Uninhabitable? How?
yâknow, drilling oil because they want oil money now even though they think we are too rash and donât think about the future and use the excuse that the earth wonât be uninhabitable for decades and that they wonât be alive when it happens, taking all the fossil fuels out of the ground even though that would make a complete societal collapse that we canât recover from possible, making laws against people just being themselves as well as indoctrinating their children into their beliefs that make them think thatâs okay, etc. i could make this list fill up the entire character limit but that would waste my time and i think i already got my point across
2 Likes
How would drilling oil make the earth uninhabitable?
I mean gasoline is the best fuel source we have. Until we find some other fuel source.
we already have, the sun, wind, water, any kind of motion, geothermal, and we can use all of those to make biodiesel which requires taking carbon out of the atmosphere to make so at worst it is carbon neutral as long as itâs made with algae.
1 Like
Zenzone try not to believe novax flat-earther ubercapitalist conspiracies challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
2 Likes
Biodiesel is, apparently (Iâm just now looking it up so I might not have all of the facts) way less efficient and reliable than regular gasoline, and more expensive as well.
Also current ârenewableâ energies such as solar and wind are wildly inefficient and, ironically, environmentally harmful.
I donât think I need to explain how much land wind and solar farms take up compared to regular power plants, but wind farms also kill a lot of birds, and apparently they leak harmful gases into the air as theyâre being used (Iâve actually heard that itâs a few thousand times stronger than co2 as a greenhouse gas, though I might be wrong).
And the batteries that solar farms use are not only incredibly toxic once they break down, but theyâre unrecyclable as well.
And also they only work some of the time, with solar farms literally working only half the time in optimal conditions.
Also looking it up it seems that solar farms kill birds as well, just much less than wind farms.
we have several thousand ways to deal with all of the ones that arenât gas(even then we have ways to deal with them just not ones that are as effective), most of the things that make using oil dangerous to the environment is releasing greenhouse gasses and at the rate weâre doing it weâre going to drive all of the life adapted to cold to at the very least being critically endangered. solar farms on the ground arenât the only way to get solar energy, you can cover the roofs of houses in solar panels, put solar farms up in the air completely except for a few supports, make photoelectric trees that use wires to give you high energy electrons in exchange for low energy ones through genetic modification, or even make a dyson swarm. none of those release much gas into our atmosphere.
but we donât need the ones that do, we can make them just as solid state as the solar panels on someoneâs roof. also it is highly unlikely that they meant the gas is a thousand times more potent a greenhouse gas unless your source is fox news.
only if theyâre on a planet, even if they are though, you donât need them to work all the time if you have good enough batteries that donât decompose or that repair themselves(which can be done with genetic engineering but it would be harder than pretty much anything else humanity has done with it), you could also have a solar magnification array in orbit that constantly sends light to a specific spot that has bird repellant. it definitely wouldnât be the most expensive thing humanity has done.
only the solar magnification array ones and the ones that move and have crevices the birds can land in. those definitely arenât the only types you can have.
Iâm fairly certain all of these technologies are at least a century away from our capabilities, we wouldnât even be able to make a dyson swarm of decent size without strip mining a good portion of a planet, which obviously would be harmful to the earthâs environment so we would need to do it on another planet or large asteroid (Mercury is a good choice). But any way this is far outside of our technological capability.
I donât know if it was Fox News, as I barely remember the study itself, I read it about half a year ago.
But there is a good work around for all of these problems, as well as the greenhouse gas problem (though I donât think thatâs a genuine issue, the global temperature has risen a single degree since the 1800s) that is also well within our technological capabilities, nuclear.
It is cheap and efficient (so cheap and efficient that Sweden actually had to cut back on energy production because the price of energy went below zero) it produces almost no waste (and no greenhouse gases), several innovations have been made that make it almost impossible for another Chernobyl to happen, and what little nuclear waste is produced can easily be buried in some remote site or shot off into space.
And yet we seem to be shutting down nuclear power plants for some reasonâŠ
Also the rush for renewable energies has killed many people across the world, in an African country (Ghana, I believe) they were producing so much power that they exported it to neighboring countries, and then the government decided to stop producing greenhouse gases and the energy production dropped to 0.
Even today people in that country live with no power and in extreme poverty.
