In HR, we have a saying...

[Isard]

So, we traded hundreds of thousands of very, very nasty way's to die, for one mildly nasty way to die that you MIGHT survive if you're lucky. Nice. I'd sure love to live like that.


Oh, and every little nasty thing you suggested? We'll fight it. Aliens, asteroids, global changes in climate. We MAY survive, primitive humans would die like ants. Scurrying around unsure of what was happening.


And on your dishwasher comment... Excellent, I have been slain. Obviously the ability to automate dish washing solves the issue. Maybe we can automate mail systems so that the mail server won't flip on until the sun is out. "Just a few more minutes for the batteries to charge, then you can send that email!" I'd just love maintaining a system based on that.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Isard

So, we traded hundreds of thousands of very, very nasty way's to die, for one mildly nasty way to die that you MIGHT survive if you're lucky. Nice. I'd sure love to live like that.

There's just as equally nasty ways to die in the modern world. Not only disease, but chemical poisoning (which is cropping up on the Gulf Coast in a big way), radiation poisoning (Chernobyl, after effects of DU ammunition, etc), car accidents, plane crashes, and thousands of other ways. Need I go on? There's thousands of ways to die wherever you go. Trying to paint natural living in such a negative, Hobbesian light, as if it is somehow worse, is a fallacy. No matter where you go, something or someone will be trying to kill you.

Originally Posted by Isard

Oh, and every little nasty thing you suggested? We'll fight it. Aliens, asteroids, global changes in climate. We MAY survive, primitive humans would die like ants. Scurrying around unsure of what was happening.

The only way we'll survive long enough to have technology to fight asteroids and aliens is if we develop a deeply ecological civilization. Climate change, pollution, deforestation, and decreasing biodiversity are already putting our immediate future at risk. Either we find at least an iota of harmony with nature for the future, or we have no future at all.

If you want civilization to last long enough to have the future you envision, you gotta get good with Mama Nature first.

Originally Posted by Isard

And on your dishwasher comment... Excellent, I have been slain. Obviously the ability to automate dish washing solves the issue. Maybe we can automate mail systems so that the mail server won't flip on until the sun is out. "Just a few more minutes for the batteries to charge, then you can send that email!" I'd just love maintaining a system based on that.

Works well for Denmark.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Civilized humans still have to face an asteroid impact the size of the one on the KT boundary (or whatever else has caused rock layers indicating devastation worldwide) like the dinosaurs did. Civilized humans still have to face an alien species that has superior weapons and hunts them down like the Dodo. Civilized humans still have to face climate change on the scale of the passing of the last ice age like the Mammoths did. Humans actually did face the change of the ice age. Sea levels rising some hundreds of feet, Climate zones shifting - they could adapt, they were flexible, hunting, gathering, travelling to new regions. Nowadays just a measly 2 meters of sea level rise would devastate most of the coastal cities and thereby bring civilization to the brink. An asteroid? We would not have a clue how to deal with that one either - there are no viable ideas how to avoid an impact and if an impact happens, civilized life would end as well. Maybe some people could survive by living on the life that still exists in the aftermath, but without large numbers of people and an extensive infrastructure, civilization would go away.

We are becoming more and more technologically aware that an asteroid may not be a problem for us to deal with; at least, not one that's impossible to deal with.

The point is that we survived the ice age (like you mentioned), and are perfectly capable of surviving it again, just as we are capable of surviving an asteroid or... aliens? Right.

Animals are not capable of surviving such events because they are not rational like humans are. It's the misconception that humans are equal to animals in all aspects that makes anyone think otherwise. Humans are superior. I'm sorry; we are. We're more capable, we're more equipped, and we're more intelligent. The dinosaurs, the dodo bird, and the mammoth were not.

