Dangers of Global Warming

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:24:29 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/10/2015 13:36, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:38:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Most of the world's population doesn't own a bicycle, much less a car of any
sort and that is unlikely to change.

It is true that it's unlikely to change _in the immediate future_. However,
eventually, everyone on Earth will live in luxury undreamed of even by the top
1% of Americans - unless technological progress is halted by some disaster like
an asteroid strike or a global thermonuclear war.

Only when we can employ the capabilities of the inhabitants of the
legendary planet of Magrathea. Best ask the white mice to order up
another dozen or so. The total resources available on our planet Earth
are insufficient to support everyone living like the average American.

I said "eventually". 50,000 years from now, since multiple generations will
have passed, it is not necessary for the Earth's population to be the same as
it is at present - and resources from elsewhere in the Solar System may have
been accessed.

John Savard

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:25:32 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

You should add a third condition:

- to ensure that the Earth's resources aren't drained too much, not even
when everyone on Earth have their own private airplane, luxury yatch, or
private island...

However, it is impossible for everyone on Earth to have their own staff
of private servants etc, like the uppermost class have today.
Who should serve the servants? Robots are not the same thing, they are a
step backwards.

I should indeed have mentioned sustainability.

However, by the "1%", I don't mean the top 0.01% - just the people who
don't give a second thought to the price differential between an iPhone
and an Android smartphone, not the very rich.

John Savard

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:11:35 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future of
personal transportation.

Oh, nonsense. They represent a mere stopgap response to current pollution
problems.

The *future* of personal transportation is the flying car!

John Savard

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:29:31 +0000 (UTC), John Savard
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:11:35 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future of
personal transportation.

Oh, nonsense. They represent a mere stopgap response to current pollution
problems.

The *future* of personal transportation is the flying car!

I'm hoping for transporters.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:59:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car.

Most of the world's current population does not and most never will.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:03:11 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:43:51 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

There are ~40 million black people in the US and most of them do not live in
New Orleans.

Yes, that is true.

It is good that you agree.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:59:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car.

Most of the world's current population does not and most never will.

Irrelevant. And not necessarily accurate.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:42:33 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:59:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car.

Most of the world's current population does not and most never will.

Irrelevant.

You wrote earlier:

"The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future
of personal transportation."

My comments:

"Most of the world's current population does not and most never will."

and

"Most of the world's population doesn't own a bicycle, much less a car of any sort and that is unlikely to change. You are speaking from a very narrow and very self-centered perspective."

are quite true and quite relevant to the discussion.

The fact is that personal transportation will continue to involve walking for most, biking for fewer, and driving a car for fewer still.

As I said, you have a very narrow perspective, peterson.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 8:45:43 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:03:51 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

It was the Democrats who bailed out GM, not the conservatives.

And the Democrats did not do their job. Neither Detroit nor the "rust belt" is
fully functional today, employing the same proportional number of Americans as
during, say, 1965.

Since when is the Rust Belt to be guaranteed prosperity?

This has lead to Detroit becoming a disaster area, instead
of a place where large numbers of black Americans are making an orderly and
stable progression to the middle class - laying a solid foundation by being
able to own homes (with the same resale value prospects as for homes owned by
whites) and by sending their children to college.

There are quite a few blacks whose houses have great resale values, though maybe not in Detroit.

Legal equality for black people was largely achieved by the 1970s. But economic
equality has not been achieved as a consequence, not because black people are
genetically inferior, but because the economy of the 1970s and afterwards is no
longer performing as it did during the 1948-1968 era, providing opportunities
for more people to move upwards.

You might ask yourself WHY the economy has not performed as expected. It does tend to do much better under conservative Congress/Presidency. During the period '48- '68 the US was in the best position to prosper and did so. Then the ill-advised policies of a liberal government began to take their toll.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:42:33 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:59:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car.

Most of the world's current population does not and most never will.

Irrelevant.

You wrote earlier:

"The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future
of personal transportation."

My comments:

"Most of the world's current population does not and most never will."

and

"Most of the world's population doesn't own a bicycle, much less a car of any sort and that is unlikely to change. You are speaking from a very narrow and very self-centered perspective."

are quite true and quite relevant to the discussion.

The fact is that personal transportation will continue to involve walking for most, biking for fewer, and driving a car for fewer still.

As I said, you have a very narrow perspective, peterson.

You are profoundly stupid. As noted, your comment is irrelevant to my
observation. Of course, the majority of your comments are.

Electric vehicles represent the future of personal transportation. And
personal transportation is common to most humans (even those who don't
happen to own their own vehicle).

I wonder how much of your present mental disorder is attributable to
your learning disabilities, never properly addressed?