, we will still have to wait for a good few decades before the world population starts to fall. As he says in the Newsnight piece, the braking distance is 70 years!

 

 

 

Hans Rosling 1948-2017, RIP.

 

Edited 25 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[Guest]

On 24/03/2018 at 13:58, yorkie1999 said:

Yes, probably from china, india, brazil and any other nation that doesn't really give a fvck about what waste they produce or where it goes to as long as their economy's grow...to the detriment of the rest of us that are going to end up having to clean it up and that means higher taxes for responsible nations to pay for it and the nations responsible will just carry on as normal dumping crap into the oceans and pumping toxins from fossil fuels into the atmosphere.

I'm sure you understand the irony of your post.

 

Interesting fact, considering how SKYTV have a real bag on about plastics in the sea. Plastic is only the second most pollutant in the sea. dog ends are the first. Yes I realise that they eventually break down unlike the plastics but I can see smokers complaining about pollution in the sea before throwing their dog end on the floor. The dog ends then wash down the drains and into the ocean. It's amazing and disgusting to walk along the beach and find hundreds of dog ends on the sand where they have washed to from a water outlet pipe.

 

Another law needed is about sea going vessels. Ten percent of the rubbish in the oceans is dumped overboard from boats - and it's been happening forever. We have cruise liners bigger than some small towns but few wonder what happens to all the rubbish (and sewage) from these ships.

 

 

[Vardinio'sCat]

12 hours ago, FIF said:

I'm sure you understand the irony of your post.

 

Interesting fact, considering how SKYTV have a real bag on about plastics in the sea. Plastic is only the second most pollutant in the sea. dog ends are the first. Yes I realise that they eventually break down unlike the plastics but I can see smokers complaining about pollution in the sea before throwing their dog end on the floor. The dog ends then wash down the drains and into the ocean. It's amazing and disgusting to walk along the beach and find hundreds of dog ends on the sand where they have washed to from a water outlet pipe.

 

Another law needed is about sea going vessels. Ten percent of the rubbish in the oceans is dumped overboard from boats - and it's been happening forever. We have cruise liners bigger than some small towns but few wonder what happens to all the rubbish (and sewage) from these ships.

 

 

 

Top stat on the shipping industry, I had no idea.

 

The very dirty fuel used by shipping is another thing that badly needs cleaning up.

[yorkie1999]

34 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Top stat on the shipping industry, I had no idea.

 

The very dirty fuel used by shipping is another thing that badly needs cleaning up.

I’m supprised that none of the worlds anti pollution organisations have picked up on this and it’s something I wonder about when people start moaning about the amount of carbon monoxide etc that cars put out. The big container ships use 380 tonnes of fuel per day and a trip from China to the uk takes 3 weeks. Each one emits the equivalent of 50 million cars worth of cancer causing pollutants per year and there’s 90000 of them floating around the worlds oceans . The fuel, bunker oil, puts out 2000 times  the amount of sulphur than the diesel we use in cars does. Still whose complaining, at least we get cheap socks and t-shirts in Asda.

Edited 26 March 2018 by yorkie1999

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

I’m supprised that none of the worlds anti pollution organisations have picked up on this and it’s something I wonder about when people start moaning about the amount of carbon monoxide etc that cars put out. The big container ships use 380 tonnes of fuel per day and a trip from China to the uk takes 3 weeks. Each one emits the equivalent of 50 million cars worth of cancer causing pollutants per year and there’s 90000 of them floating around the worlds oceans . The fuel, bunker oil, puts out 2000 times  the amount of sulphur than the diesel we use in cars does. Still whose complaining, at least we get cheap socks and t-shirts in Asda.

 

Well, I think it has been, to an extent. I saw a TV doc about air quality on cruise ships (at sea and while docked) a few months ago. Also, some of the local air pollution worries are not so relevant at sea because some of the gases mix and disperse (although that doesn't matter with things like CO2), and the particulate  pollutants are often rained out.  But it certainly is a bit of a cinderella subject, compared to others. I suppose it is easier to get people motivated about things they can see around them or have nice fluffy faces, and as you say, we like cheap stuff.

 

As you are no doubt aware, cheap container shipping is massively important to the modern world, so I guess it will be quite a while before this nettle is grasped, and it will probably be done slowly when it does happen.

 

Just to echo your point, I have read many of these ships can be seen from space, because of the amount of s**t they put out, but your stats beat my anecdote hands down. 

Edited 26 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I’m supprised that none of the worlds anti pollution organisations have picked up on this and it’s something I wonder about when people start moaning about the amount of carbon monoxide etc that cars put out. The big container ships use 380 tonnes of fuel per day and a trip from China to the uk takes 3 weeks. Each one emits the equivalent of 50 million cars worth of cancer causing pollutants per year and there’s 90000 of them floating around the worlds oceans . The fuel, bunker oil, puts out 2000 times  the amount of sulphur than the diesel we use in cars does. Still whose complaining, at least we get cheap socks and t-shirts in Asda.

