Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "The Guardian" channel.

  1. 11
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. TheDisproof But you just ignored what I said. There are two "carrying capacities", one using only renewables, the other using fossil as well. So there are two possible populations limits that will result in famine. In addition there is the inefficiency factor of food delivery, based on logistic and political and transport energy concerns.What is "poverty"? Is it not having powerful electricity at your beck and call each moment? Or is it not having transport to wherever your heart desires? Doesn't seem so. We can all stay home and work close to home by switching jobs with people who work in our town and commute from elsewhere. We can all go the fuck to sleep at night and turn off all the street lights and close the stores for 8 hours plus.It would barely require only a little personal planning. These are political measures. They would immediately result in a savings of nearly one third our energy consumption. We could superinsulate our homes and save another 25% of all energy. You COULD do it with pulverized dry trash and sheet plastic! If our homes look like garbage bags but we are fine and healthy and have low-consumption consumer equipment are we impoverished? We now have computers that burn 30 Watts and display the whole world. Our big 1960's color TVs used to burn 500 Watts and didn't. Technology CAN change the carrying capacity of the earth. It almost SOUNDS like you want a way to eliminate all these people just so your lifestyle doesn't have to change even a little bit!!  How lazy!!
    1
  9. 1
  10. TheDisproof Your cynicism is simply not supported by evidence. We have enough for even 11 billion people to be warm, and sheltered and fed, and have water. The only limitations are political. There is 10 acres of arable land for every person, growable land, not desert. We only need a half acre or less to support one human life. All you have to do is garden by hand a half hour a day. Water doesn't disappear, we simply use it faster than it is replenished as fresh water from the hydrologic cycle from the oceans. We don't need the massive quantities we are using, we only need enough to drink and grow our crops, sea water can be processed for all industrial processes. The amount used for agriculture the way we're doing it is 100 times more than the crops need. Proper soil development holds water like a sponge. The way we're doing it it all runs off or evaporates. Some don't have cellphones or computers, but those are a few, and that is easily remedied by technology. Fossil fuels are NOT necessary to grow food, it is simply the easy way to do it if people won't garden and want machines to quickly fuck over the soil and leave it barren. That it takes fossil fertilizer is a myth promoted by people who want to keep all their conveniences and not be bothered to garden a half hour a day. All you have to do is compost your greenwaste and nightsoil and you can grow your food without it. Soil loss is accelerating everywhere people refuse to garden and where they try to get off easy over-grazing with food animals. If they used chickens instead of goats that wouldn't happen. Chickens provide meat and eggs and do wonderful things with garden soil. People who wish can grow catfish and tilapia in small ponds, and use the waste on the garden. These things are all easy. Why are you so discouraged? Gardening is easy, the sun and the plants do all the work.
    1
  11. TheDisproof No they (105) don't, what posturing!! 105 science academies could never agree with any one internet YouTube clown!! How absurd!! A hectare is what, about 2.5 acres, so 12 billion hectare is about 30 billion acres, or three acres apiece for 11 billion people.  And the land used for agriculture doesn't include ALL arable land OR people's yards, where they could easily grow most of their vegetables and chickens. Yes, a 4 acre truck garden can feed 20 people easily. I'm a former pig and truck farmer, AND an EMT AND an auto engine rebuilder, AND a physicist-engineer!! I do have a long list of practical skills that let me know these things. I'm retired but I have had a full life. No, you obviously think food comes from the grocery store and take somebody's word for the rest of it. We do NOT NEED fossil fuels to grow food. We can replace ALL fertilizers with greenwaste and human and animal manure, and all it takes is a half hour a day to grow your food. The ONLY thing fossil fertilizers do is make it easy to grow a lot with a few people and machinery. But if everyone who wants to get fed works a half hour a day gardening, then you can grow three times as much easily. Any truck farmer can tell you that you don't need ammonium nitrate and potassium and phosphorus unless you take the greenwaste off the land and don't add manure. All fossil fertilizer is for is to enable most people not to garden!! The only reason we use fossil fuels and barely make do is because we don't garden!!  Many of the global impoverished don't have the know how to grow on a half acre, but if they took one minimal gardening course they would know how. Many of them don't even have any handtools!  You're EXTREMELY city-ignorant!!
    1
  12. TheDisproof Sure, if we use fossil we ARE unsustainable, but not if we don't!!  So: No. That's NOT why we're using it. We're using it because we don't want to have to all become part time gardeners. That's the only reason. The shit required to fertilize the crops we eat comes from the crops we eat, which we then shit out, and if we use that directly back on the crops then the crops will have enough. This is the nutrient cycle. We use fossil fuels to avoid having to take good care of the earth and do so personally. We do it so a very few people can grow our food very very inefficiently on a great deal of land, when it takes ten times less land if we grew our food personally in gardens. Many intensive gardeners can, with only about an hour or two a day, produce enough food for them and their families on a quarter to a half acre. Part of this is fruit and nut trees which need very little attention. The rest is moving around chicken tractors to fertilize garden plots and for eggs and meat and harvesting catfish raised in small ponds with plant waste. The vegetables, when properly mulched, literally grow themselves. Very little actual energy is needed when it is all set up properly. I'm a physicist and raised soybeans, corn and hogs and chickens in my youth. My garden never needed a fucking tractor. We had so much wood chips and mulch on it that it never needed any weeding and virtually no watering. We would collect that from the woods with tarps and a rake. We had easily enough to feed ourselves on only an hour a day labor. And with raised beds we barely had to bend over!  Only the corn and beans needed tractoring. And those were to feed another 200 folks who didn't want any dirt under their fingernails. We don't have to keep living that way!! I don't think you know shit about farming. You're an idiot. You talk like a city boy who thinks food comes in trucks.
