Are we living in the End Times?


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

It's ok. Vent away. I too am sorry for your loss.


70% fed by sustainable methods??? Seriously, what are you smoking, and is there some for me? I assume this figure doesn't take into account that these people burn down forest to clear land, watch their land turn to desert since they didn't understand how important the forest was for the soil, and all the other oh so pretty ways the world punishes ignorance.

What to do with argiculture is a deeply divisive problem. At its most simple, the conflict is: Factory farming and the horrors thereof, or ecological farming that takes up more space for the same people. Even worse, that same land can now also be used for growing biofuels, which sharpens the situation even more.

There is a human tendency to look at the past and think: They didn't have these problems, so if we do what they did, we won't either. This is sadly, patently wrong.

Even if you COULD go back to the stone age farming of yore, rest very much assured that not everyone would. Those who refused would still have their weapons and would conquer you in very short order. History is a projection screen for all our fantasies and beliefs, but it is one place we can never go to. On any scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dustin Ashe wrote:
What if I told you that we're living in the least violent era of all human history?

Challenge accepted!

Step one: Socialise the next generation on the internet, so they believe that internet behaviour is the appropriate way to deal with other people.

Step two: Feed the sense of self-righteous entitlement possessed by the burgeoning elderly, to encourage an antagonistic view of the internet socialised youth.

Step three: ????

Step four: Doom!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Dustin Ashe wrote:
What if I told you that we're living in the least violent era of all human history?

Challenge accepted!

Step one: Socialise the next generation on the internet, so they believe that internet behaviour is the appropriate way to deal with other people.

Step two: Feed the sense of self-righteous entitlement possessed by the burgeoning elderly, to encourage an antagonistic view of the internet socialised youth.

Step three: ????

Step four: Profit!

Fixed that for you.

He is correct, physically, this one of the least violent times in human history.

Morally and socially, questionable at best.

Long term, the outcome of our net raised generation is questionabe.

The lack of face to face social skills will be an extreme challenge for many of them, however, the increased access to media and the wider caliber of community may provide a much broader world view than I currently see expressed.

Either way, our current way of living is unsustainable.

There are no single magical solutions and I anticipate bad things to happen as we make the transition into our next phase.


watchmanx wrote:
since my wife died in july i feel like ive been living in my personel endtimes

My deepest sorrows.


Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.


Irontruth wrote:

Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.

Non-commercial farming is going to have all of the same problems with water and crop usage; moving away from commercial farming will not solve those problems. Note that in both of the fuel cases, those are a result of the U.S. trying green-at-the-time solutions to the fossil fuel problem.

So, do you have a solution that actually reduces those wastes? Because everyone I've talked to about it has ultimately admitted the only way they see to have a positive impact is to reduce the need for the crops in the first place... which means reducing the human population.


MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.

Non-commercial farming is going to have all of the same problems with water and crop usage; moving away from commercial farming will not solve those problems. Note that in both of the fuel cases, those are a result of the U.S. trying green-at-the-time solutions to the fossil fuel problem.

So, do you have a solution that actually reduces those wastes? Because everyone I've talked to about it has ultimately admitted the only way they see to have a positive impact is to reduce the need for the crops in the first place... which means reducing the human population.

Well, the simplest way to produce more food with less resources is to grow more for human consumption and less to feed animals. Doesn't mean everyone has to go vegan, but any amount of shift from eating meat to eating vegetables would help.

In other words, reducing the crops needed by reducing the animal populations that we consume not the actual human population.


thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.

Non-commercial farming is going to have all of the same problems with water and crop usage; moving away from commercial farming will not solve those problems. Note that in both of the fuel cases, those are a result of the U.S. trying green-at-the-time solutions to the fossil fuel problem.

So, do you have a solution that actually reduces those wastes? Because everyone I've talked to about it has ultimately admitted the only way they see to have a positive impact is to reduce the need for the crops in the first place... which means reducing the human population.

Well, the simplest way to produce more food with less resources is to grow more for human consumption and less to feed animals. Doesn't mean everyone has to go vegan, but any amount of shift from eating meat to eating vegetables would help.

In other words, reducing the crops needed by reducing the animal populations that we consume not the actual human population.

That one has already been examined, and it is theoretically sound, but realistically impractical.

It runs across one simple problem: What are we going to do with all of the animals we're suddenly not feeding? Keep in mind this isn't just farm animals, but also pets such as cats and dogs (which rely upon our livestock supplies for their food sources when kept as pets and cannot survive on vegetarian diets). We could try a gradual downshift, but the effects from that will not come in any timeframe that will be beneficial, especially given our dwindling water supplies.


