Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

T-30 minutes.

 

The 33-engine cluster is frankly insane. The engineering complexity to get them all to fire in order and successfully and get the thing into the air and travelling the way it should is unreal.

[SpacedX]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

T-30 minutes.

 

The 33-engine cluster is frankly insane. The engineering complexity to get them all to fire in order and successfully and get the thing into the air and travelling the way it should is unreal.

That excessive complexity you refer to reminds me of the N1,

 

Scrubbed - wet dress rehearsal. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

That excessive complexity you refer to reminds me of the N1,

 

Scrubbed - wet dress rehearsal. 

 

 

Yep, damn it.

[marbles]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/g7-vows-to-step-up-moves-to-renewable-energy-zero-carbon/ar-AA19URew?OCID=ansmsnnews11
 

 

[leicsmac]

@grobyfox1990

 

Right, better place for the discussion.

 

Again, I agree that there's a lot going on in terms of adaptation and resilience against the consequences that will result from us not taking the whole thing seriously back when it would have really helped more.

 

I just think, with good reason I believe, that it's simply not enough to prevent pretty bad effects being felt in many places. Perhaps the richer countries will escape the worst, but a lot of places around the Equator are going to face terrible times without still more drastic action being taken. How that happens, again, I have no idea.

[Daggers]

 

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

Ignore it, it'll go away I reckon.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

"What do you suggest we do?"

 

Well, considering neither current methodology (gentle persuasion or more direct action) can be proven to get things moving in a timely enough fashion, I've no fvcking idea and I wish I knew.

[Daggers]

54 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

But as Rumble has pointed out, these ways are proven to be flawed too. 

 

With the greatest of respect, he didn’t. He pointed out that they’re annoying. They are.

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

"What do you suggest we do?"

 

Well, considering neither current methodology (gentle persuasion or more direct action) can be proven to get things moving in a timely enough fashion, I've no fvcking idea and I wish I knew.

The answer, to my mind, would be terrorism. You destroy the infrastructure you blame for the problem.

 

Again, I need to point this out as some  conflate me expressing ideas as me lending them my support. I don’t.

 

Direct change only comes from blood and explosions if you want society to turn on a sixpence. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Daggers said:

The answer, to my mind, would be terrorism. You destroy the infrastructure you blame for the problem.

 

Again, I need to point this out as some  conflate me expressing ideas as me lending them my support. I don’t.

 

Direct change only comes from blood and explosions if you want society to turn on a sixpence. 

I can see why that conclusion could be reached.

 

However, I don't see how it can result in the changes necessary to that infrastructure in order to guarantee long-term survival. Not with any quality of life, anyway.

 

Edit: Not unless it resulted in the ascendancy of a government that would be able to sidestep its citizens and implement the changes regardless of public opinion.

Edited 18 April 2023 by leicsmac

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I can see why that conclusion could be reached.

 

However, I don't see how it can result in the changes necessary to that infrastructure in order to guarantee long-term survival. Not with any quality of life, anyway.

That’s the logic, this version of quality of life is killing the planet - therefore the future should be hemp weaving and camp fire songs with flexible sexual relationships and wooden huts.

[Jimothy]

11 minutes ago, Daggers said:

 

With the greatest of respect, he didn’t. He pointed out that they’re annoying. They are.

 

6 minutes ago, Daggers said:

The answer, to my mind, would be terrorism. You destroy the infrastructure you blame for the problem.

 

Again, I need to point this out as some  conflate me expressing ideas as me lending them my support. I don’t.

 

Direct change only comes from blood and explosions if you want society to turn on a sixpence. 

Being annoying is a flaw though, as Rumble pointed out it turns people off. It also makes people more likely to talk about the protest than the issue.

 

I would actually prefer someone blowing something up to them sitting on a snooker table and dousing it in powder. It might actually achieve change rather than just pissing people off.

[Daggers]

Just now, Facecloth said:

 

Being annoying is a flaw though, as Rumble pointed out it turns people off. It also makes people more likely to talk about the protest than the issue.

 

I would actually prefer someone blowing something up to them sitting on a snooker table and dousing it in powder. It might actually achieve change rather than just pissing people off.

I do wonder if there is someone about to lob themselves in front of one of Charles’ horses. I’m sure the police are thinking about that too. I’m almost tempted to watch it for the inevitable demonstration.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Daggers said:

That’s the logic, this version of quality of life is killing the planet - therefore the future should be hemp weaving and camp fire songs with flexible sexual relationships and wooden huts.

Ah.

 

Well, to my mind neo-Luddism is well-meaning but illogical and totally incompatible with long-term survival of our species (and possibly other species) anyway, for reasons I've stated in this thread a couple times.

 

NB. I will state for the record that, in terms of lives and material loss, practically any method used to effect the change will be lesser than what's coming up if we don't do enough (that's a simple empirical fact), so speaking personally, as someone who thinks more human lives mean more than less human lives anywhere (as a rule), on this matter I'm mostly about whether or not such methods would be effective, not so much about what form they'd take.

[dsr-burnley]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah.

 

Well, to my mind neo-Luddism is well-meaning but illogical and totally incompatible with long-term survival of our species (and possibly other species) anyway, for reasons I've stated in this thread a couple times.

 

NB. I will state for the record that, in terms of lives and material loss, practically any method used to effect the change will be lesser than what's coming up if we don't do enough (that's a simple empirical fact), so speaking personally, as someone who thinks more human lives mean more than less human lives anywhere (as a rule), on this matter I'm mostly about whether or not such methods would be effective, not so much about what form they'd take.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that direct action that kills people would be a valid option so long as it works?

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that direct action that kills people would be a valid option so long as it works?

