Dangers of Global Warming

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.

Our duty at the present time is:

- to see to it that this future comes as soon as possible, rather than being
long delayed, therefore leading to unnecessary generations of human suffering;
and

- to ensure that this future is enjoyed by the descendants of all people, not
just descendants of people in a subset of today's existing ethnic and
linguistic groups who were lucky enough to survive.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:24:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:30:41 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

If you had paid attention to some of the news stories about the disaster, you
would have learned that New Orleans had been the only major city in the United
States where black people could go about their lives with dignity - without
fear of being harassed by the police simply for being black.

NOLA's population still has not rebounded to 2005 levels. Those who haven't
returned (100,000 or more?) must like where they are living now.

That is a _non sequitur_. Before ordinary people can return to a particular
city, such as New Orleans, their *employers* must return to that city. A lot of
jobs and businesses, not just a lot of individuals, have not returned to New
Orleans since the hurricane and its attendant flooding, so there is a
chicken-and-egg question present.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:03:51 AM UTC-6, 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. 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.

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.

John Savard

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 8:40:21 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:24:15 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:30:41 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

If you had paid attention to some of the news stories about the disaster, you
would have learned that New Orleans had been the only major city in the United
States where black people could go about their lives with dignity - without
fear of being harassed by the police simply for being black.

NOLA's population still has not rebounded to 2005 levels. Those who haven't
returned (100,000 or more?) must like where they are living now.

That is a _non sequitur_. Before ordinary people can return to a particular
city, such as New Orleans, their *employers* must return to that city. A lot of
jobs and businesses, not just a lot of individuals, have not returned to New
Orleans since the hurricane and its attendant flooding, so there is a
chicken-and-egg question present.

Incorrect.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 6:43:51 AM UTC-6, wrote:

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

Yes, that is true. And most of _them_ have to worry about police mistaking them
for people involved in drug trafficking. The rest either do live in New
Orleans, or actually are involved in drug trafficking.

Surely you've heard of "Black Lives Matter"?

John Savard

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.

http://www.popsci.com/environment/ar...-would-we-need

We are much more likely to end up like the Easter Islanders in penury
having exhausted all the planets resources and having to wait for some
passing interstellar equivalent of Captain Cook. I suspect the income
difference between the haves and have nots will continue to grow inexorably.

Our duty at the present time is:

- to see to it that this future comes as soon as possible, rather than being
long delayed, therefore leading to unnecessary generations of human suffering;
and

- to ensure that this future is enjoyed by the descendants of all people, not
just descendants of people in a subset of today's existing ethnic and
linguistic groups who were lucky enough to survive.

John Savard

You may not have noticed but the US is one of the most unequal societies
on the planet. That isn't going to change since the rich and powerful
get to determine the laws and they exploit the poor and weak.

It was ever thus. Only the Quakers and a handful of other benevolent
Victorian businessmen actually cared about their employees.

Companies today will do whatever makes the quickest short term profit
exemplified by hedge funds and high frequency trading..

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 05:36:57 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Our duty at the present time is:

- to see to it that this future comes as soon as possible, rather
than being
long delayed, therefore leading to unnecessary generations of human
suffering;
and

- to ensure that this future is enjoyed by the descendants of all
people, not
just descendants of people in a subset of today's existing ethnic
and
linguistic groups who were lucky enough to survive.

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.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:49:32 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 15/10/2015 06:05, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 23:44:23 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
On 14.10.15 22:47, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:17:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
I do my daily commute to work and back in my Chevy Volt using
only electricity.
It consumes a mere 200 watts per mile at a cost of less
than
1
cent
per mile.

Units! It cannot do any number of watts/mile.

Yes it can! When the car is brand new it runs smoothly and
consumes a
number of watts. If you don't maintain the car it will
eventually
runt less smoothly and will therefore consumes more watts when
running. The number of watts per mile its power requirement
increases
will be a measure of how fast the car deteriorates. Ideally the
car's
power requirements would increase by zero watts per mile, in
reality
it will increase by some non-zero watts per mile.

Pedant. Wear induced deterioration of the kit. I suspect it
actually
gets better initially after the high spots wear off the bearings
and the
driver learns to work with the electric motor.

It is totally impossible to consume watts.
You are confusing power(watts) and energy(1000 watthours is 1
KWh)

No I'm not. Read against what I wrote and read it less sloppily
this
time. I'm not talking about consuming watts, I'm talking about
the rate
of change in power.

But if its performance was getting worse by 200W per mile it would
very
quickly require a full battery charge to move one car length.

True, that would be a very fast deterioration. A value of, say, 2
mW/mile would be more reasonable.



Nominal electric range 40 miles from new would already be down to
20
miles after the first mile and to 2 miles after the first ten. Even
I
don't have such low expectations of electric vehicles.


Multiply your watts with time and you have energy(consumption).

True. And divide your watts with time and you have the rate of
change of
power. If motion is involved, you can, if you want, divide your
watts
with distance instead and get the spatial gradient of power.
Watts per meter is not an impossible quantity, but it is of course
different from Joules per meter.


I presume he meant Whr from the context.
A common unit of energy although decidedly not SI.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 11:11:38 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:17:57 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

How are they making a profit on them at that price?

Well, there are subsidies that help.

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

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.

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car. And the technology of personal transportation overlaps
public transportation and commercial transportation, as well.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:16:33 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 05:32:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

It's sort of like not meaning Christmas when I say "a winter's day".

Weatherwise there's not much difference between Christmas and other
winter days.

That's true. However, when Dickens compared Pickwick to Christmas, that had a
different effect in the reader's mind than it would have if he compared this
character to "a winter's day".

Therefore, using Pickwick as an example to argue that "Shall I compare thee to
a winter's day" would work as well as the line Shakespeare actually used...
would not be serious. A human being is able to notice this sort of thing.

John Savard