sweetpotato @ sweetpotato @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

124

Joined

1 yr. ago

What in the world do you mean "you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?". What does expect mean??? I don't expect anything, I'm stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable...have you heard about climate change or...? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don't need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.

I never said it's a US problem, and I didn't make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It's a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it's a worldwide problem.

You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That's a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people's needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it's a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don't get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I've said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.

It's almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it's basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.

So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don't know about.

I'd like to see any scientific study that reassures at least a little that this won't have terrible ramifications for ecosystems and the food chain.

We know too little, we are shortsighted and we have a bad record of intervening with nature.

Yes it's obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody's arguing that. What I'm talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It's not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that's just one of the problems. It's the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It's also that Google could have been taxed more(I'm sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn't replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that...cool

Yeah totally, they give too little, it's always performative, to distract and to use as talking points, they never roll back republican legislation (Clinton for example) and they always have the same line with republicans for the core capitalist matters, like foreign policy, military, police budget etc. It's a made up dilemma 100%.

I just have to somehow approach people who disagree, I can't be so absolute, that's all lol

You do realize what instant you are in right?

The dems are not slightly left, they are right wingers, just not far right. You are voting for the right wing, for the billionaires, the weapon manufacturers, the oligarchs.

You don't seem willing to listen to a counterargument, but just in case, you might need to consider where you would draw your red line for the lesser evil party. Cause there is necessarily for everyone a red line beyond which both parties would be indistinguishable (think of Hitler and the other party being again Hitler but if he funded the healthcare system a little more - these two alternatives gotta be universally indistinguishable). And since we established that, you should probably realize that for a lot of people that red line has been crossed long ago.

To make myself feel morally superior is an absolutely wild thing to say for a genocide.

On one hand I think it's very positive that everyone starts using decentralised platforms that don't run on profit, that work for their users and not their shareholders, but on the other hand having a space mostly without conservatives is great.

I'm surprised most comments here try to give any other explanation but this.

I think the issue is simpler, in that the traditionally dominant group statistically reacts negatively to the levelling of the field and their loss of control and power over the other group. This and the fact that it's statistically harder to see the oppression and feel for it when you are not affected by it(and this goes for every form of oppression).

It's almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability

That's fair, but I believe cities can't be like that regardless. It's where you live everyday, the forests do not fix that. Your surroundings everyday affect mental and physical health (and these two interact with each other as well) and although a Sunday walk in nature is important, it will be negligible.

You have a much higher chance of living a sedentary life because you have to be in a car all day, so statistically less exercise, more obesity, worse quality of sleep (shown in scientific studies) all of which lead to mental health deterioration. There is also more noise pollution the more cars there are and the less trees there are, not only in the house(let's suppose you have good insulation) but also when you are out of the house. This is causing stress (you can't always realize this but it's happening), so high blood pressure, mental health issues etc. And of course air pollution. Besides all that, there are also less interactions with other people, less public spaces, so less socialization which is also a big factor in mental health and overall wellbeing. I personally really value the latter.

I'm not trying to throw shade to the country, I wish the way of life was better, cause I'd like to work there for some years and I'm not saying Europe is perfect, obviously the problems exist there as well but to a very lower degree. I could live almost wherever in Europe, but I can never live in the US.

Haven't been there, I can imagine, but could it be any other way? I mean, what would the alternative be? Have no forests and green spaces in the entire country? That would not be sustainable.

Your urban planning. Your cities are unwalkable, the scenery makes me depressed af, everything is scaled up for cars, even restaurants are for cars, the highways are huge, all I can see is tar. I don't know how you can live like that.

The mathematics mentioned in the first source have nothing to do with engineering though.

Ratios, a little trigonometry and geometry, all of which are essentially under the geometry category and arithmetic are not what concerns the engineering field. They are architectural tools if you will. Of course they utilized geometry, that's not something innovative. Maths in general does not mean anything here, maths can be about number theory(completely unrelated to any practical application).

What differentiates them and engineers now is essentially mechanics. Forces, torques, stresses, materials, masses, moments of inertias etc. They never applied quantitative engineering principles, their structures were only sound from experience and intuition, the geometry mentioned was for architectural purposes.

Sauce?

Well, considering the election results in Europe and the US, they are scaring a whole lot of people.