MJ: You are saying a reduction of the total amount of meat produced through less human consumption of meat is going to not work because we still have pets? Seriously? I would say if we reduce the total meat consumption by humans, so long as we still produce more meat than the pets consume, there shouldn't be any sort of problem there.


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Non-commercial farming is going to have all of the same problems with water and crop usage; moving away from commercial farming will not solve those problems. Note that in both of the fuel cases, those are a result of the U.S. trying green-at-the-time solutions to the fossil fuel problem.

So, do you have a solution that actually reduces those wastes? Because everyone I've talked to about it has ultimately admitted the only way they see to have a positive impact is to reduce the need for the crops in the first place... which means reducing the human population.

Well, the simplest way to produce more food with less resources is to grow more for human consumption and less to feed animals. Doesn't mean everyone has to go vegan, but any amount of shift from eating meat to eating vegetables would help.

In other words, reducing the crops needed by reducing the animal populations that we consume not the actual human population.

It runs across one simple problem: What are we going to do with all of the animals we're suddenly not feeding? Keep in mind this isn't just farm animals, but also pets such as cats and dogs (which rely upon our livestock supplies for their food sources when kept as pets and cannot survive on vegetarian diets). We could try a gradual downshift, but the effects from that will not come in any timeframe that will be beneficial, especially given our dwindling water supplies.

Seriously? That's your objection? Obviously it would be something of a gradual downshift, but given the vast majority of that feed that goes to food animals all we would have to do is stop (or slow) breeding.

Is it a magic bullet? Will it fix all our problems in one fell swoop? No. Of course not. Will it help? Certainly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alternative: We slaughter all the animals we're suddenly not feeding. Then we feed them to the animals we are feeding. When we run out of animals, we turn to commies, mutants, and those who question Friend Computer.

So wait, I'm confused. Are we living in the End Times or not? Do I have to stop eating bacon?


Sissyl wrote:
MJ: You are saying a reduction of the total amount of meat produced through less human consumption of meat is going to not work because we still have pets? Seriously? I would say if we reduce the total meat consumption by humans, so long as we still produce more meat than the pets consume, there shouldn't be any sort of problem there.

I have one question for you: Where do you think the animal products that humans won't eat ends up?

That's before you get into the fact humanity barely produces enough pet food, under current production, to feed both the pet population and some of the strays. It would be possible to step down and shift more animal production to pet food, but we're looking at humans drastically cutting meat intake and replacing it with something of similar nutritional value... the majority of which are crops that are either even more water intensive or which have too limited a growth biome (or both).

It is quite possible the total net water savings from shifting from animals to crops may be a flat 0 or even a negative number. If humanity were not dependent upon certain vitamins naturally found mostly in animals, it would be a different issue.

So, the only way we can accomplish both a step-down and a water reduction is actually to reduce the population dependent upon that production. Removing pets from the picture has that effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, talking about the apocalypse used to be fun and cool, but now you guys ruined it with all this vegan crap and now it's just depressing.


thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
It runs across one simple problem: What are we going to do with all of the animals we're suddenly not feeding? Keep in mind this isn't just farm animals, but also pets such as cats and dogs (which rely upon our livestock supplies for their food sources when kept as pets and cannot survive on vegetarian diets). We could try a gradual downshift, but the effects from that will not come in any timeframe that will be beneficial, especially given our dwindling water supplies.

Seriously? That's your objection? Obviously it would be something of a gradual downshift, but given the vast majority of that feed that goes to food animals all we would have to do is stop (or slow) breeding.

Is it a magic bullet? Will it fix all our problems in one fell swoop? No. Of course not. Will it help? Certainly.

Take a look at the report I linked in my post.

Will it help? The answer is not "certainly." We do not know if we will have the water supplies maintained for long enough for a gradual stepdown to be possible. It can be attempted, but by all signs we're going to run into a massive water supply problem before we see results.

If you want a doom clock for the environment, ignore CO2 levels. Look at water supplies. Once nations start fighting over water, the environment is lost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
It runs across one simple problem: What are we going to do with all of the animals we're suddenly not feeding? Keep in mind this isn't just farm animals, but also pets such as cats and dogs (which rely upon our livestock supplies for their food sources when kept as pets and cannot survive on vegetarian diets). We could try a gradual downshift, but the effects from that will not come in any timeframe that will be beneficial, especially given our dwindling water supplies.

Seriously? That's your objection? Obviously it would be something of a gradual downshift, but given the vast majority of that feed that goes to food animals all we would have to do is stop (or slow) breeding.

Is it a magic bullet? Will it fix all our problems in one fell swoop? No. Of course not. Will it help? Certainly.

