RockyTop Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 20 minutes ago, travsformation said: Forum glitch. That quote isn't mine... If you quote a quote it is contributed to the person that quoted the quote and not the quoted. ............... I’ll take tongue twisters for $1,000, Alex. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atdlzpae Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, LanghamP said: I have no problem with the governments of the world putting the smackdown on its citizens in order to reduce CO2. You are assuming, that the governments of the world aren't corrupt and know what they are doing. Both of those are usually false. Just remember the Green New Deal and what PoS that was. The only thing they really care about are reelection and money. 15 hours ago, LanghamP said: forbid steaks (that's the thing that makes me cry, cause I love me a juicy steak) Outlawing meat is very dangerous: - Most people can't sustain vegan diet. There is a "Vegan honeymoon peroid" that lasts about a year, afterwards deficiencies start creeping in. Watch some ex-vegan interviews - lots of people cure themselves on a meat-heavy diets after feeling like crap for years. - Factory farming absolutely destroys soil. Grazing doesn't. According to some estimates, we have only 60 years of factory farming left. - We have way more soils good for grazing than for farming. - I consider methane scare a non-issue. In Poland we have drought in the recent years. Every time media says "It's global warming!". Bullshit, it's our shitty water management. Our government in the recent years keeps maniacally reinforcing rivers with concrete. Also, deforestation also lowers water retention. And so, after a rain we have a ton of water going via a direct route to Baltic Sea... And then a drought because there is none left to evaporate and rain again. Honestly, that's what I care about. Water, air, soil... Not global warming. Is too abstract, too prone to manipulation, lies and corruption. 15 hours ago, LanghamP said: Ban flight and the private automobile Will THEY stop flying and driving? This will lead to even bigger divide between elites and common folk. 15 hours ago, LanghamP said: charge the suburbs for road usage Just another tax for the middle-class. Lots of countries already do that - in Poland 60% of fuel price is tax. Also, hydrogen cars are coming and they generate no pollution nor CO2 if fueled with nuclear power. 15 hours ago, LanghamP said: give away bicycles/EUC/eScooters A huge opportunity for corruption. They won't be giving out MSX'es, but AirWheels. And you'll be paying for them with taxes. Additionally, these AirWheels will cost as much as V8's, because the seller is a mayor's daughter. What USA really needs is public transport. It's much more accessible and convenient than PEV's. 15 hours ago, LanghamP said: Screw your rights, we're in this for the species, boys and girls. No, they are in it for money. Always look at who is lobbying. Follow the money. The science is not easy. We aren't 20 years to catastrophe nor to irreversible changes. And the technologies are constantly coming. CO2 won't kill us. Scientists are working on recycling plastics. Lots of good things are going on, just chill and relax. Ps. What happened to the nuclear energy? Why is it being phased out? I think it's a good example of a green technology dying because of bad PR. Edited January 8, 2020 by atdlzpae 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanghamP Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 @atdlzpae, these are all excellent arguments for increase consumption until a natural equilibrium is reached between your population and the carrying capacity of your environment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travsformation Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, LanghamP said: @atdlzpae, these are all excellent arguments for increase consumption until a natural equilibrium is reached between your population and the carrying capacity of your environment. Supposing that "waiting period" was feasible ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterwheel Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 I'm late to this, but I did some math a couple of weeks ago in preparation for a meeting and I've saved over 3 metric tonnes of CO2 just from my commutes alone (since the math is easy for that part) since I switched from car to wheel. Plus, my wheeling has encouraged some others to trade cars for wheels for at least a portion of their commute; in this way even recreational wheeling can be seen as awesome for the environment. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyTop Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 The birth population numbers in most countries are working towards a decline. The numbers will continue to go up for a decade or two then start towards a decline. It takes 2.1 children per woman to keep population neutral. Fewer countries are above that now. Even the countries above 2.1 neutral are lowering their average birth rates. Europe is averaging about 1.8 US 1.88 In China, the previous shame of having more than one child will be hard for them to overcome. 1.2 Niger 7.15 Note: two systems of measurement. Birth per female and birth per 1,000 people per year. