But also consider human development. Someone always argues that China has also been building more coal power plant. However it’s reasonable when you’re bringing more of your population out of poverty. China has developed into a modern economy/society far faster than any other country in history and that’s a positive thing even if they rapidly increased energy consumption.

More importantly all indications are China passing peak carbon emissions in the next year or two, far sooner than they committed to. How is everyone else doing on their commitments?

I’m no fan of the abuses of their authoritarianism, but give credit where it’s due: they made some great decisions with renewable energy and followed through aggressively to all of our benefit

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/frankly-original/44-the-many-shapes-of-the-carbon-pulse

I recently watched a video with an interesting point on fracking ……

Graphing wells by cost and longevity of production, new oil wells are not only more expensive but also don’t supply as much or last as long. Each time we pay more to get less and ends sooner.

Technology might continue to make additional mineral resources newly exploitable but the math is not on the side of it continuing to be feasible

Yeah but that doesn’t have to be efficient. It just has to be more efficient than crossing back over the Pacific Ocean to stock up on jet fuel

I can’t blame them for wanting it, but let’s not go there.

Reducing the number of countries with nukes was and still is a good idea. Everyone seems to think that MAD was a reasonable strategy because we muddled through without ending civilization. It is not. It is not foregone. It is not likely. It is way too big a risk for all of civilization.

Politics. Over the years there have been quite a few UN votes where only Israel stands by the us. Supposedly clandestine operations that the us wanted to stand apart from. The alternative would be having to think about why the rest of the world opposed

Wow, what pieces of shit. I had often wondered if it was just pride and sunk cost fallacy, but they’re pieces of shit

Maybe I’m naive but I bought into it at first. Israel did suffer a horrible terrorist attack, their citizens were kidnapped, and terrorists were hiding among Palestinians, so a military response could be expected. But there’s got to be a point where they recognize the harm to innocent civilians, where enough is enough and they’ve long past it for most people. Yet still trying to justify it?

Be tempted to look south my man

One more reason to hurry over to renewables

I know the feeling: what a horrible summer this has been here too. I switched from heat to air conditioning in only a week. It’s just hitting me that summer is almost over yet I haven’t been outside. It’s been 90° or raining just about every day

The authors approach to not owning anything digital was to attempt self hosting. But the authors reaction to the amount of work was that he shouldn’t own the “self-hosting”? He does not even realize that he’s back to not owning anything

What’s your goal in using fake info? If it’s general privacy, it’s easy enough to register where your info is private to the registrar

Altitude of 300m …. This is older than 8 years, this corresponds to the first SpaceX tests …. I don’t see that level of historical detail, but Wikipedia lists a milestone of a recovered falcon 9 after launch to orbit. Hondas technology is somewhere over 15 years old …. And the article doesn’t say whether it’s comparable size or power, so no.

But was it in the beginning? I’m not old enough to remember what it was like when it started but clearly there was a lot of propaganda. The unpopularity seemed to manifest over time, as there was no goal and people dying over something most americans didn’t care about.

Or at least that’s my impression.

And human rights. Due process. Rule of law and respect the constitution. Less inflation. More progress on our environment. Rebuild some infrastructure. Invest in some technologies of the future rather than the past. Leadership that understands basic economics and actually the art of the deal

The problem is we’re over-consuming now, over-populating now, but will feel the effects of lower birth rates in 50+ years. There’s extremely delayed feedback on population trends, but that doesn’t make it untrue.

Even conservatives sometime start from a point of truth. The problem is their solution is to turn back rights for women, opportunities for women. Technically correct, if you have no morals or empathy.

For the rest of us concerned about this possibility, society needs to change a lot to remove obstacles from people who do choose to have children. And this would take a couple generations to take effect so we need to start now, to stabilize the dropping population in 50-100 years

US has the cheap solution: higher immigration than most developed countries. I’m sure we’re going to encourage that while we try to figure out how to make having children more appealing. No one would mess that up, right?

I look at long term trends where the global population peaks in a few decades then heads down all too quickly, and find it important to act to stabilize that at a level a bit below here we are now

Yeah, what are those damn commies going to demand next, human rights?

It will be interesting to learn the exact conditions for each of the tipping points, if only it wasn’t our environment. Tipping