Technology, Science and the Environment.

[marbles]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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.

 

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.

You’re right - it shouldn’t come to that because when it does it opens the door for all nutcases (and yes, anyone here who advocated for it damn sure is a nutcase) to blow up anything/anyone they consider a threat - and that would be a long, nasty list.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, marbles said:

You’re right - it shouldn’t come to that because when it does it opens the door for all nutcases (and yes, anyone here who advocated for it damn sure is a nutcase) to blow up anything/anyone they consider a threat - and that would be a long, nasty list.

And then the world doesn't get saved anyway because of lack of unity.

 

So yeah, ineffective in any case.

[marbles]

13 minutes 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.

I read somewhere that the biggest  opposition to worrying about the future, is poverty.

People who are barely surviving only worry about how they will survive - feed and house their families.

That in order to get everyone to do what is needed, we first need to make sure everyone has what they need.

 

Seems to make sense.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

I read somewhere that the biggest  opposition to worrying about the future, is poverty.

People who are barely surviving only worry about how they will survive - feed and house their families.

That in order to get everyone to do what is needed, we first need to make sure everyone has what they need.

 

Seems to make sense.

Absolutely economic concerns are the biggest thing in the way.

 

But we don't have the time to deal with one followed by the other - not really, anyway. Maybe we did a few decades ago, but not now. So it has to be both simultaneously.

[leicsmac]

On a slightly more humorous note:

 

 

[leicsmac]

On the above discussion:

 

Putin invades Ukraine, tens of thousands dead, millions suffering: "let's kick his arse, no matter the cost!"

 

Tens of millions of people to die and hundreds of millions to suffer of starvation or thirst as their home regions become uninhabitable: "meh, not my problem, that's life."

 

Does it not seem like a very human illogical blind spot to advocate for violent action as a possible solution when all other options have been exhausted (bolded for emphasis) in the first instance but not the second?

 

Edit: of course, with the caveat, again discussed above, that violent action probably wouldn't be effective in the second instance as a solution anyway. Just highlighting that we humans can be a bit odd about such things.

Edited 19 April 2023 by leicsmac

[grobyfox1990]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

On the above discussion:

 

Putin invades Ukraine, tens of thousands dead, millions suffering: "let's kick his arse, no matter the cost!"

 

Tens of millions of people to die and hundreds of millions to suffer of starvation or thirst as their home regions become uninhabitable: "meh, not my problem, that's life."

 

Does it not seem like a very human illogical blind spot to advocate for violent action as a possible solution when all other options have been exhausted (bolded for emphasis) in the first instance but not the second?

 

Edit: of course, with the caveat, again discussed above, that violent action probably wouldn't be effective in the second instance as a solution anyway. Just highlighting that we humans can be a bit odd about such things.

I haven’t heard any rhetoric around kicking putins arse no matter the cost, that would be a disaster. No body or nation would sign up to that 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I haven’t heard any rhetoric around kicking putins arse no matter the cost, that would be a disaster. No body or nation would sign up to that 

Have a look at the Ukraine thread, there's a few examples. Though I admit that is just the equivalent of pub chat rather than folks involved in serious policymaking.

[Apollo]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Have a look at the Ukraine thread, there's a few examples. Though I admit that is just the equivalent of pub chat rather than folks involved in serious policymaking.

You are absolutely unhinged 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Apollo said:

You are absolutely unhinged 

... well, that's a point of view, I guess.

 

When/if you ever feel like elaborating on it, I'm sure I'll be about. Until then, enjoy your day.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Have a look at the Ukraine thread, there's a few examples. Though I admit that is just the equivalent of pub chat rather than folks involved in serious policymaking.

Ah right loL yeh as you said proper pub chat internet nonsense 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Apollo said:

You are absolutely unhinged 

well harsh mate, Leicester mac (from when I can see the username) never sh4thouses anyone, no need to troll him 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

well harsh mate, Leicester mac (from when I can see the username) never sh4thouses anyone, no need to troll him 

I appreciate that, but I don't take it personal. I'm more curious than anything.

[lcfc278]

18 hours ago, 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.

sometimes you just can't beat Foxestalk

[SpacedX]

@leicsmac I don't doubt that you know this, but next Starship launch attempt scheduled for Monday 8.00am CT - 10.pm your time 'Mac. 

[Apollo]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

... well, that's a point of view, I guess.

 

When/if you ever feel like elaborating on it, I'm sure I'll be about. Until then, enjoy your day.

Ok, I will. Your comments on the last page are a disgrace, especially this one:

 

 

“Believe me, I think that every single possible other optionshould 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.”

 

I haven’t quoted everything, but in conjunction with the above, you’re basically saying there is a scenario where you would support terrorism. That is absolutely abhorrent - terrorism in any  feasible scenario, for any cause, involving innocent people is never acceptable and anyone with any decency should stand up and say that. Anyone who says differently should take a long look at themselves.
 

Whether you meant it to come across as that I have no idea, but that’s how it read.

 

To move it on, these protesters are doing nothing but harming the cause they claim to be fighting for. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Apollo said:

Ok, I will. Your comments on the last page are a disgrace, especially this one:

 

 

“Believe me, I think that every single possible other optionshould 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.”

 

I haven’t quoted everything, but in conjunction with the above, you’re basically saying there is a scenario where you would support terrorism. That is absolutely abhorrent - terrorism in any  feasible scenario, for any cause, involving innocent people is never acceptable and anyone with any decency should stand up and say that. Anyone who says differently should take a long look at themselves.
 

Whether you meant it to come across as that I have no idea, but that’s how it read.

