Yes! The USA supposedly doesn't have a static class system. What if one counts racism, sexism, ableism, and money as guardians of the status quo? Reversing the money vacuum going to the richest--how would our country reverse it in a single vote? Seems unrealistic at the moment.
In many places on the planet, religious belief trumps attempts to rein in population growth. And if it isn't religion, it's a quasi-religious belief in one's nation's right to do whatever it can to be an empire or a world (super) power. Look at what Putin and his friends are doing! Look at the USA and its use of its military to protect commercial/corporate interests!
The unintended consequences of the forced one-child policy by China: too many girls aborted in utero or adopted out, and later, not enough females available for their way of maintaining culture through offspring's marriage and then elder care by the sons and their wives. The corruption of this policy: powerful and more connected citizens were able to have more than one child. Neighbors spying on and reporting anyone who tried to resist the policy in many villages, resulting in forced abortions. Also, widespread reports of kidnappings of others' children because one's own offspring were either dead or undesired. Also, look how the Chinese treat undesirables within their borders: Uyghurs being killed and sterilized. Government coercion of reducing the population sometimes means attacking neighboring peoples and forcing sterilization on them, or rounding up people within one's borders and forcing sterilization or death on them, because they are Other or different and therefore hated and undesired.
Look what the USA did to Black people and those considered "mentally unfit" or physically handicapped in its history. I'm not sure autistic people would be allowed to reproduce. Would LGBTQ+ people be allowed to reproduce? People's current beliefs can include "not even adoption should be permitted to LGBTQ+ citizens."
Not to mention, adoption is currently considered the last or the inferior option for infertile parents or those struggling to conceive. Leaving many nations with too many orphans or unwanted living children. Nevertheless, who is going to tell those parents they aren't going to get help with their infertility? Who gets to decide?
I think you're onto something, which is better incentives to limit births. I also think equality of rights would help. Look at the stalled (not dead!) ERA in the "greatest country on earth": why is it that so many are so opposed to it? Religious ways of life are sometimes given as imperiled by the ERA. Why are religious organizations being permitted to erase the line between "church and state" in our national affairs? Perhaps we are dooming our future because people enjoy the old ways (racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, etc.) or atleast continue to benefit from them, so why would they go against their own interests?
Yep, though there are also boffins working on less carbon intensive ways to make cement, and to sequester captured carbon in concrete as well. But you're right, with carbon, there's no free lunch
Well dang, I was away Friday and missed all this, but the question about Frank's homicidal tendencies and violence is a good one - and a kind of shocking one when I read the novel last year. I mean, it''s quite a radical novel, going a lot further than Edward Abbeys 's "The Monkey Wrench Gang." And also going quite a lot further than Stop Oil gluing themselves to Van Gogh paintings. I'm very interested to see how the discussion on this topic will develop. My initial shock aside, I did appreciate the "black ops" element really shoving that into the faces of governments that practice them.
How about a true country classic from C.W. McCall, best known for the CB anthem, “Convoy”?Silver Iodide Blues (C.W. McCall, Bill Fries, Chip Davis)Well, now, pay attention people Just in case you hadn't heard There's some folks messin' 'round With Mother Nature's little world, baby And what they do is really freaky They gets themselves a plane And they fly it around with chemicals, baby Tryin' ta make it rain So when you're out there in that blizzard, Shiverin' in the cold Just look up to the sky And thank the Government for the snow And sing the low-down, experimental, cloud-seedin', Who-needs-'em-baby? silver i-i-o-dide blues Oh, yeah. Woo! https://youtu.be/LJFy6XA3xBQ
A 2018 paper (so, shortly before this book was written) from the National Academy of Sciences put humans and our livestock at 96% of all mammal biomass on the planet. I suspect that could have changed a bit since then, but yeah, we're almost all the mammals. Domestic birds make up about 75% of all birds, as well. On the other hand, we should welcome our insect overlords: arthropods are 50% of total animal biomass. Mammals are only about 8%. And all animals are less than 5% of total biomass. Plants have us well outnumbered, with bacteria a distant second. https://www.ecowatch.com/bi...