And also quite recently the Sri Lankan collapse was caused by climate policies that pushed for zero emissions.
1 Like
defintely not a century, a few decades at most(assuming no asteroids come to bonk the earth again, nasa continues how theyâre going, and the billionaires donât become trillionaires at least)
then we just use the moon either as a gateway,for the mining operation, or both
yeah that makes no sense, the people shutting them down worry that there will be another chernobyl incident but that happened because there were no regulations on nuclear power plants even though there definitely are enough to completely prevent another chernobyl incident as long as no nuclear power plants get sabotaged with a nuke worth of explosive force
i agree, that was a stupid move, if you are a developing country and donât have access to other sources of power you can use fossil fuels. the problems only come once you have too much power usage and only produce power with fossil fuels.
Not to forget that what happened in Chernobyl happened because of the incompetence of Dyatlov and his superiors as well as the USSR censoring vital information about the flaws of RBMK reactors.
3 Likes
I mean under optimal conditions I suppose we could see some fledgeling project to build some kind of a solar power station in orbit but I donât think thatâs really possible, how would we get the energy back down? How would we build enough to counter the costs of building what would have to be a gigantic facility in outer space?
The capability is there and we will undoubtable be closer in a few decades but I donât think that it will be much more feasible.
Also how would billionaires becoming trillionaires inhibit it? I donât see the connection.
And I must say that we cannot rely on government agencies for space travel, we could have been on Mars in the 70s if it werenât for NASA and its insistence on the space shuttle program (which according to the director of NASA set back human space flight at least five decades, at least).
The only reason that NASA made so many advancements is because of the space race, which was a massive one upping competition between two governments to see who had better tech. Unless the US got into something like that was another world power (which there are none) it is impossible for us to get another âgolden ageâ of space travel advancement.
Except it isnât, as companies like Spacex and Blue Origin are building towards their own one-upping competitions, which could catapult human spaceflight tech.
Whoever manages to set up permanent human colonies, on the moon or mars, will not only cement their names in history for at least a thousand years, but get a massive economic advantage over competition. (space tourism, space mining, etc.)
Oh also we are nowhere close to building a dyson sphere, even getting the energy back from the sun is infeasible with current or near-future tech.
abt that
1 Like
Sorry Iâm having some troubles with youtube (my computer is a bit weird) whatâs the video about?
Hereâs the link to the vid as text, is it possible you could copy it and watch the vid on your phone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLfeZC7HK0&list=PLthPsWmE3cedePu4KvJ3cZtlKijlwltRK&index=1
Sorry, but no. I might be able to get it to work in a few hours though.
ahh, I see. Well, the video is about Vandana Shiva, whoâs a pro-only-organic-food quack, and her pseudo-environmentalist movement convinced the Sri Lankan gov to force Sri Lankan farmers to go âorganicâ (basically Middle Ages level farming).
1 Like
Yeah, thatâs what I was talking about (though I didnât know about any of the details, only the vague description of it being due to environmentalism).
I still recommend you watch the video, as it has MUCH more details than my description.
I will when I can.
(bookmarked it)
1 Like
Lol, space X making progresses? None.
Elon Musk forced severeal choices that went against the decisions of his own engigneers that directly caused his latest fiasco.
Literally, soviets with primitive technology were capable of sending entire space stations in orbit (and to a certain extent even send the first man to the moon since the Apollo 11 was made of stolen soviet technology), yet Musk with smartphones wasnât capable of making Starship last more than 4 minutes.
Plus, Musk didnât even do any innovation, his reusable stages were first ideated by soviets.
No, we cannot rely on private companies for space travel. Only the government is actually capable of doing projects which require losing money for a long term benefit of its citizens.
It is shown times and times again: in capitalism, no one cares about the wellbeing of the citizens, only about revenue. There is no âinvisible hand of the marketâ which regulates prices, because when it is left loose to run rampant without any controls then it only ends up belgiuming the general population over.
Because this is the truth of capitalism: because of the fact that money is not infinite, for the rich to remain rich the poor needs to remain poor, and the more poor people there are the richer the rich people will be.
The fable of the âbrave and hard working owner of a small company that fights against the big multinational corporations and comes out on topâ is just that, a fable.
There is no Easter Bunny, there is no Tooth Fairy, and there is no Ethical Capitalism.
3 Likes