Take a look at the report I linked in my post and give it a read.

Will it help? The answer is not "certainly." We do not know if we will have the water supplies maintained for long enough for a gradual stepdown to be possible. It can be attempted, but by all signs we're going to run into a massive water supply problem before we see results.

That's more of an "enough" than a "will it help".

Your argument, as far as I can see, is that we don't have the water supplies to gradually step down, so we might as well continue until the collapse.

I guess "We're so far over the edge that we might as well go out in an orgy of greed, without even trying to slow down" is a valid answer, but it's not really to my taste.
I'd rather be trying, even if it doesn't wind up being enough.

There certainly are places where animals can be raised that food crops won't grow well. There are crops that animals can be fed on that will grow in areas our food crops won't grow well. Places where both of those can be done with no irrigation or much less than our food crops would need. Obviously those can and should still be used. OTOH, we're also growing an awful lot of animal feed crops with land and water that are good for other things. And Americans, at least, could use a good deal less red meat in their diet without having to do anything complicated to replace it.
Less so in much of the rest of the world, but since you're focused on the pet food part of the problem, you're obviously dealing with this partly from a first world perspective.

And as much as I like cats and dogs and as important as pets really are, when you're projecting drastic reductions in the human population, I don't think pets are really a valid objection.


thejeff wrote:

That's more of an "enough" than a "will it help".

Your argument, as far as I can see, is that we don't have the water supplies to gradually step down, so we might as well continue until the collapse.

I guess "We're so far over the edge that we might as well go out in an orgy of greed, without even trying to slow down" is a valid answer, but it's not really to my taste.
I'd rather be trying, even if it doesn't wind up being enough.

There certainly are places where animals can be raised that food crops won't grow well. There are crops that animals can be fed on that will grow in areas our food crops won't grow well. Places where both of those can be done with no irrigation or much less than our food crops would need. Obviously those can and should still be used. OTOH, we're also growing an awful lot of animal feed crops with land and water that are good for other things. And Americans, at least, could use a good deal less red meat in their diet without having to do anything complicated to replace it.
Less so in much of the rest of the world, but since you're focused on the pet food part of the problem, you're obviously dealing with this partly from a first world perspective.

And as much as I like cats and dogs and as important as pets really are, when you're projecting drastic reductions in the human population, I don't think pets are really a valid objection.

The question of "will it help" comes about in that, even with a gradual stepdown, we may see water supplies fall too low before the cattle population actually starts to decrease. It's also extremely likely, given we have around 5 years to solve the water problem. That's the time table we're working with on the water issue, so "gradual" is not a viable solution. This isn't like global warming, where the apocalypse is going to come about sometime next century. Most of us will still be alive when this hits.

And, yes, I am dealing with this from a first-world perspective. Why? Because I know that the moment a First Worlder finds out they may have to choose between eating a steak or feeding it to their dog, they're going to get angry. This solution is an epic failure in the making simply because Americans won't accept it; the EPA is going to spend decades hunting down and destroying illegal cattle farms once it is put in place. And that's assuming the legislation isn't killed in Congress by lobbyists from the cattle industry.

So, realistically, reducing meat consumption is a solution that is dead in the water and one that doesn't even have enough time to produce results before disaster hits. It's simply not viable, and trying it would be a waste of resources.

What am I looking at? We have to solve the water problem before we do ANYTHING else. If we do not, nothing else matters because humanity will destroy the environment in warfare over water. Unless the water problem is fixed, absolutely no solution to the CO2 problem or human waste is viable. Because you can bet we're going to waste massively more and do massively more environmental damage when we start killing each other over water.

So, we should pour what we can into water reclamation technologies. Once we have those properly developed and have staved off the water disaster, then reductions of eating meat become viable.


I'm sorry for your loss watchmanx. Good on you for being her caregiver during that period. I'm not a big reward-in-the-afterlife kind of guy, but I think what you did makes you a saint in your own right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That's more of an "enough" than a "will it help".

Your argument, as far as I can see, is that we don't have the water supplies to gradually step down, so we might as well continue until the collapse.

I guess "We're so far over the edge that we might as well go out in an orgy of greed, without even trying to slow down" is a valid answer, but it's not really to my taste.
I'd rather be trying, even if it doesn't wind up being enough.

There certainly are places where animals can be raised that food crops won't grow well. There are crops that animals can be fed on that will grow in areas our food crops won't grow well. Places where both of those can be done with no irrigation or much less than our food crops would need. Obviously those can and should still be used. OTOH, we're also growing an awful lot of animal feed crops with land and water that are good for other things. And Americans, at least, could use a good deal less red meat in their diet without having to do anything complicated to replace it.
Less so in much of the rest of the world, but since you're focused on the pet food part of the problem, you're obviously dealing with this partly from a first world perspective.