You raise many good points which is why I advocate an all carrots approach to the problem. I do think that female education and cash payments for not reproducing will overcome many of these prejudices. But then again we're, or I should say the next couple of generations, are well and truly fucked.
All the Wonkers here, including you, are raising good points. I admit I'm very far behind on studying the steep challenges of climate change and I know I need to catch up. Thanks to all of you for helping me to find books and other resources! Now I got to catch up for next time.
Sure, but letting millions of your citizens die in the next heat wave is also ethically questionable. It is a trolley problem where you're unethical either way, but in one you save millions of lives for sure while causes unclear amounts of ecological and financial damage to others and in the other you murder millions of those you've sworn to protect to avoid unclear amounts of ecological and financial damage.
The book is about an urgent issue (though less urgent than current reality) with climate, and changing fertillity isn't going to work fast enough. It would have been nice if it was at least mentioned.
They have the military planes anyway, so the cost is part of their defense budget, not an extra cost. They just need to develop and create the mixture to dump into the atmosphere, which isn't going to be cheap, but not too terrible. And it will be money spent in country, so they will eventually get that back by taxes because the suppliers will spend the money, and so on and so on.
Also, you need to compare it to other ways to achieve the same goal, and there are very few other ways to get such a fast result with so little effort.
From what I understand violence as part of a grass roots organisation only works if the non-violent arm is big and popular enough that the violence won't make the cause lose supporters.
The purpose of the violent group should then be to make the unwanted activity more expensive. i.e. sabotage equipment, disrupt logistics, raise security costs through constant threats, raise equipment costs by applying passive defense methods (for example, some rubber-like substance in metal pipes can massively increase the number of blades required in a grinder to get through a barricade. Or nails in trees that damage chainsaws (though don't be a dick: Hang up a sign that there are nails in the trees, chainsaws can be dangerous when they hit a nail and the chain breaks))).
Why at low humidity?
Yes! The USA supposedly doesn't have a static class system. What if one counts racism, sexism, ableism, and money as guardians of the status quo? Reversing the money vacuum going to the richest--how would our country reverse it in a single vote? Seems unrealistic at the moment.
In many places on the planet, religious belief trumps attempts to rein in population growth. And if it isn't religion, it's a quasi-religious belief in one's nation's right to do whatever it can to be an empire or a world (super) power. Look at what Putin and his friends are doing! Look at the USA and its use of its military to protect commercial/corporate interests!
The unintended consequences of the forced one-child policy by China: too many girls aborted in utero or adopted out, and later, not enough females available for their way of maintaining culture through offspring's marriage and then elder care by the sons and their wives. The corruption of this policy: powerful and more connected citizens were able to have more than one child. Neighbors spying on and reporting anyone who tried to resist the policy in many villages, resulting in forced abortions. Also, widespread reports of kidnappings of others' children because one's own offspring were either dead or undesired. Also, look how the Chinese treat undesirables within their borders: Uyghurs being killed and sterilized. Government coercion of reducing the population sometimes means attacking neighboring peoples and forcing sterilization on them, or rounding up people within one's borders and forcing sterilization or death on them, because they are Other or different and therefore hated and undesired.
Look what the USA did to Black people and those considered "mentally unfit" or physically handicapped in its history. I'm not sure autistic people would be allowed to reproduce. Would LGBTQ+ people be allowed to reproduce? People's current beliefs can include "not even adoption should be permitted to LGBTQ+ citizens."
Not to mention, adoption is currently considered the last or the inferior option for infertile parents or those struggling to conceive. Leaving many nations with too many orphans or unwanted living children. Nevertheless, who is going to tell those parents they aren't going to get help with their infertility? Who gets to decide?
I think you're onto something, which is better incentives to limit births. I also think equality of rights would help. Look at the stalled (not dead!) ERA in the "greatest country on earth": why is it that so many are so opposed to it? Religious ways of life are sometimes given as imperiled by the ERA. Why are religious organizations being permitted to erase the line between "church and state" in our national affairs? Perhaps we are dooming our future because people enjoy the old ways (racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, etc.) or atleast continue to benefit from them, so why would they go against their own interests?