 

To move it on, these protesters are doing nothing but harming the cause they claim to be fighting for. 

Firstly, I appreciate the response. Have a rep point for at least engaging, rather than a daft hit-and-run, as it were.

 

Now... precisely because I figured someone would react in this exact fashion to what I said, I went to very, very great lengths to qualify my remarks, repeatedly, in terms of such action only being considered when it is a stark, binary and absolute choice between that and an outcome where even more people suffer and die, and there is absolutely no other option whatsoever. I also made it very clear that my most fervent hope is that we never end up in a situation where that choice is the only thing available to us.

 

If you think that an action that kills people isn't justifiable even under those circumstances - well, that sounds like good moral talk, but if and when it causes more harm than not doing it, I'm not entirely sure how moral it really is.

 

If you think those qualifiers mean nothing and so valuing more lives over less lives, even if those lives are separated spatially or temporally, makes me a disgrace, then so be it. Moral principle means nothing to the dead.

 

Absolutely agree with your last sentence, these protests do nothing to be effective at addressing the issue they want to address, I don't think.

 

NB. Again as mentioned above, acts of terrorism is this case are almost certainly not going to be effective in terms of objective either anyway, so this discussion is really rather redundant.

Edited 19 April 2023 by leicsmac

[Jimothy]

3 hours ago, lcfc278 said:

sometimes you just can't beat Foxestalk

It's shows commitment to the cause. Any idiot could get some orange powder and pour it over a snooker table 

Edited 19 April 2023 by Facecloth

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

@leicsmac I don't doubt that you know this, but next Starship launch attempt scheduled for Monday 8.00am CT - 10.pm your time 'Mac. 

Is that official? The only thing I've seen from SpaceX is that they were targeting tomorrow.

[SpacedX]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is that official? The only thing I've seen from SpaceX is that they were targeting tomorrow.

From Space.com - "The first combined Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster are currently scheduled to launch from SpaceX's Starbase facility in Boca Chica, Texas no earlier than Monday at 9:28 a.m. EDT (1328 GMT). It will be 8:28 a.m. local time at the launch time. But whether SpaceX actually targets that time or opts to wait until later in the window remains to be determined."

 

I think there is a 62 minute window tomorrow,  but will opt to delay launch until next week. Amusingly, I think that I saw this tweeted this morning, in spite of the fact that I abhor Twitter. I think it came up on my phone and glancing quickly assumed it to be an official source. 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

From Space.com - "The first combined Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster are currently scheduled to launch from SpaceX's Starbase facility in Boca Chica, Texas no earlier than Monday at 9:28 a.m. EDT (1328 GMT). It will be 8:28 a.m. local time at the launch time. But whether SpaceX actually targets that time or opts to wait until later in the window remains to be determined."

 

I think there is a 62 minute window tomorrow,  but will opt to delay launch until next week. Amusingly, I think that I saw this tweeted this morning, in spite of the fact that I abhor Twitter. I think it came up on my phone and glancing quickly assumed it to be an official source. 

Yeah, reading up on it now and I'm getting conflicting information about whether it's going tomorrow or not.

 

Edit: The official SpaceX Twitter and YouTube channels are saying tomorrow, so I'm assuming it will be.

Edited 19 April 2023 by leicsmac

[Zear0]

Presume the offending stuck valve has been adequately "adjusted" using a calibrated hammer. Hope for a success tomorrow! 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Presume the offending stuck valve has been adequately "adjusted" using a calibrated hammer. Hope for a success tomorrow! 

[dsr-burnley]

On 18/04/2023 at 16:31, marbles said:

I read somewhere that the biggest  opposition to worrying about the future, is poverty.

People who are barely surviving only worry about how they will survive - feed and house their families.

That in order to get everyone to do what is needed, we first need to make sure everyone has what they need.

 

Seems to make sense.

Makes very little sense, sadly.  It's a logical construct that takes no account of the idea that people aren't logical.

 

Who defines "need"?  There are people using food banks today who have vastly more possessions than the average person had 50 years ago, but they haven't got what they feel they need.  "Needs" change as more money is available and as more things become affordable.  Do we (not the food bank people, but the rather better off with no particular money worries) "need" cars, mobile phones, 100-channel TVs, central heating, 24-hour internet access, alcohol?  No.  But try and tell people that they don't need it and it will be taken away, they won't agree.

 

I don't need to fly to the USA, but I'm going to.  You can't stop that by giving me what I need.  I already have what I need, and I want to spend extra on fun.

Edited 19 April 2023 by dsr-burnley

[marbles]

25 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Makes very little sense, sadly.  It's a logical construct that takes no account of the idea that people aren't logical.

 

Who defines "need"?  There are people using food banks today who have vastly more possessions than the average person had 50 years ago, but they haven't got what they feel they need.  "Needs" change as more money is available and as more things become affordable.  Do we (not the food bank people, but the rather better off with no particular money worries) "need" cars, mobile phones, 100-channel TVs, central heating, 24-hour internet access, alcohol?  No.  But try and tell people that they don't need it and it will be taken away, they won't agree.

 

I don't need to fly to the USA, but I'm going to.  You can't stop that by giving me what I need.  I already have what I need, and I want to spend extra on fun.

I think the point was that people who are barely surviving, only think of immediate survival and not what the future holds.

If they didn’t feel like they may starve or be homeless tomorrow, they would think about the future.

The “need” referenced was basic necessities.  Food, shelter, clothing.

If I can find the article again, I’ll post the link.

 

 

You got me curious - where in the US are you visiting?

Edited 19 April 2023 by marbles