[Tsyal Makto]

Doesn't mean we still aren't part of the web of life. Dolphins, elephants, and parrots very well could be intelligent, or even stentient, but no one debates them being part of the natural world. Intelligence (and sentience) varies in the natural world, but it's all still part of the natural world nonetheless.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The point is that we survived the ice age (like you mentioned), and are perfectly capable of surviving it again, just as we are capable of surviving an asteroid or... aliens? Right.

Not really. If we'd spot an asteroid the size of that dinosaur impact tomorrow that hits the Earth within a year - we'd be "like ants", because taking some space cowboys and shoot up some atom bombs to shoot it out of the sky will not help. And if it hits, we'd be as much affected as ancient people. If there would be an ice age or more to the point a severe global warming, this civilization could not deal with it at all. We'd have much less chance than our ancestors. Not for survival - some humans will likely survive, but for civilization - if massive areas of land turn from cropland to sersert or ice plains, if water levels go up or down by the tens of meters, the food supply dwindles, infrastructure is destroyed, if glaciers advance or deserts spread, this takes away land, resources, cities.
And we'd be facing as much slavery or death in the face of a superior race than anyone else.
My point was not to compare our times with ancient humans though anyways - I was just pointing out that the principal causes of the extinction of the three species mentioned would affect us severely as well...

Animals are not capable of surviving such events because they are not rational like humans are. It's the misconception that humans are equal to animals in all aspects that makes anyone think otherwise. Humans are superior. I'm sorry; we are. We're more capable, we're more equipped, and we're more intelligent.

capable, intelligent yes - more rational no way. That is a misconception that humans like to believe. If we'd truely be rational, we would not allow the plant that gives us life to be destroyed, we would not believe that infinite growth is possible on a finite planet and we would not over and over again gamble - on the economy, on the chance of our or other species' survival. A single human may be rational, but as a civilization, that rationality is basically not existing.

Originally Posted by Isard

So, we traded hundreds of thousands of very, very nasty way's to die, for one mildly nasty way to die that you MIGHT survive if you're lucky.

That is oversimplified, wrong and totally hobbesian.
a) 100.000 ways to day? Big impressive numer! But unsubstantiated.
b) cancer a mildly nasty way? Ask someone who has it and tell him that and he will throw something at you. Also add to that all kinds of accidents, diseases and the increased rate of suicide that are caused by industrial civilization.
c) It is not so much how many ways you can die but you also need to take into account what are the chances. I might die jumping out of the plane, my parachute malfunctioning, landing by chance in a tree that saves my life and then starve to death there. Nasty, but what are the chances.

Oh, and every little nasty thing you suggested? We'll fight it. Aliens, asteroids, global changes in climate. We MAY survive, primitive humans would die like ants. Scurrying around unsure of what was happening.

you have such a distorted, racist and arrogant view of aboriginal people that it is intolerable! As I said - asteroid impact - boom - we are toas as much as the dinos or "primitive" humans. Hostile aliens with superior technology? We're toast as much as the Dodo when they faced a superior predator. If you throw little metal bullets or round projectiles with bombs in it at their spaceship does not itch them as much as a bow and arrow. Climate change - nomadic tribes are much better suited to adapt to that than people whi insist building 100 level buildings right at the coast of the ocean, who construct nuclear power plants in the zone that is under water if the sea rises by just half a meter.

But the most likely cause for extinction of humans are humans.

And on your dishwasher comment... Excellent, I have been slain. Obviously the ability to automate dish washing solves the issue.

No need to be sarcastic. A wise management of power - run energy intensive machines on high production times and run critical equipment on stable supplies - makes a lot of difference.
If you have some hydropower, some geothermal, some wave and wind energy, some solar and some tidal energy, you have in that mix quite a few elements that are able to supply a constant output. The peak production by the variable sources are used by a variety of machines that are dynamically switched on or off like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, chargers for the electric car, heat storage, ... the essential equipment (hospitals, communication) has priority on the use of the basic supply and so forth. This would not be a net anymore that just provides energy and everyone takes whenever he wants it, but a managed system that regards energy as a precious good that has to be distributed in a wise manner.