And as much as I like cats and dogs and as important as pets really are, when you're projecting drastic reductions in the human population, I don't think pets are really a valid objection.

The question of "will it help" comes about in that, even with a gradual stepdown, we may see water supplies fall too low before the cattle population actually starts to decrease. It's also extremely likely, given we have around 5 years to solve the water problem. That's the time table we're working with on the water issue, so "gradual" is not a viable solution. This isn't like global warming, where the apocalypse is going to come about sometime next century. Most of us will still be alive when this hits.

And, yes, I am dealing with this from a first-world perspective. Why? Because I know that the moment a...

So the problem is that we're going to have serious water issues in about 5 years and any solutions that attempt to reduce water usage are ruled out because they won't be popular, so we'll just have to hope for a technical solution that'll let us keep using as much water as we want. No point in even trying anything else.

I'll include, btw, watering nice green lawns and golf courses in the desert and the massive diversion of water for fracking. Both completely out of the question to challenge.


thejeff wrote:

So the problem is that we're going to have serious water issues in about 5 years and any solutions that attempt to reduce water usage are ruled out because they won't be popular, so we'll just have to hope for a technical solution that'll let us keep using as much water as we want. No point in even trying anything else.

I'll include, btw, watering nice green lawns and golf courses in the desert and the massive diversion of water for fracking. Both completely out of the question to challenge.

You're welcome to try something else... but let's be realistic about it. Trying to get the public to accept and do something about global warming has been going on since the 1980s, and for the most part science is still losing that argument.

Water usage is a lot closer to home, a lot more immediate, and a lot more of an impact on day-to-day life. Do you really think we have the time to convince the public to go along with it or that politicians will go along with it without the public's support?

Yeah, it sucks. But reducing water usage is a long-term battle. Our problem is immediate and long-term, but must be solved immediately. We simply don't have the time right now, so we need something to extend that time.

That's what happens when you ignore a problem. Which we've done.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Screw that, I'm not stopping eating meat.


Sissyl wrote:
70% fed by sustainable methods??? Seriously, what are you smoking, and is there some for me?

http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/ETC_Who_Will_Feed_Us_0.pdf

Page 1. There is even a nice pie chart. Granted, it doesn't say that it is done sustainably, but there seems to be a consensus that peasants can't afford industrial farming items, and deforestation is usually related more to grazing cattle for export, or very severe poverty.
Page 7 "UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
calculates that the loss of calories by
feeding cereals to animals instead
of using the cereals as human food
represents the annual calorie need
for more than 3.5 billion people.


MagusJanus wrote:
Do you really think we have the time to convince the public to go along with it or that politicians will go along with it without the public's support?

If we can pull off Iraq Invasion #2 (As a secondary land war in Asia), you really think the public's support matters at all?

Also, the idea that we can only work on one problem at a time (especially when another problem is directly related) makes no sense.

Shift farm subsidies to growing nutritious food and pay them to farmers, not corporate investors. Nationalize Monsanto and those other corporate food giants and end their Evil practices.


Hama wrote:
Screw that, I'm not stopping eating meat.

You don't have to. You should probably eat less, and get it from some place more local. On the bright side, it should have less pink slime, less antibiotics, less antibiotic resistant bacteria, and because the animals have been living a more healthy life, it won't have a faint s&*$ smell when you cook it. Not to mention, your money might support some decent local jobs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Do you really think we have the time to convince the public to go along with it or that politicians will go along with it without the public's support?

If we can pull off Iraq Invasion #2 (As a secondary land war in Asia), you really think the public's support matters at all?

.

I imagine that the first Geroge Bush would say yes, considering that he became the first President to lose re-election despite winning a fairly popular war.


Fergie wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Do you really think we have the time to convince the public to go along with it or that politicians will go along with it without the public's support?
If we can pull off Iraq Invasion #2 (As a secondary land war in Asia), you really think the public's support matters at all?

Actually, yes. Remember that they had to lie about weapons of mass destruction to pull off Iraq Deuce.

Quote:
Also, the idea that we can only work on one problem at a time (especially when another problem is directly related) makes no sense.

Given both the world-wide scope of the problem and the extremely limited amount of time we have to fix it... it does make sense we could only work on one thing at a time. We pretty much have five years to re-engineer the entire world's water reclamation technologies. To even have a remote chance of pulling that off, we need everyone working on a solution.

Needless to say, we're not going to make it.