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanghamP Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 10 minutes ago, RockyTop said: The birth population numbers in most countries are working towards a decline. The numbers will continue to go up for a decade or two then start towards a decline. It takes 2.1 children per woman to keep population neutral. Fewer countries are above that now. Even the countries above 2.1 neutral are lowering their average birth rates. Europe is averaging about 1.8 Would that mean the world population is decreasing? In addition, is it desirable to get everyone into the US suburban lifestyle, either through importation of people or by cultural enrichment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyTop Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 29 minutes ago, LanghamP said: Would that mean the world population is decreasing? Not yet. However if the numbers continue as is, the world population will decline. The drop is almost a sure thing. Japan, Korea are already starting to feel the effects. Things change though. As the Third world countries become first world the birth rate drops for that country. Also keep in mind that the high birth rate countries tend to have a higher death rates. 34 minutes ago, LanghamP said: In addition, is it desirable to get everyone into the US suburban lifestyle, either through importation of people or by cultural enrichment? No, first world countries use more things. I do believe that small self sustaining rural companies could work to a positive. While as you have stated, cities can be more efficient in some ways they are less efficient in others. (Water sewer) When I was younger living in farmland, we only traveled to town 15 miles away every other week for supplies. We drive tractors or walk most of the time. I had an electric mini bike that I made from a 51’ Ford starter. LOL I am not usually telling you that you are wrong. Just that it is not all good or bad or absolute. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubadragonsan Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 We have to be good for the environment. Every time someone rides a wheel rather than driving a car, less pollutants is put in the air. The question is: Is the environment good for us wheelers? So far, I haven't seen a lot of real actions on the government part to really promote use of the wheels making them acceptable to societies, to pedestrians, to drivers...etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atdlzpae Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 2 hours ago, LanghamP said: @atdlzpae, these are all excellent arguments for increase consumption until a natural equilibrium is reached between your population and the carrying capacity of your environment. We're already at that equilibrium in most of the world. With the exception of really poor places that can't afford basic necessities. But even in North Korea things are improving pretty quickly. The population growth has stagnated and with current estimates should stop around 11 billion. The world can easily support 11 billion. I think that 2100 where the world is powered almost entirely by nuclear fusion is extremely likely. With airplanes and spaceships burning hydrogen from electrolysis. Essentially a zero-emission world. And that's regardless of any politician's decision - it will happen simply because of economics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travsformation Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 3 hours ago, atdlzpae said: We're already at that equilibrium in most of the world Are you seriously saying that the planet is able to sustain our currrent lifestyle and never-ending economic growth? That current trends are entirely sustainable (which is basically synonymous with equilibrium...)? I'm hoping I misunderstood you there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker10 Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 Well I guess I will keep riding my wheel until 100% of the people decide to kill us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterwheel Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 On 1/8/2020 at 9:48 AM, scubadragosan said: We have to be good for the environment. Every time someone rides a wheel rather than driving a car, less pollutants is put in the air. The question is: Is the environment good for us wheelers? So far, I haven't seen a lot of real actions on the government part to really promote use of the wheels making them acceptable to societies, to pedestrians, to drivers...etc. Government doesn't know squat about wheels, it's up to us early adopters to educate them in useful ways. The CO2 situation is a big lever to help push city governments particularly to encourage EUC use. We are far better than scooters, because we own instead of rent, keep them until they die, and charge them ourselves instead of having someone in a truck drive out to pick them, drive back to some charging station, then drive them back out again to drop them in the street. And because pedestrians generally fear us less than scooters all things being equal. We are better than gas cars for obvious reasons -- we are electric. We are better than electric cars because we are so much more efficient -- a Tesla car weighs 100x what a Tesla wheel does. Walking would be better...but walking is too slow for most of us most of the time. Cycling would be better...but bicycles are super-inconvenient at both ends of the trip, are prone to being stolen, can't keep up with traffic very well for the average user, and are bad for commuting if you don't have a place to take a shower when you get to work. For these reasons EUC will see widespread adoption at some point, it's just a question of how long it will take to get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.