In any case, I think it is much wiser to adapt to the energy availability if it is not constant, than to force full evaiability of energy at any times by building way more power plants than one would need just in case all people in teh country decide to turn on the lights at once...

But that is the basic conflict - do we as humans take care of the places around us, adapt our life to the world, or do we force our way onto others. I am in the first, you are for the second - control, dominate, oppress, occupy. That is not my way and it is not the way that will have success...
Maybe we can automate mail systems so that the mail server won't flip on until the sun is out. "Just a few more minutes for the batteries to charge, then you can send that email!" I'd just love maintaining a system based on that.[/QUOTE]

[Isard]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

That is oversimplified, wrong and totally hobbesian.
a) 100.000 ways to day? Big impressive numer! But unsubstantiated.
b) cancer a mildly nasty way? Ask someone who has it and tell him that and he will throw something at you. Also add to that all kinds of accidents, diseases and the increased rate of suicide that are caused by industrial civilization.
c) It is not so much how many ways you can die but you also need to take into account what are the chances. I might die jumping out of the plane, my parachute malfunctioning, landing by chance in a tree that saves my life and then starve to death there. Nasty, but what are the chances.

And you called my explanation oversimplified?

Disentary, gangrene, Tuberculosis, those are just three nasty ways people used to die. Please compare one of those to cancer. Also, in before you twist that into me belittling cancer again.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

you have such a distorted, racist and arrogant view of aboriginal people that it is intolerable! As I said - asteroid impact - boom - we are toas as much as the dinos or "primitive" humans. Hostile aliens with superior technology? We're toast as much as the Dodo when they faced a superior predator. If you throw little metal bullets or round projectiles with bombs in it at their spaceship does not itch them as much as a bow and arrow. Climate change - nomadic tribes are much better suited to adapt to that than people whi insist building 100 level buildings right at the coast of the ocean, who construct nuclear power plants in the zone that is under water if the sea rises by just half a meter.

*cough* I, didn't say aboriginal people, I said primitive. You're the one who drew the line between primitives and aboriginals.

Also, if nuclear weapons don't kill an agressor species, it will at least render our world uninhabitable. A nice final "**** you" to invaders.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

No need to be sarcastic. A wise management of power - run energy intensive machines on high production times and run critical equipment on stable supplies - makes a lot of difference.
If you have some hydropower, some geothermal, some wave and wind energy, some solar and some tidal energy, you have in that mix quite a few elements that are able to supply a constant output. The peak production by the variable sources are used by a variety of machines that are dynamically switched on or off like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, chargers for the electric car, heat storage, ... the essential equipment (hospitals, communication) has priority on the use of the basic supply and so forth. This would not be a net anymore that just provides energy and everyone takes whenever he wants it, but a managed system that regards energy as a precious good that has to be distributed in a wise manner.

In any case, I think it is much wiser to adapt to the energy availability if it is not constant, than to force full evaiability of energy at any times by building way more power plants than one would need just in case all people in teh country decide to turn on the lights at once...

But that is the basic conflict - do we as humans take care of the places around us, adapt our life to the world, or do we force our way onto others. I am in the first, you are for the second - control, dominate, oppress, occupy. That is not my way and it is not the way that will have success...

And to maintain the holes/irregularities in those other systems, what could we use? Hmmm... How about nuclear? Nuclear or coal. Take your pick.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Isard

And to maintain the holes/irregularities in those other systems, what could we use? Hmmm... How about nuclear? Nuclear or coal. Take your pick.

Why is there only fossil fuels to choose from?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Fosus

Why is there only fossil fuels to choose from?

Because they're reliable.

[Tsyal Makto]

I wouldn't really classify nuclear as a fossil fuel.

As for reliability of fossil fuels (oil, coal, nature gas, etc), yes reliable, but also slowly choking us off. Part of progress is being willing to face the unexpected or the unknown. I think though that you also seem to doubt the capability of developers/experts in the clean energy industry. You seem to have a lot of doubt about what they say in their industries. They're not idiots, you know.