So, the most realistic goal at this point is to shift as many resources and as much scientific funding as we can to dealing with water supplies so that we minimize the impact and hopefully prevent wars. That means, on the temporary side of things, much less funding for climate science, alternative energy, military spending (the U.S. military has been trying to get parts of its budget cut for awhile now anyway), oil subsidies, and a few other areas where we can afford a temporary trimming.

Quote:
Shift farm subsidies to growing nutritious food and pay them to farmers, not corporate investors. Nationalize Monsanto and those other corporate food giants and end their Evil practices.

Uh, this is not even remotely a good idea... You really don't want Monsanto nationalized. Nationalizing the others is also a bad idea, but you really, really don't want Montanto nationalized.

Remember Monsanto's history of producing chemical weapons? That's because the U.S. government effectively forced them to. Realistically, the U.S. government is the last group of people you want in charge of the corporate food giants.

And, a lot of subsidies are paid directly to farmers. But I don't really disagree with the idea of paying them to produce nutritious food. So, I can't argue with that.


MagusJanus wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Also, the idea that we can only work on one problem at a time (especially when another problem is directly related) makes no sense.

Given both the world-wide scope of the problem and the extremely limited amount of time we have to fix it... it does make sense we could only work on one thing at a time. We pretty much have five years to re-engineer the entire world's water reclamation technologies. To even have a remote chance of pulling that off, we need everyone working on a solution.

Needless to say, we're not going to make it.

So, the most realistic goal at this point is to shift as many resources and as much scientific funding as we can to dealing with water supplies so that we minimize the impact and hopefully prevent wars. That means, on the temporary side of things, much less funding for climate science, alternative energy, military spending (the U.S. military has been trying to get parts of its budget cut for awhile now anyway), oil subsidies, and a few other areas where we can afford a temporary trimming

Your argument has now turned into "We can't do this one impossible thing, so we have to do this other impossible thing instead."

There's no way we're going to cut massive parts of the rest of government's jobs in order to focus on water reclamation technology.

Especially since you're promising we can't succeed and demanding we work on "dealing with water supplies", but not on conserving water or using less or anything that might actually upset people. What do you actually mean by "dealing with water supplies"? What should we be doing to buy time?

Nor can we actually work on one thing at a time. It's not like all the alternative energy experts and climate scientists are going to be able to switch over to work on your water project. They don't have the expertise or the time to gain it. And your re-engineering of the world's water infrastructure is going to require energy and resources, so you're going to need to keep investing in most of that stuff anyway.

Sovereign Court

Fergie wrote:
Hama wrote:
Screw that, I'm not stopping eating meat.
You don't have to. You should probably eat less, and get it from some place more local. On the bright side, it should have less pink slime, less antibiotics, less antibiotic resistant bacteria, and because the animals have been living a more healthy life, it won't have a faint s%*! smell when you cook it. Not to mention, your money might support some decent local jobs.

Good lord, what kind of meat do you get there in the US? We may get meat that lets out a lot of water (a tried and tested weigth scam) but never a s****y smell.

What's pink slime?


thejeff wrote:
Your argument has now turned into "We can't do this one impossible thing, so we have to do this other impossible thing instead."

Welcome to environmentalism. No matter how you cut it, at the end of the day we're asking for something impossible.

It's not actually that impossible when you stop and look more into what I'm specifically talking about; not a complete cut, but a shifting of resources and people for the short-term. There wouldn't be that many jobs lost, if any, and it would still be a bit past the date when things start going seriously wrong before we accomplished it. But, we would see an impact, a serious impact at that, in time to prevent wars over water supplies.

Quote:
There's no way we're going to cut massive parts of the rest of government's jobs in order to focus on water reclamation technology.

This wouldn't so much be cutting jobs. Even the military funding I'm speaking of is primarily military funding the Pentagon has been petitioning Congress to do away with; this is money the military doesn't want. The recent budget increase that was voted in for the military is actually the exact opposite of what the Pentagon asked for.

I trust the Pentagon to at least have some idea of how much money they need, even with the black hole that makes up their accounting department. So if they're saying, for years on end, that they don't need certain funding, I would think that cutting the funding would be a good idea. It's not like we have any lack of other places where that money would be welcome.

And, yes, I'm looking at the idea that we're going to need a massive shift of resources. I notice you're not asking me why, but I'll explain further down.

Quote:
Especially since you're promising we can't succeed and demanding we work on "dealing with water supplies", but not on conserving water or using less or anything that might actually upset people. What do you actually mean by "dealing with water supplies"? What should we be doing to buy time?

I'm looking at the idea we may only have three years of being capable of actually working on it. Five years to reengineer water reclamation technology? That's doable; implementing it would be longer term, but would start having positive impacts as soon as we did.