This is actually an issue that I hadn't thought about much, and yes - it should be considered.

[davieG]

Passengers ride on the UK's first automated mainline train

Passengers have been given a ride on the UK's first automated mainline trains.

A new digital signalling system allows automated trains to run between St Pancras and Blackfriars in central London.

Automated services will able to run every two minutes giving space for an additional 60,000 passengers during peak hours, Govia Thameslink Railway said.

Trains will still have drivers to carry out safety checks and close doors.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-43545422/passengers-ride-on-the-uk-s-first-automated-mainline-train

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

Passengers ride on the UK's first automated mainline train

Passengers have been given a ride on the UK's first automated mainline trains.

A new digital signalling system allows automated trains to run between St Pancras and Blackfriars in central London.

Automated services will able to run every two minutes giving space for an additional 60,000 passengers during peak hours, Govia Thameslink Railway said.

Trains will still have drivers to carry out safety checks and close doors.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-43545422/passengers-ride-on-the-uk-s-first-automated-mainline-train

One of many areas where digital tech is going to outstrip human capability soon enough.

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

One of many areas where digital tech is going to outstrip human capability soon enough.

......until it crashes/kills somebody.

Digital tech will need to prove it's totally flawless to avoid a media bashing.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

......until it crashes/kills somebody.

Digital tech will need to prove it's totally flawless to avoid a media bashing.

I disagree.

 

I'm not sure why people look for perfection from machines, because as they are designed and built by humans that's never going to be the case. It's unreasonable and sounds like an excuse to maintain the status quo, I think.

 

All they have to prove IMO is to be statistically significantly better at reducing human fatalities/injuries than a human operator in the same circumstance, not perfect.

[davieG]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I disagree.

 

I'm not sure why people look for perfection from machines, because as they are designed and built by humans that's never going to be the case. It's unreasonable and sounds like an excuse to maintain the status quo, I think.

 

All they have to prove IMO is to be statistically significantly better at reducing human fatalities/injuries than a human operator in the same circumstance, not perfect.

I'm not saying it should from my perspective but the  media love a story and they don't need facts (comparable ones in this case) to create a shit storm.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm not saying it should from my perspective but the  media love a story and they don't need facts (comparable ones in this case) to create a shit storm.

That's very true.

 

I just wish that someone would make that point more publicly - loudly, and at length. We're a pretty weird species when "machine operated car kills one person OMG" can be a better seller of news than "driver loses control and kills four people, just another day".

[davieG]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's very true.

 

I just wish that someone would make that point more publicly - loudly, and at length. We're a pretty weird species when "machine operated car kills one person OMG" can be a better seller of news than "driver loses control and kills four people, just another day".

Reminds me of this

 

Parkside: William Huskisson was mortally wounded at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway when he was run down by Stephenson's Rocket.[3][4][5] Huskisson is often reported as the first railway fatality, including in ordinarily reliable sources.[6] This is untrue; at least two people were killed on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway prior to its opening to the public.[7] The earliest recorded fatality caused by a steam locomotive was an unnamed woman, described as "a blind American beggar", fatally injured by a train on the Stockton and Darlington Railway on 5 March 1827.[8]

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Reminds me of this

 

Parkside: William Huskisson was mortally wounded at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway when he was run down by Stephenson's Rocket.[3][4][5] Huskisson is often reported as the first railway fatality, including in ordinarily reliable sources.[6] This is untrue; at least two people were killed on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway prior to its opening to the public.[7] The earliest recorded fatality caused by a steam locomotive was an unnamed woman, described as "a blind American beggar", fatally injured by a train on the Stockton and Darlington Railway on 5 March 1827.[8]

Yep. It's pretty typical fear of change IMO and that's all it is.

 

The good news is that such fear, unless it's backed by statistics proving that such an advance is worse than the status quo (Thalidomide and DDT spring to mind) does tend to fade reasonably quickly and people tend to switch to the "new normal" in reasonably short order. I'm inclined to think this won't be all that different.

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yep. It's pretty typical fear of change IMO and that's all it is.

 

The good news is that such fear, unless it's backed by statistics proving that such an advance is worse than the status quo (Thalidomide and DDT spring to mind) does tend to fade reasonably quickly and people tend to switch to the "new normal" in reasonably short order. I'm inclined to think this won't be all that different.

 

I don't think it's that simple. I was thinking it being more about a dislike over the lack of control (probably cos I have this problem big time with flying). And then this article seemed to sum it up well to me. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-21/driverless-cars-facebook-and-control-how-fear-breeds-overreaction

It may not be any way rational but it is quite natural. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I don't think it's that simple. I was thinking it being more about a dislike over the lack of control (probably cos I have this problem big time with flying). And then this article seemed to sum it up well to me. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-21/driverless-cars-facebook-and-control-how-fear-breeds-overreaction

It may not be any way rational but it is quite natural. 