Think renewable energy + EVs can't be done? Think again! | ChristofHeinrich

Though regardless, you've seen some of the answers to those systems' irregularities (if they would even prove to be a problem at all. Again, Denmark). Remember the gravel/argon batteries?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Isard

Disentary, gangrene, Tuberculosis, those are just three nasty ways people used to die. Please compare one of those to cancer.

Disentary - preventive measures are washing hands, not sharing a towel and cleaning properly after using the toilet. From that, I get, that aboriginal people may have avoided that. It gets troublesome probably in areas where people are taken away from their natural sources of water and cleanliness and put into poverty and slums with inadequate water supply and bad ways to deal with fecal matter. If you defecate into a hole in the ground and close that hole afterwards, washing yourself in a river or creek, then that certainly is much cleaner than in any slum next to a city of the "developing world" or even some large cities that have no proper sanitary system .

I think that is a mistake many people make. You compare our current situation to that of medieval Europe or the "third world countries". You compare industrial civilization to agricultural civilization. The interesting thing is that only by all the modern medicine available now we just now reach the same body height as the pre-agricultural cultures and the same brain sizes. But they did not need all of this chemicals for that

next: Gangrene - that is a good one.
Wikipedia (I know, lame, but I am now too lazy pulling out scientific articles as I did in the past as I never got a feedback indicating anyone reading them anyways) "Gangrene is caused by infection or ischemia, such as by the bacteria Clostridium perfringens[5] or by thrombosis (blocked blood vessel). It is usually the result of critically insufficient blood supply (e.g., peripheral vascular disease) and is often associated with diabetes and long-term smoking."
So diabetes and massive smoking as one major cause - both of them things that happen almost exclusively in "civilized societies". Diabetes is a direct result from malnutrition in civilization at least to a large degree and smoking massively was just impossible for our ancestors, because there were no huge fields of tobacco and pre made cigarettes. They smoked occasionally and often in a ritual context. And even so, there was aven a therapy for the illness that is now applied once more after antibiotic resistant strains take a hold: maggot therapy.

On TB, I guess this one is shown to have existed in prehistory as well, but one has to see that this is one of these diseases that are only dangerous if the immune system is not working well. The prevalence of TB in "third world countries" is certainly partly because of the dire living circumstances many people have to live in there with malnutrition and lack of water. Conditions, aboriginal people suffered from less frequently than people in these conditions. Again Wikipedia refers to malnutrition, Diabetes, certain working conditions and such as a reson for TB being fatal, while in some countries 80% of the people do have TB but only few show severe symptoms or even death.

In any case, cancer with all its various outcomes is extremely nasty and play in the same league as these illnesses for sure - and it is to a big portion a disease of civilization

What it comes to is that civilization as we know it has caused a lot of suffering and disease from cancer to the spreading of disease due to living in overcrowded cities, bad hygiene, malnutrition etc. It managed with time and effort to get some of that under control, but already drug resistant strains of TB and other infections emerge, retroviruses are only manageable with a lot of effort and even that rather incompletely.

Medical science may be one of the few really positive things about civilization, especially as much of the knowledge is lost that indigenous people had in terms of hygiene, medicine, herbal medicine and such. Much of the amazing positive effects are gained through rather simple means though - from cooking your water or milk or food properly, to washing hands to "maggot therapy" to eating the right things and avoid obesity.

*cough* I, didn't say aboriginal people, I said primitive. You're the one who drew the line between primitives and aboriginals.

Ok, you got me there, I assumed you used that term in that sense. So then what exactly DID you mean by "primitive people"? I mean, what people did you refer to?

Also, if nuclear weapons don't kill an agressor species, it will at least render our world uninhabitable. A nice final "**** you" to invaders.