This book is making me so cranky, Dok!
It's good; the book explores nonstate geoengineering, among other plausible near-future climate change effects and responses.
Yep, though there are also boffins working on less carbon intensive ways to make cement, and to sequester captured carbon in concrete as well. But you're right, with carbon, there's no free lunch
Well dang, I was away Friday and missed all this, but the question about Frank's homicidal tendencies and violence is a good one - and a kind of shocking one when I read the novel last year. I mean, it''s quite a radical novel, going a lot further than Edward Abbeys 's "The Monkey Wrench Gang." And also going quite a lot further than Stop Oil gluing themselves to Van Gogh paintings. I'm very interested to see how the discussion on this topic will develop. My initial shock aside, I did appreciate the "black ops" element really shoving that into the faces of governments that practice them.
I feel like we should keep the option open. if we don't need it it's even better. and maybe, just maybe, there will be a breakthrough in fusion.
How about a true country classic from C.W. McCall, best known for the CB anthem, “Convoy”?Silver Iodide Blues (C.W. McCall, Bill Fries, Chip Davis)Well, now, pay attention people Just in case you hadn't heard There's some folks messin' 'round With Mother Nature's little world, baby And what they do is really freaky They gets themselves a plane And they fly it around with chemicals, baby Tryin' ta make it rain So when you're out there in that blizzard, Shiverin' in the cold Just look up to the sky And thank the Government for the snow And sing the low-down, experimental, cloud-seedin', Who-needs-'em-baby? silver i-i-o-dide blues Oh, yeah. Woo! https://youtu.be/LJFy6XA3xBQ
A 2018 paper (so, shortly before this book was written) from the National Academy of Sciences put humans and our livestock at 96% of all mammal biomass on the planet. I suspect that could have changed a bit since then, but yeah, we're almost all the mammals. Domestic birds make up about 75% of all birds, as well. On the other hand, we should welcome our insect overlords: arthropods are 50% of total animal biomass. Mammals are only about 8%. And all animals are less than 5% of total biomass. Plants have us well outnumbered, with bacteria a distant second. https://www.ecowatch.com/bi...
You raise many good points which is why I advocate an all carrots approach to the problem. I do think that female education and cash payments for not reproducing will overcome many of these prejudices. But then again we're, or I should say the next couple of generations, are well and truly fucked.
All the Wonkers here, including you, are raising good points. I admit I'm very far behind on studying the steep challenges of climate change and I know I need to catch up. Thanks to all of you for helping me to find books and other resources! Now I got to catch up for next time.
Sure, but letting millions of your citizens die in the next heat wave is also ethically questionable. It is a trolley problem where you're unethical either way, but in one you save millions of lives for sure while causes unclear amounts of ecological and financial damage to others and in the other you murder millions of those you've sworn to protect to avoid unclear amounts of ecological and financial damage.
Our transit options strongly shape our options for using less energy.
The book is about an urgent issue (though less urgent than current reality) with climate, and changing fertillity isn't going to work fast enough. It would have been nice if it was at least mentioned.
They have the military planes anyway, so the cost is part of their defense budget, not an extra cost. They just need to develop and create the mixture to dump into the atmosphere, which isn't going to be cheap, but not too terrible. And it will be money spent in country, so they will eventually get that back by taxes because the suppliers will spend the money, and so on and so on.
Also, you need to compare it to other ways to achieve the same goal, and there are very few other ways to get such a fast result with so little effort.
From what I understand violence as part of a grass roots organisation only works if the non-violent arm is big and popular enough that the violence won't make the cause lose supporters.
The purpose of the violent group should then be to make the unwanted activity more expensive. i.e. sabotage equipment, disrupt logistics, raise security costs through constant threats, raise equipment costs by applying passive defense methods (for example, some rubber-like substance in metal pipes can massively increase the number of blades required in a grinder to get through a barricade. Or nails in trees that damage chainsaws (though don't be a dick: Hang up a sign that there are nails in the trees, chainsaws can be dangerous when they hit a nail and the chain breaks))).