Views: 8,814,386 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
10-16-18 05:33 PM
Guest:

0 users reading The ongoing battle for ecology: what you should know | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - The ongoing battle for ecology: what you should know New reply

Pages: 1 2 3
StapleButter
Posted on 03-27-16 07:41 PM Link | #69146
When you hear about ecology, it's mostly about producing energy from clean sources, reducing pollution from cars, that kind of things. We can't deny there there's a whole lot of effort going in this direction (even though some car vendors cheat to pass pollution tests, hi Volkswagen among others).


But there's another main aspect to it. We hear about that one a lot less, and it's a shame because it's as important as the first one.

The gist of it: consume reponsively. Remember that Earth's resources aren't infinite, use them wisely.


It's mostly because we're surrounded by a bunch of commercial bullshit that goes exactly against it.

Products are mass-produced and relatively easy to obtain, which makes people forget about the aforementioned point.

There is also a lot of commercial bullshit aiming at making you buy more shit. Planned obsolescence for one.

If you look at the latest progress in technology, well, there's not much. 5% of it is actual progress, the remaining 95% is commercial bullshit. What do the computers of 2016 do that those of 2010 didn't do? What does Windows 10 do that Windows 7 doesn't do? Not a whole lot of things.

There's sort of the same issue with monitor resolutions for example. 4K already has limited interest, and anything past that will be worthless except for giant screens, simply because your eyes can't tell the difference anymore.

But obviously, the system needs to keep you consuming. They constantly come up with bullshit progress and excuses for you to buy their latest shit.

This is true even out of the computer world. Just look at the recent surge of "smart objects".

Smartphones. Okay, those are nice to have. Smart watches. Not my thing, but eh, it can be useful.

Smart forks and spoons? Smart plates? Smart scale? Smart cooking robot? Really? Wht's the point? Most of those smart objects are bullshit. And they raise serious security issues, but the commercial idiots don't think about that, all they think about is the money they will get from all the consumer tools buying that junk (and buying it again in one year because it's "obsolete").

At home we're suffering from that syndrome, there are so many cooking robots in the kitchen (smart or not) that you don't even know which one to use to cook your food.



When you think about it, Wall-E could very well be what we'll end up in if we continue the way we're going. (haven't seen it? go watch it, it's an awesome movie)



Also, a very important thing about ecology: there is no miracle solution. Any damn thing you do will have an impact on Earth and its ecosystem. Anything that claims to be a miracle solution against pollution or whatever, is commercial bullshit.

And sadly, a good part of the ecology effort is commercial bullshit. Because people are more and more aware about global warming and that shit, and being into ecology is cool and can make you money. This shit works because there will be many people who will want to be into ecology but don't know shit about it.

And yes, some of these unaware idiots can be the most extremist ones like "ban electricity". Ecology doesn't mean you have to give up all comfort and convenience and live like a prehistoric man. You need to find the right balance between comfort, convenience and respecting your planet.



Be aware. Fight for ecology, but don't be a sheep.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Degolegodyl
Posted on 03-27-16 09:59 PM Link | #69171
In my opinion nuclear power and solar power need to take over. Nuclear needs to power cities until we can get solar power in place to become cheaper and invest enough to make it viable. Solar can then power cars, houses, and much more. It would be so nice to see carbon emitting and non-renewable sources of power get phased out. I don't see anyone banning/boycotting electronics in the future, so why not change our devices to become less power hungry, and change our sources of energy. Vote for politicians that are aware of climate change, and have a solution to fixing it. Let countries invest in water purification facilities and desalinification plants, we have so much salt water, why not use it?

Fix our methods, don't stop progress!

MarioFanatic64
Posted on 03-28-16 06:18 AM Link | #69183
My thinking's always been that the effort to create a sustainable society is redundant if consumers are ever-increasingly exploited and brainwashed to be more wasteful.

Even so-called environmentally-friendly companies are of no aid in reducing our impact on the world if they're still producing biblical amounts of pollution. Just because they might be producing less pollution than a rival company it doesn't mean they aren't polluting and using more resources than any human ever could on their own.