Now, why so short of a time? The budget until into 2015 is set. And 2015 is going to be primarily focused on the 2016 elections; there's no way they're going to do anything they need to do during that period as long as they have games they can play to win elections. So, realistically, you're probably looking at the earliest possibility to actually do something in 2017 or 2018, simply because of all of the wasted time the American political machine generates.

By "dealing with water supplies," I primarily refer to the creation of better water reclamation technologies to keep our usable freshwater supplies at a level where we can sustain our usage of water. That is actually the buying time I refer to; it would, ultimately, only deal with the immediate problem and not solve the long-term problem of dwindling water supplies. The long-term solution is to decrease world water usage, but we need the immediate solution to keep our existing supplies so we can educate the public on using less water until it sinks in.

Quote:
Nor can we actually work on one thing at a time. It's not like all the alternative energy experts and climate scientists are going to be able to switch over to work on your water project. They don't have the expertise or the time to gain it. And your re-engineering of the world's water infrastructure is going to require energy and resources, so you're going to need to keep investing in most of that stuff anyway.

Energy is where the alternative energy experts come in. If what I've seen is accurate, this is going to require massive amounts of energy, including solar energy being needed in some models due to how it can be used for water purification. Those alternative energy experts would be needed for integration of energy generation directly into the water reclamation plants. Even with ignoring the existence of global warming, it simply isn't practical to build extra power plants for this purpose when we can integrate technology instead.

Climate scientists would be needed because quite a few of them have degrees in relevant areas that may need consideration. If tides are involved, we're going to need tidal experts to study the impact; AFAIK, the majority of those are climate scientists. There's also going to be questions of designing this to minimize climatic impact so as to not worsen water supply problems, which means it's going to need experts on how buildings interact with water vapor and precipitation involved. In addition, monitoring stations for monitoring both water supplies and precipitation will likely be necessary.


Hama wrote:


What's pink slime?

Oh, yeah, speaking of the end times, this stuff is a warning sign of the apocalypse.

Yeah, most meat in the US is scary factory farm stuff with antibiotics to stimulate growth and allow animals to live in nastier conditions then they would otherwise be able to survive. I smelled some of the farms over the summer, and my best description is- it made the little hairs in your nose curl. When you cook the meat, it is faint, but you can catch a wiff of that same smell.


Something interesting...

The native American tribes were FAR worse at pollution than what many think. They lived in harmony with the land...by spreading human wastes (untreated) everywhere they went. If we did that with the population today...we would literally have NO DRINKING WATER ANYWHERE.

Furthermore, their main source of heat was fire. If we utilized as many fires as they did...we would have a perpetual smog over many of the cities that utilize more efficient energy measures today.

The amount of wastes they had, if utilized with our populations today...would make many places uninhabitable.

The difference between us and the Native Americans are the numbers that we are dealing with. The Native Americans numbers in the millions...perhaps tens of millions....we number in the hundreds of millions.

Going along with the rest of the world...relegating us to a point without sewage or other modern accessories...would create a picture similar to what would be seen in the US (and in some places even worse, as the population to land ratio is even greater).

On another note...there's a water problem? I know the Western US has a drought that is especially severe...but I hadn't noted this being spread to the rest of the world. When did this happen?


Fergie wrote:
Hama wrote:


What's pink slime?

Oh, yeah, speaking of the end times, this stuff is a warning sign of the apocalypse.

Yeah, most meat in the US is scary factory farm stuff with antibiotics to stimulate growth and allow animals to live in nastier conditions then they would otherwise be able to survive. I smelled some of the farms over the summer, and my best description is- it made the little hairs in your nose curl. When you cook the meat, it is faint, but you can catch a wiff of that same smell.

I'm not quite certain what the article has to do with your statement.

I do spend quite a lot of time around cattle farmers in Utah. I can tell you how the cattle spend their time and how it happens.

The cattle typically starts life when in a large fenced pasture. You probably have around one to two cattle per acre. This doesn't last that long however, as most practice free range here and let their cattle herds free to roam during the warm months. This means they have an entire wilderness to roam. They keep tabs on them either with hands which travel with the herds (and get paid squat in comparison to the time spent) or other methods.

They then round them up when it starts to get frosty enough (well many do, some might not) that getting food from wild grazing will be tough.

They take what they need to the slaughter houses at that time. For a few weeks the cattle will spend time in the feed lots. This is perhaps the time when most of the complaints from animal rights activists would arise. The cattle ARE very cramped in to the fences. I've been past the feed lots a LOT...but I'm not sure what the animal to acreage ratio is. They still have room to wander, but it's a ton of animals in each enclosure. The purpose is to fatten them up at that time for the slaughter house. Of course...I'd imagine unless you really enjoy eating meat, there are some that would become vegetarians from seeing the slaughter house and the cattle being killed and carved up. I know I had a nephew that went vegetarian (I am not a vegetarian by the way).