If it's a straight choice between some people dying now to change things and a lot more people dying later if things aren't changed...well, let's hope we never have to make that choice. Thankfully, there's (hopefully) a lot of time and resources between here and there.

 

But leave it long enough and it may be forced upon us.

 

As an aside, I don't think I'd see the same (possible) horror at this viewpoint if folks were talking about a directly human-on-human cause of death like warfare that would likewise take lives to stop. As if risking life or dying to defend a country in warfare is heroic and dying in the name of defending the future against an equally tangible natural threat is somehow horrific by comparison, when it's all the same. The death and suffering visited on humanity by the "natural" outcomes of climate change have the potential to make every single war look extraordinarily small (to say nothing of other "natural" events, too).

 

Believe me, I think that every single possible other option should be exhausted before that one is even considered. But, at the uttermost end where there may only be that binary choice above...well, all I'm saying is, again, don't let it get that far. Because someone would have to make that terrible, hard choice. And yeah, I hope they would choose the option to take less lives and I do not apologise for that. Nor should anyone interested in the continuation of as many members of our species as possible.

 

It would be a dreadful thing done to avert a more dreadful thing. Something that has happened throughout history.

Edited 18 April 2023 by leicsmac

[The Bear]

Terrorism only works if enough people truly care about the cause you are throwing your life away for. 

 

In this case, the general public doesn't care enough for it to be any more effective than just disrupting the public. The problem doesn't seem immediate enough for them to truly do anything or lobby politicians hard enough to force any change. 

 

Only when we see major global effects will the worm turn so to speak, and then the public will be demanding more to be done and holding governments accountable for not doing more earlier. 

 

Sad, but it's just human nature on a grand scale. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, The Bear said:

Terrorism only works if enough people truly care about the cause you are throwing your life away for. 

 

In this case, the general public doesn't care enough for it to be any more effective than just disrupting the public. The problem doesn't seem immediate enough for them to truly do anything or lobby politicians hard enough to force any change. 

 

Only when we see major global effects will the worm turn so to speak, and then the public will be demanding more to be done and holding governments accountable for not doing more earlier. 

 

Sad, but it's just human nature on a grand scale. 

Sadly this is likely correct. Short term self interest again.

 

Unfortunately, it means that up to a billion people in Equatorial conditions are going to end up with a critical lack of food and potable water that could have been prevented. Can still be prevented.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

 

Very Tory headline this, ignoring the context. From what I remember from the IEA report, emissions were up, but slowing greatly from 2021, industrial emissions decreased and global GDP increase outstripped emissions increases for the first time in ages. This was despite a huge gas-to-coal switch given the war and the energy crisis.

 

I would suggest 'XR' did nothing in response, nothing they do helps, I doubt they've bothered to read or understand the full report or its outcomes/suggestions. We all understand it's a transition pathway, well all apart from the shouty kids. 

[Jimothy]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sadly this is likely correct. Short term self interest again.

 

Unfortunately, it means that up to a billion people in Equatorial conditions are going to end up with a critical lack of food and potable water that could have been prevented. Can still be prevented.

Unfortunately until we sort out the vast inequalities in wealth not just across the world but in all Western countries then this is how it will be. You can't expect people to be thinking about the state of the planet in decade if they can't be sure if they'll be able to put food on the table, or even afford to turn the oven on the cook that food, or afford the bus fair to work, or fuel the car the can barely afford to keep on the road.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Unfortunately until we sort out the vast inequalities in wealth not just across the world but in all Western countries then this is how it will be. You can't expect people to be thinking about the state of the planet in decade if they can't be sure if they'll be able to put food on the table, or even afford to turn the oven on the cook that food, or afford the bus fair to work, or fuel the car the can barely afford to keep on the road.

I agree. Both issues need to be addressed concurrently in order for them both to be resolved. And the clock keeps ticking.

[marbles]

So, why is terrorism okay in some instances but not others?

 

I mean, if there’s something I feel is a danger to society as a whole, shouldn’t I also be able to blow things up?

 

[grobyfox1990]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Unfortunately until we sort out the vast inequalities in wealth not just across the world but in all Western countries then this is how it will be. You can't expect people to be thinking about the state of the planet in decade if they can't be sure if they'll be able to put food on the table, or even afford to turn the oven on the cook that food, or afford the bus fair to work, or fuel the car the can barely afford to keep on the road.

Nail. Head. WEF risk report states the biggest risk facing the world is the cost of living crisis. There's no point saving the world and patting each other on the back if everyone who lives on it is miserably poor, scorched earth, would rather be dead. People can read out of context Daily Star headlines and look at Ian next door who's not recycling and think 'world's gone mate' but it's a bit more complex than that.

[leicsmac]

Just now, marbles said:

So, why is terrorism okay in some instances but not others?

 

I mean, if there’s something I feel is a danger to society as a whole, shouldn’t I also be able to blow things up?

 

Same way that acts of warfare have been justified in some cases but not others, I guess.

 

But, continuing to press the point - it really, really shouldn't have to come to that at all anyway.

 

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Nail. Head. WEF risk report states the biggest risk facing the world is the cost of living crisis. There's no point saving the world and patting each other on the back if everyone who lives on it is miserably poor, scorched earth, would rather be dead. People can read out of context Daily Star headlines and look at Ian next door who's not recycling and think 'world's gone mate' but it's a bit more complex than that.

Certainly.

 

But then the peer-reviewed academic literature is pointing out through exacting data that we continue to not do enough to prevent a rise in temperature that will have very, very nasty consequences too, so there's a few more ironclad reasons for thinking "worlds gone" - or it might be if we don't pick up the pace a little, somehow.