Spacey
Posted on 03-28-16 08:54 AM (rev. 2 of 03-28-16 08:55 AM) Link | #69186
I think that we really need to switch to cleaner power such as nuclear and solar. As Staplebutter said all ways of getting power have their risks, so there may never be a 100% clean solution to this problem. Something I think is kinda unfortunate is how a lot of companies still use plastic bottles instead of switching to glass which is much nicer in many ways. I understand why, its more expensive, though its also easier to re-use than plastic. A neat idea ive heard thrown around by some people I know is selling glass bottles with special identification on them, where a machine (such as a soda fountain) could scan that identification and you could pay a discounted price and get the bottle refilled.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

JakoNintenCraft
Posted on 03-29-16 09:30 AM Link | #69211
Posted by Spacey
A neat idea ive heard thrown around by some people I know is selling glass bottles with special identification on them, where a machine (such as a soda fountain) could scan that identification and you could pay a discounted price and get the bottle refilled.

Nice idea. It's why Coca-Cola should've stayed with glass.

Also, I think solar and wind are probably most viable in energy. I mean, what place doesn't have wind? (DON'T ANSWER THAT.) And for those places that have little or no wind solar would be viable for those situations.

So until we get nuclear fusion to be a thing here on Earth, this is my 2¢.

____________________
Irony is the spice of life.

You're inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside the Matrix, inside a taco, inside a taco, within a Taco Bell, that's inside a KFC, within a mall, that's INSIDE YOUR BRAIN!; inside another giant simulation!


Degolegodyl
Posted on 03-29-16 08:51 PM Link | #69224
Nuclear fission is totally sustainable, why do you not take that into consideration? And with aluminium i think it's recyclable, while glass is reusable. Glass can break really easily, aluminium can be compacted and used for other things.

Spacey
Posted on 03-29-16 09:35 PM (rev. 2 of 03-29-16 09:35 PM) Link | #69227
Glass and aluminum are both better than plastic though and are, in the long run, better for the environment than plastic. Plastic is technically recyclable, but i've heard its a bit more difficult to do than aluminum.

____________________
Hacking LM and trying to not suck. Weeeeeeee.

PixelDimension
Posted on 03-29-16 09:48 PM Link | #69229
Personally, I think the best way to improve things like this right now is continuing to improve the range, affordability, practicality, and availability of electric cars. Just think about the reduction in use of natural resources and pollution if all of the gasoline and diesel cars in the world were replaced with electric ones.

Of course, I doubt that'll happen anytime soon, anywhere, especially not in the very old-fashioned and conservative area where I live, because of all the logistical challenges. But hopefully, sometime in the future we will be able to become less dependent on these finite, pollutant fossil fuels.

.....I have no idea how this ended up worded so formally as if it were part of a debate argument but whatever lol

StapleButter
Posted on 03-30-16 07:57 AM (rev. 2 of 03-30-16 07:57 AM) Link | #69241
you know, I had that idea for the "consume responsibly" bit


we could look for companies who produce quality goods and respect their environment, and aren't in the "produce trash so they buy more often" bullshit

build a list and put it up on a website, said website would also explain the whole commercial bullshit and why people should avoid feeding it (akin to the first post in this thread)


a good idea would be finding people who are sick of constantly having to replace their goods, those would be easy to 'convert'-- explain them about the whole system and how they can try to get around it (learm some skills, try to repair your shit, etc)

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Baby Luigi
Posted on 03-30-16 05:49 PM Link | #69258
I also think that this commercial bullshit also runs in the way of the organic food and anti-GMO industry as well. Like, the organic food industry wants you to believe that all the conventionally produced food is bad and organic is somehow more "natural" and therefore "better" for you. The problem is that organic foods, by limiting completely safe GMOs and other practices that science endorses, takes up more resources to farm than non-conventionally grown foods, and they stick a higher price tag on their products because it's "more natural" that way and it feels like you're paying for a premium, even though some conventionally grown products aren't that much different from organically gown. GMOs benefit us by giving us a bigger crop yield with less land need that is required to grow all natural products. The fact is, we had been experiencing with GMOs way before our advances in science and chemistry, and nearly all foods you eat has been genetically modified one way or another (the seedless Cavendish bananas, for example, are technically GMOs), so it's silly how some people advocate for GMO labeling when GMOs are painted in a negative light as if they're a bad thing.

And then there's global warming. There's so much idiots that deny the science or try to downplay it as not being a big deal is sickening. Nearly all of them are completely uneducated in climatology and meteorology, so they shouldn't have a say in it, yet the uneducated public are swayed by their logical fallacies such as like, people are starving so it's a worse issue than climate change or we need to focus on job creation rather than preventing a global catastrophe that science conspired up to get their paychecks or whatever. Those types of people are dangerous to humanity as a whole, as well as any corporation who endorses their bullshit by paying "scientists" to say shit. Because you know what, people will stop buying their oil when they realize that they're greatly contributing to globabl warming. I think saying that corporations are selfish pricks is an understatement.