Yeah, there is the death urge, the control urge, the paranoia and schizophrenia of this culture! "If I cannot have it, no one shall have it". What lunacy. This kind of thinking will eventually cause this world to be destroyed because the US does not want to surrender to the Chinese or North Korea not to the US or civilization not to its dooming end or fundamental change. People would rather shoot themself and the people they love than to give in. More people died in amok shootings in the USA in the last decade than in any decade before and the trend goes way back. German and Russian soldiers burned fields and villages just so that the enemy may not ave them. Putting salt on the fields and all that.

Dispicable!

Makes me not even want to reply to the stupid dishwasher topic:

And to maintain the holes/irregularities in those other systems, what could we use? Hmmm... How about nuclear? Nuclear or coal. Take your pick.

That's nonsense for there will never be total gaps with a combination of all these sources, especially hydro and geothermal run 24/7, tidal is very predictable too and there are ways to store energy (heat batteries, gas pressure reservoirs, reverse hydropower). But the energy that is truely permanently needed is low with proper management. Really only hospitals and communications and a few types of machinery in production that cannot stop for technical reasons.
I am not saying that this would work in a capitalist society - this is why I see industrial capitalism and the destruction of the earth and the dependence on fossil energy as linked. Of course if you need to make profit and regard that as primary, your machines have to run 24/7 and make new TVs and cellphones that break down after 2 or 5 years. You cannot afford in such a setting to depend on let's say daytime solar power and "loose" 50% of the operating time. But without the requirement to make more and more profit, a lot more is possible in terms of sustainable behaviour.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I wouldn't really classify nuclear as a fossil fuel.

Hmm - well it actually is, but one that may last longer than coal or oil if one is willing to take all the risks that come with it (like building nuclear weapons to blow up the planet so no one else can have it)

Though regardless, you've seen some of the answers to those systems' irregularities (if they would even prove to be a problem at all. Again, Denmark).

Thats the problem in these discussions here, esp with Isard - even good arguments and evidence seem to do little.

[applejuice]

Unless we can find other sources of energy, fossils and nuclear are the safest and most reliable energy sources we can find. However, a big problem is going to arise involving electricity: Copper. At mains frequency, the amount of copper necessary to transmit all the generated power is considerable. 50/60 Hz are very low frequencies and, if they are to be kept, the size of the power elements in electric grids is going to be monstrous. Airplanes use 400 Hz and they use smaller, lighter and more reliable generators, though, at high frequencies, the insulation is going to be a very big challenge.

[Theorist]

I don't think one can expect just one renewable energy source to power humanity. It's gotta be a combination of everything. You can't put up thousands of Wind Turbines and expect them not to do anything. Evolution is generally a slow process, and when things change rapidly, it's usually not very good on the environment.

But, if we tap all of them simultaneously, then we could possibly have less of a harmful effect. I think the problem is people expect a cure all situation.

The moon: interesting, I've heard about this, but not much. I suppose my only concern would be whether or not it's possible to mine away significant amounts of the moon's mass, and mess up tides and other important functions the moon has? I'd like the see some studies on whether this is a valid concern or not.

Solar: I remember watching a video in chemistry two years ago, about these solar panels that are like paper, a lot like film paper actually. They were fairly cheap, and could be paneled on the roofs of houses. If every house could have solar panels installed, and every building, then that would take away much of the energy that' needed by fossil fuels. In my opinion, this is the most promising. But, I also think people complaining about the appearance is just rediculous, cause my neighbor has solar panels, and I'd rather look at those than a coal mine.


ps: ultimately, I think chemical energy would be the best. (ie: simply eating plants and animals, no other mass produced energy.) But, I don't see many other people wanting to go down this path.

[Human No More]

The dust isn't a significant amount any more than the hydrogen and helium that is lost form Earth's atmosphere is significant. The vast majority of the moon is rock, as if it was composed of dust then it would not be cohesive and either enter Earth's atmosphere, or form rings around Earth.