However, none of this is really scary conditions, the scariest being the feed lots, and that's a relatively short time. Overall, they have just as much area to roam as a wild animal (actually more, as some wild animals are herded out of areas near public access, and others considered pests are shot on sight).

AS far as meat from the Western US, I'm not certain what the assumptions are, but that's how the cattle are raised where I visit regularly.


It's currently thought the tens of millions of Native Americans we know of are a post-apocalypse society. There's evidence that suggests Native Americans were actually massively more populace before the Little Ice Age, and one of the prevailing theories behind what caused that event is that the Native Americans simply did that much environmental damage over a very short amount of time.

The water problem actually isn't recent news; it's been scientifically known about for a couple decades now, and possibly even known about since the 1970s (that's when the first efforts to continually monitor water supplies began).


MagusJanus wrote:

It's currently thought the tens of millions of Native Americans we know of are a post-apocalypse society. There's evidence that suggests Native Americans were actually massively more populace before the Little Ice Age, and one of the prevailing theories behind what caused that event is that the Native Americans simply did that much environmental damage over a very short amount of time.

The water problem actually isn't recent news; it's been scientifically known about for a couple decades now, and possibly even known about since the 1970s (that's when the first efforts to continually monitor water supplies began).

I've only ever heard this about some of the southwestern tribes. The depopulation in the eastern US and elsewhere is almost entirely a result of introduced diseases from the first European explorers and colonists.


MagusJanus wrote:

The water problem actually isn't recent news; it's been scientifically known about for a couple decades now, and possibly even known about since the 1970s (that's when the first efforts to continually monitor water supplies began).

I've heard about a water problem before, but nothing like how you have put it.

In fact, nothing has shown that we are on the knife's edge at this point from what I've seen (admittedly from a non-scientist here).

California I've seen (been there a lot recently) having a TON of water problems. Using the analogy that California's normal water level is half a cup of water, right now it would be around 2 ounces of water, or 1/5 to 1/4 of what it normally should be. We did get a LOT of rain recently (I think December was one of the rainiest months for California ever), but that has done little to recover from the drought overall (I think someone said it means we've recovered maybe 1/12 to 1/6 of what is needed to actually recover).

So, if the rest of the West is also suffering the drought, it is far more to the point in water problems. Calfornia, in light of the recent drought, probably has FAR less time to try to figure out something with water resources than many other locations.

Who knows, without a veritable monsoon...water riots could come as soon as next year to CA.

In comparison...if California is the half cup of water, Georgia and the South have 2 gallons of water. Even in a drought, they have 1 gallon of water...which is still two times as much water for their state with a population 1/8 as large. I'd say their water problems in comparison are much further out, and in fact they have a ton of ways to restructure and reallocate their water in how they utilize it before they even come close to having water problems (I think desani gets their water from Georgia, and that's distributed worldwide!).

Which is where I'm wondering where the 5 years on the knife's edge thing is coming from?


From sources like this that show up to two-fifths of the world suffering water shortage, with it only getting worse over the next 20 years.

Nations are already squabbling over water supplies in some regions. Making water troubles worse is very likely to lead to open warfare as time passes. It is not likely we will make it to 2040 without widespread open warfare, and questionable if we'll even make it beyond 2020.


MagusJanus wrote:

From sources like this that show up to two-fifths of the world suffering water shortage, with it only getting worse over the next 20 years.

Nations are already squabbling over water supplies in some regions. Making water troubles worse is very likely to lead to open warfare as time passes. It is not likely we will make it to 2040 without widespread open warfare, and questionable if we'll even make it beyond 2020.

For smaller and or drier nations yes. Mauritania for example has sand dunes slowly burying the arable land, and the sahara has merged with the beach.

Larger nations can either move water around or just let the populations move as the water prices rise. I don't think theres a scenario out there where seatle needs to worry about water supply.


Allow me to doubt Sweden is in trouble either... *sigh*


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

From sources like this that show up to two-fifths of the world suffering water shortage, with it only getting worse over the next 20 years.

Nations are already squabbling over water supplies in some regions. Making water troubles worse is very likely to lead to open warfare as time passes. It is not likely we will make it to 2040 without widespread open warfare, and questionable if we'll even make it beyond 2020.

For smaller and or drier nations yes. Mauritania for example has sand dunes slowly burying the arable land, and the sahara has merged with the beach.