JakoNintenCraft
Posted on 03-30-16 10:04 PM Link | #69270
Posted by Degolegodyl
Nuclear fission is totally sustainable, why do you not take that into consideration?

Fusion is more efficient than fission and uses a more widely-available resource: hydrogen. With fission being more readily available but nonrenewable (yes geeks, I know uranium on Earth replenishes itself but that takes millions of years to do) and it making toxic and radioactive waste products,

____________________
Irony is the spice of life.

You're inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside the Matrix, inside a taco, inside a taco, within a Taco Bell, that's inside a KFC, within a mall, that's INSIDE YOUR BRAIN!; inside another giant simulation!


StapleButter
Posted on 04-01-16 03:42 PM Link | #69327
people think fusion would be completely clean, but


it produces helium


what proof is there that helium pollution would have no bad effect? we never tried

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Baby Luigi
Posted on 04-01-16 03:46 PM Link | #69329
Helium is like the second most abundant element in the universe iirc, so I don't think we can make enough to cause a giant impact.

StapleButter
Posted on 04-01-16 03:48 PM (rev. 2 of 04-01-16 03:49 PM) Link | #69331
our atmosphere is mostly made of nitrogen and oxygen, not helium (there's some of it but it's definitely not major)


see, we manage to alter the CO2 rate of it by having too many cars, imagine what'd happen if each car released helium instead of CO2

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

communism

Baby Luigi
Posted on 04-01-16 03:49 PM Link | #69333
How much Helium does nuclear fusion produce anyway?

PaperplateismGuy
Posted on 04-01-16 04:13 PM (rev. 2 of 04-01-16 04:13 PM) Link | #69339
Posted by StapleButter
our atmosphere is mostly made of nitrogen and oxygen, not helium (there's some of it but it's definitely not major)


see, we manage to alter the CO2 rate of it by having too many cars, imagine what'd happen if each car released helium instead of CO2


Well, the helium would just escape out into space, like hydrogen. One of the main problems that we have had with helium, is that once you release it into the atmosphere, you can't get it back. Since helium is a noble gas (and element), you can't chemically react two things together to make it, nor will it react with anything.

So uh, not much would happen if cars did spew Helium.


____________________
Remember, every user has to start out somewhere,- Every time I look back at my old posts, I cringe.



Degolegodyl
Posted on 04-01-16 07:41 PM Link | #69360
Posted by JakoNintenCraft
Fusion is more efficient than fission

I mean, the only fusion we have right now either ends in huge explosions (hydrogen bomb) or is super inefficient, uses up much more energy than what it gives out (german fusion reactor that was recently in the news).
So I wouldn't start saying fusion is super good yet. Even the sun needs a bunch of gravitational energy to compact the hydrogen atoms to make the fusion reaction happen.

Baby Luigi
Posted on 04-02-16 02:35 PM Link | #69382
Fusion is certainly a viable choice but until we can find a way we can efficiently harvest its energy, more research is needed in that area before we can make fusion energy a common thing and stuff

Fission is still the way to go with energy. France is like the most nuclear nation and they're doing pretty well.

JakoNintenCraft
Posted on 04-04-16 12:00 PM Link | #69428
I still go with fusion.

STUFF: Maybe there could be something like a solar power plant on the Moon. Place panels on both hemispheres of the Moon and then power 24/7. And for eclipses there could be giant batteries or arrays of them buried in the moon to prevent heat and ice damage simce the moon experiences over 500°F temperature swings every lunar day (about 27.3 days Earth time)

____________________
Irony is the spice of life.

You're inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside a simulation, of a simulation, inside the Matrix, inside a taco, inside a taco, within a Taco Bell, that's inside a KFC, within a mall, that's INSIDE YOUR BRAIN!; inside another giant simulation!


Degolegodyl
Posted on 04-04-16 01:19 PM Link | #69431
Why would you put solar panels on the moon. How would you get the energy to earth.......
Pages: 1 2 3

Main - Serious discussion - The ongoing battle for ecology: what you should know New reply

Page rendered in 0.029 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 27, rows: 231/231, time: 0.015 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2018-07-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.