There's something in that, too.

 

However, again, I'm not sure that particular fear, even, is anything new. Fear over not being in control of a vehicle is pretty similar to not being in control of a creative process (like when the mechanical loom came about) IMO - in both cases, a person is afraid that mechanised use robs them of control of what they are doing and thinks it could cost them in terms of either material or bodily harm.

 

Edit: I'm an incredibly nervous flier despite knowing a lot about aero and astrodynamics, but I wouldn't blink twice at using a self-driving car. Guess that comes down to a fear of heights more than anything else.

Edited 27 March 2018 by leicsmac

[yorkie1999]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's something in that, too.

 

However, again, I'm not sure that particular fear, even, is anything new. Fear over not being in control of a vehicle is pretty similar to not being in control of a creative process (like when the mechanical loom came about) IMO - in both cases, a person is afraid that mechanised use robs them of control of what they are doing and thinks it could cost them in terms of either material or bodily harm.

 

Edit: I'm an incredibly nervous flier despite knowing a lot about aero and astrodynamics, but I wouldn't blink twice at using a self-driving car. Guess that comes down to a fear of heights more than anything else.

You would if i had the remote control for it! 

[Carl the Llama]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yep. It's pretty typical fear of change IMO and that's all it is.

 

The good news is that such fear, unless it's backed by statistics proving that such an advance is worse than the status quo (Thalidomide and DDT spring to mind) does tend to fade reasonably quickly and people tend to switch to the "new normal" in reasonably short order. I'm inclined to think this won't be all that different.

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I don't think it's that simple. I was thinking it being more about a dislike over the lack of control (probably cos I have this problem big time with flying). And then this article seemed to sum it up well to me. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-21/driverless-cars-facebook-and-control-how-fear-breeds-overreaction

It may not be any way rational but it is quite natural. 

Weird, normally you're the vanguard for new ideas Kopf.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

RE driverless tech, we are just seeing this issue play out, this incident is quite horrendous.

 

https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2018/03/22/dashcam-footage-fatal-uber-self-driving-car-accident/

 

 

I think the tech still has some way to go, and for my mind it has to be much safer than a human to be accepted. I suppose I might be able to get used to it, but I expect a huge amount of buttock clenching at first. 

[Guest]

There is no way a car with a driver would have avoided that collision. 

 

It always amazes me how many people cross the road anywhere at night wearing dark clothes, often in the rain, and think that cars can actually see them.

[Sly]

On 21/01/2018 at 19:31, Izzy Muzzett said:

This thread is way above my head but I heard yesterday that in the future, recycled plastic could be 'ground down' and mixed with Bitumen etc. to be used for resurfacing roads. Apparently plastic has some materials in it that would prolong road surfaces, reduce potholes and generally help the longevity of our roads. Not sure how much truth in it but sounded like a smart idea??

Just chipping in on this. 

 

Roads are currently made from bitumen, aggregate, sand, filler and recycled material from the previous / existing surface. It’s a bit like making a cake! 

 

A few countries, like India etc that have large volumes of excess plastic waste, have trialled plastic as a bitumen alternative with varying success.

 

The proposed UK alternative is that plastic gets added into the mix as a small %, so until it is installed, no one really knows if it will perform. The road / asphalt industry currently makes material for roads, anywhere between 150c - 190c. The industry as a whole is currently trying to reduce these temperatures to aid the carbon footprint / reduce fumes. In principle the higher you cook the bitumen the weaker the installed material is, therefore potentially leading to early life failure, or in simple terms, more pot holes. To get the plastic additive to melt, I’m informed that you need to go above these temperatures, so in a nutshell, somewhat counter productive. 

 

The issue we have with potholes in the UK isn’t just a maintenance issue unfortunately. It stems much deeper, incorrect material choice, poor quality material, sub standard installation etc

 

Another issue that hasn’t been addressed, is that roads wear out, where will these bits of plastic go then?!? We could end up with bits in the water system again! 

 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

There is no way a car with a driver would have avoided that collision. 

 

It always amazes me how many people cross the road anywhere at night wearing dark clothes, often in the rain, and think that cars can actually see them.

Aren't these cars supposed to have a type of radar to stop them hitting things? Wearing dark clothes at night should be irrelevant.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Aren't these cars supposed to have a type of radar to stop them hitting things? Wearing dark clothes at night should be irrelevant.

Did you watch the video webs, pretty much unavoidable if you ask me. Very unfortunate.

 

 

Edited 28 March 2018 by Strokes

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Did you watch the video webs, pretty much unavoidable if you ask me. Very unfortunate.

 No, I don't want to see stuff like that.

 

I was just the comment about dark clothes. If these cars can't be used at night or when its raining they aren't ready for the road yet.