Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Both extremes in position are wrong, but all of it is a moot point because the experiment will be played out regardless.
|
Agreed. But I don't think society is going to get any better even if we abolish any effort into reducing pollution and go all out on making the economy better. But again it's a moot point, because if world war 3 is going to happen, it's going to happen, regardless if I drive an EV, diesel or pair of roller skates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
It's a negotiating tactic. When implemented using game-theory tested strategy, it's an important tool. When implemented on whim, we might suffer increased prices.
Inflation is mostly a function of too many dollars chasing too few goods. I wonder what recent actions had caused the value of the dollar to plummet 1/3rd, keeping in mind that it's too many dollars chasing too few goods? It's the primary reason I have disdain for the political parties, because they are indistinguishable from each other on basic economics.
I'm completely lost on the topic of a Model T and Aptera.
|
Sorry to have overdone the comparison. The point was just blurting out extremes make no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Your knowledge is incomplete then, because the earth has substantially greened as a result of increased CO2 concentration. More growth (which is stored energy) would supply more fuel in a potential fire. Perhaps we want more deserts to reduce fire danger? My 2-second thought on the topic is to increase controlled burns (we can choose the conditions of a burn, or allow nature to choose for us, there has never been the option of no fire), and build infrastructure that minimizes fire loss.
|
Are we talking about in the past 50 years, or the time within mankind's existence, or since Earth was formed? Are we talking about mostly algae which in some areas ends up causing algae explosions which poison the waters they inhabit killing off other species like fish?