Larger nations can either move water around or just let the populations move as the water prices rise. I don't think theres a scenario out there where seatle needs to worry about water supply.

I agree: I know there is an ongoing water crisis in the Southwestern states, but nothing I have read suggests it will come to some sort of tipping point in 5 years. There are certainly other parts of the world that in the long run are going to suffer some adverse impacts, but I think first world nations will largely have to change aspects of life style and may need to shift there economies away from agriculture that requires lots of irrigation. And I certainly agree with TheJeff that a water crisis doesn't mean we stop worrying about any other environmental issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Here are some numbers about farming:

40% of corn grown in the US is used to make fuel, not food.
36% of corn is fed to animals (plus some of the leftovers not used in the fuel process above)
98% of soybean meal is used to feed animals.
12% of soybean oil is used as a petroleum alternative.

We do use 80% of soybean oil for human consumption, but the solids themselves almost entirely go to animals.

Article on water consumption for specific crops
California has wonderful temperatures for growing crops, but it completely lacks the water necessary to sustain the farming industry as we now use it. A single almond takes 1.1 gallons and 99% of all almonds grown in the US are grown in California.

Also note, when looking at the pictures of how severe the drought is, those are nearly 12 months old and the conditions have gotten worse since then.

Commercial farming is inefficient. It's ridiculous to suggest that we MUST stay with an inefficient system or we'll all starve.

Non-commercial farming is going to have all of the same problems with water and crop usage; moving away from commercial farming will not solve those problems. Note that in both of the fuel cases, those are a result of the U.S. trying green-at-the-time solutions to the fossil fuel problem.

So, do you have a solution that actually reduces those wastes? Because everyone I've talked to about it has ultimately admitted the only way they see to have a positive impact is to reduce the need for the crops in the first place... which means reducing the human population.

Your point was that without something like industrial farming the world could not possibly feed itself.

My point is that in industrial farming:

1) a significant portion of the crop goes to non-food purposes
2) even some of the "food" purposes are indirect

It is a myth that industrial farming is NECESSARY for human existence. Feel free to counter with some data. Corn is by far our largest crop in the US. Currently some 87,000,000 acres are used for growing corn (which is a little smaller than the state of Montana). Only 12% of that corn goes to feed humans.

Source = National Corn Grower's Association

They're not some sort of ironically named anti-corn group. They are a lobbyists for corn farmers. Here's a list of their donations in 2014. I provide that not necessarily as an indictment, but rather proof that these numbers are their attempt to make corn look like the best thing ever. They don't claim that corn feeds the world.

Industrial farming isn't about feeding people.


When Jesus returns, how will he determine who has accepted him as the Messiah?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The End Times are not imminent. I think we are still several years away from the next edition of Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Something interesting...

The native American tribes were FAR worse at pollution than what many think. They lived in harmony with the land...by spreading human wastes (untreated) everywhere they went. If we did that with the population today...we would literally have NO DRINKING WATER ANYWHERE.

One.. in nature THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. Do you think that animals build sewage systems?

At least in pre=colonial America the the Indians were participating in the renewing cycle of the land. take minerals in the form of hunted meat and recycle it back to the environment as wastes.

What we do instead is pretty much dump our sweage into the sea. Which means the land gets shorted out of a lot of renewal.

Of course the Indian solution doesn't work scaled up to urban level.... it was never meant to!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Pilkington, Philosoraptor wrote:
Hama wrote:
After all they postulated the definition of grimdark
Grimdark was my favorite of the cartoon Dinobots.

ME GRIMDARK KNOW ONLY WAR


Lets get real for a moment here. Everything ends. Perhaps we have come to our end. We made lots of mistakes. Perhaps too many. If this is the end, then we should enjoy the time we have left. So how do we do this? We don't want to go dramatically. No, we should just go quietly and try to spend as much time as possible with family and friends. Other "worlds" might want to go out loudly; we should just end with some dignity. Maybe if we made different choices it would be different, but we can't go back in time. Not all of us. Lets look forward and accept our final fate as the human race together, with no regrets.
Thank you.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Netura wrote:
Lets get real for a moment here. Everything ends.

I disagree. Everything changes. Nothing has ever ended.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Netura wrote:
Lets get real for a moment here. Everything ends.
I disagree. Everything changes. Nothing has ever ended.

I disagree. Matter that is sucked into a Black Hole is utterly destroyed and not simpled changed, so some things do end.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Prove it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Netura wrote:
Lets get real for a moment here. Everything ends.
I disagree. Everything changes. Nothing has ever ended.

Prove that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

On an Internet forum?

201 to 250 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Are we living in the End Times? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.