California to ban selling new gas-powered cars by 2035

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

No you haven't.


"C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (fueling) that risk."

... There are myriad opportunities, each with their own opportunity costs.

Yes, I have.

What opportunity costs are worth risking everything? It sure seems like you've got it completely backwards because if we suffer the worst consequences there are no opportunities to be missed.

[freebeard]

One against one. We need a tie-breaking vote. The part you elided: 'Fueling the risk is not a unitary choice.' There is no single path forward. There likely isn't a single best path forward. Each choice must be weighed against every other choice.

What do you intend with 'continue taking that risk'? What is your alternative?

Burning fossil fuel has prevented an Ice Age so far.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

One against one. We need a tie-breaking vote.

The validity of item C of my case is not up for vote.

The part you elided: 'Fueling the risk is not a unitary choice.'

There is no single path forward. There likely isn't a single best path forward. Each choice must be weighed against every other choice.

I didn't say there's a single path forward.

What do you intend with 'continue taking that risk'?

The risk from item B: "Human well-being and ultimately the habitability of the planet are at risk"

What is your alternative?

Do you expect me to have an *alternative? What alternative do we have for the habitability of this planet with its ecosystem?

(* Note: I''ll probably offer some thoughts on the alternative question, tomorrow.)

Burning fossil fuel has prevented an Ice Age so far.

How is causation shown for something that didn't happen? Then there's the timelines and predictions.

[freebeard]

Here's a further rebuttal to your point C:

Connecting the Dots: The Great Reset & The Fourth Industrial Revolution

If you free the screen at 25:03 you can read

There is no technological solution to a societal problem", said Agora Verkehrswende director Christian Hochfeld.

This is antithetical to Buckminster Fuller's Design Science Revolution. Just a horrible-horrible statement.

In a statement Hochfeld added, "Only business models that comply with the Paris goals are future proof."

This is what we must guard against; rigid solutions to a fluid problem.

I'm interested in what you think. They talk a lot of platitudes about making things all better, but would they really?

It's easy for me to propose an alternative to the Green New Deal — Fuller's Design Science Revolution, World Game and Synergetics*. There's no way to easily summarize that man's life's work but it is an inspiration for all. They will be studying Synergetics for as long as we've studied Leonardo da Vinci and Tesla. Plus he has an elemental form of carbon, C-60, named after him.

*Read Spaceship Earth or Utopia or Oblivion, or just meditate on their titles.

[oil pan 4]

Without fossil fuels or suitable replacement large swaths of far northern latitudes become uninhabitable for larger populations.
Without fossil fuels farming, mainly the fertilizer the world would have to depopulate down to under 2 billion.
Something like 95% of the world population gets at least some food grown using synthetic fertilizer.
Around 95% also use fossil fuel powered farm equipment and/or FF powered irritation.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Here's a further rebuttal to your point C:

Connecting the Dots: The Great Reset & The Fourth Industrial Revolution

If you free the screen at 25:03 you can read

This is antithetical to Buckminster Fuller's Design Science Revolution. Just a horrible-horrible statement.

This is what we must guard against; rigid solutions to a fluid problem.

I'm interested in what you think. They talk a lot of platitudes about making things all better, but would they really?

It's easy for me to propose an alternative to the Green New Deal — Fuller's Design Science Revolution, World Game and Synergetics*. There's no way to easily summarize that man's life's work but it is an inspiration for all. They will be studying Synergetics for as long as we've studied Leonardo da Vinci and Tesla. Plus he has an elemental form of carbon, C-60, named after him.

*Read Spaceship Earth or Utopia or Oblivion, or just meditate on their titles.

I think we may have (or end up having) similar visions, or at least ones that are more compatible than opposing.

I don't really have the spare time for replies that involve watching videos. Also, my internet access is through my phone, which is relatively slow and doing most things is more cumbersome than using a desktop personal computer.

As for the rebuttal of C: I currently think you misunderstand what I am saying with C.

I am not familiar with Buckminster Fuller's ideas.

Much of my ideas and vision come from biomomicry. I watched the documentary "The 11th Hour" (I'll have to double-check the title), hosted by Leonardo DiCaprio. It has segments featuring Janine Beynus(sp?). I'll try to state the main principle: We need to look to and align with nature.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Without fossil fuels or suitable replacement large swaths of far northern latitudes become uninhabitable for larger populations.
Without fossil fuels farming, mainly the fertilizer the world would have to depopulate down to under 2 billion.
Something like 95% of the world population gets at least some food grown using synthetic fertilizer.
Around 95% also use fossil fuel powered farm equipment and/or FF powered irritation.

Suitable alternatives are one of the main things in my approach.

It's kind of funny that the last word was irritation instead of irrigation because the things mentioned (burning fossil fuels; boatloads of synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides) are actually irritants.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

A. Cars and cheap (to the consumers) energy have been great for humanity in ways, and horrible in ways.
B. Human well-being and ultimately the habitability of the planet are at risk, and much of this risk is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (fueling) that risk.

Therefore, from C alone:

D. We need a major shift away from burning fossil fuels.

We should have taken this seriously when Carter was president. If we would've started then, then we wouldn't have to make changes so quickly, now.

A. Cell phones are cheap (to the consumers) and have been great for humanity in ways, and horrible in ways.
B. Human well-being and ultimately their health are at risk, and much of this risk is due to radiation emissions near their heads, which for some individuals is their most valuable possession.
C. The consequences of taking that risk are so severe that there is no good argument to continue taking (irradiating) that risk.

Therefore, from C alone:

D. We need a major shift away from cell phone use.

[freebeard]

I think we may have (or end up having) similar visions, or at least ones that are more compatible than opposing.

"The validity of item C of my case is not up for vote."

I don't really have the spare time for replies that involve watching videos.

So books are right out then?

I am not familiar with Buckminster Fuller's ideas.

Much of my ideas and vision come from biomomicry.

There is a vast corpus of material on Fuller. Then there is Viktor Schauberger. Are you familiar?

Viktor Schauberger - Cosmic Polymath
Search domain http://www.cosmicpolymath.com/viktor...hauberger.html
The innovative science of Viktor Schauberger is clouded in controversy and even mystery. From Viktor we learn that all we have to do is to watch and learn from nature itself. Viktor's perspective and outlook on science was greatly influenced by Goethe, whose brand of science encompassed the wholeness of nature.

Viktor Schauberger - Comprehend and Copy Nature (Documentary of 2008)
The first film about Viktor Schauberger’s life’s work. A comprehensive survey of historical facts, current research and various practical applications into both technology and the natural world.

We're stuck with books and films until Neuralink is rolled out.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Suitable alternatives are one of the main things in my approach.

It's kind of funny that the last word was irritation instead of irrigation because the things mentioned (burning fossil fuels; boatloads of synthetic fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides) are actually irritants.

K, so how do you plan to replace 175 million tons of of global ammonia production with renewables?
At least 70% of that is used for fertilizer.
I don't think you comprehend the scale of the problem.