june gloom on 21/2/2008 at 12:28
Yes, but you're forgetting that I'm also hinting that we will combine that with technology that ENABLES US to preserve the environment WHILE REMAINING comfortable.
Part of the problem is that our population has exploded because people who should've died 20 years ago are still around, plus at least here in the US the baby boomer generation won't be croaking for another 20-30 years either. Take note, also, that generations after the baby boom were significantly smaller- closer to the size of the generation before the baby boom (the WW2 generation.) As the population ages, they'll start dying off and the population will start going back to normal again. This won't be noticable for a few decades, though.
Starrfall on 21/2/2008 at 15:20
Actually, there already is technology out there that would help us pollute less with a minimal effect on quality of life.
The problem is that industry and the ignorant usually fight it kicking and screaming.
So I guess if you want to help you can call up your local ancient coal-burning power plant and tell them they're all cocksuckers and could at
least start using a combined cycle if they have a shred of decency.
Don't be fooled into thinking reducing emissions is super hard or depends on technology we don't have yet. If the rest of the country matched California's per capita emissions we'd probably be in compliance with Kyoto and we'd probably drop 20 spots in global per capita emissions rankings. And I assure you we have cars and electrity and all of that stuff.
Here's one chart (
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/figures/FIGURE-11.PDF) to show you what I mean. What the fuck, Texas?
Here's another: (
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/CO2FFC_2004.pdf) Remember when I was talking about power plants? 15 states emitted more (sometimes several times more) through combustion for electrical power in 2004 than California did, and we have 16 million more people than any other state. I'd bet every one of those states is heavy on the old coal burning power plants.
I will add that the hippies who completely freak out over nuclear power aren't helping either. I'd much rather have a nuke plant that produces one little ball of dangerous solid waste than a coal-burning plant that produces millions of pounds of dangerous aerosol waste and spews it all over the place.
aguywhoplaysthief on 21/2/2008 at 17:58
Yeah, but nuke plants kill fishes.:mad:
Martin Karne on 21/2/2008 at 22:07
Fine set me up with a constant man made temperature of 20C.
Starrfall on 22/2/2008 at 01:36
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Yeah, but nuke plants kill fishes.:mad:
well none of them can stop the time
june gloom on 22/2/2008 at 01:41
I never liked fish anyway.
The_Raven on 22/2/2008 at 02:15
We aren't killing them. We're trying to accellerate the evolution of the fish. If they have three-eyes, they can detect predators from three directions at once. :thumb:
Tocky on 22/2/2008 at 04:42
If we can create a car that does 140 mph and still gets over 100 mpg while doing it then why isn't 50 mpg at least the standard?
Also we can forget the stars until we jump the lightspeed hurdle and we can't even pole vault high enough to bump our heads on the bottom of the bar yet. Sadly we never will. The energy required to surpass the increased inertia is insane. We will have to go around.
d0om on 22/2/2008 at 10:06
Its not really a light-speed hurdle, you can get anywhere you want as fast as you want at sub-light speeds from your frame of reference. As you approach light-speed distances contract from your point-of-view making you need to go a shorter distance to get there. From other peoples frame-of-reference your time slows down. Either way, the closer you get to light-speed the faster you get there from your point of view (which is the one which matters most for food/supplies etc) with no upper limit. The speed of light means instantaneous travel from the travellers point-of-view.
Tocky on 22/2/2008 at 12:45
At sub-light speeds that is still a long time considering a good portion of it is braking and it's a big place. Some genetic engineering required. Which do you pick- the grays or the tall ones?
The actual important part of what I said is that for some reason we are ignoring our present capability to cut petroleum consumption in half.