    1
  13. TheDisproof No. Fossil fuels were just a convenience so that we each did not have to compost our waste and garden about a quarter acre for each one of us for about an hour a day. The atoms were sufficient, the space is sufficient, evidenced by the fact that we are alive. The sun is more than sufficient, the water is sufficient as well when retained in the soil by thick humus. All fossil Haber-Bosch did was make it so few could feed many without returning waste and compost to the soil. Previously we had felled forests and wasted the topsoil they provided till there was little left, and then came the dust bowls. The only way to continue to raise food on such land was to add NPK from other sources, usually fossil driven. And because we had removed and not returned the nutrients after we had passed them through our bodies we had to add lime as well, it was becoming calcium and phosphorus depleted because it was hauled away to market to be eaten elsewhere and wind up in rivers and streams down to the ocean. Same with iron and magnesium. As for population, watch Hans Rosling, US population specilaist and MD. As for gardening yields, watch Permaculture recovery of land, it is amazing. We don't have to live this way, we can live the RIGHT way. Then we won't NEED fossil fuels for food. If we need some machinery it can run on Canola and Corn oil biodiesel, we don't need that much of it and rarely. On most Permaculture farms the tractor sits idle and has to be started periodically just to keep the battery charged and the fuel bowl from drying out. But the very things we usually use tractors and trucks for are usually actually mistakes!!  Sure, spades and hoes need fuel to make, but there are the forests to burn judiciously, and we don't need that much if we are frugal. We over-use steel for most of its applications. And solar can be used to reform the monstrous pile of metal we currently have laying around. I run my welder on an inverter off batteries charged by solar panels! According to Rosling, 11 billion can be fed, no big problem, the problem is all political, the rich abusing the resources and the land for quick wealth. Sure, we need clothing, but we don't need as much as we have. Nor does its manufacture take that much fuel compared to most uses. Even plastics can be re-used much more than today if we sort and process them. And its a relatively low-temperature process. And n, I find your "points" invalid and uninformed.
    1
  14. TheDisproof Nonsense. it doesn't take fossil fuels to heat homes in temperate climates, and certainly not in Cambodia or anywhere semi-equatorial or equatorial. Passive solar using southern exposure, superinsulation, and proper earth massing works fine, even at 50 latitude, and few live north of there. Nor do laptops require more than a solar panel to run. And they don't constitute much embodied energy either. You're talking to a physicist, I'm an expert at analyzing energy budgets, you can't fool me. This "modern standard of living" of which you speak seems to consist mostly of driving for everything, instead of having it delivered, which is ten or twenty TIMES more energy efficient, turning on powerful lights you don't need when LED lighting is fine, and expecting to be able to burn Watts when Watts aren't available from wind or sun, which is like expecting the sun to be out whenever you happen to wake up, it's stupid. You do your laundry when you have the power, ot whenever you choose, you still have clean clothes if you're not an ignoramus. You cook your food when the sun cooks your food, and you do something called "planning", what a concept. The rest is solar and batteries quite sufficient to run your lights and laptop, and if you think you need a big screen TV you're a dipshit anyway. Your heat comes from the sun, as does your hot water, and when you close your big shutters on your south-facing windows at night, the masonry down the middle of your sun-exposed south room radiates the heat it gained during the day. If there are some dark days you use a little wood in a very efficient stove whose flue is piped through masonry to retain the heat in the base of the house. You stop whining and see how good it all works, and without all the cost you've been paying and without the damage to the planet you've been wreaking. You take public transport, or use an electric bicycle to do your shopping. You drive an electric car and its powered off 15 solar panels. You have well-maintained warm clothing and reduce your expectation of perfection and having your every want supplied for a change. Your 105 national science academies would be scandalized to see how you've lied about everything they hold true. I know, I'm a physicist.
    1
  15. TheDisproof Your "105 national science academies" don't seem to actually have said anything together than I can find.  I suspect you've pulled them out of your ass. Most things made of plastics either should not be, or could be made otherwise. But we have sch a huge backlog of plastic trash in landfills and the oceans which we could go get, and such an enormous amount of petrochemical tailings that can be used for plastics with only a little processing, that imagining something we use only 11% of fossil fuel for now is going to be a problem is ridiculous. The stuff is made of the most abundant elements in nature. And it can be synthesized from plant material. That's how nature made fossil fuel. And we have such an enormous pile of smashed cars that some cities are trucking them away or selling them abroad! Steel is also totally recyclable. Supporting 2 or 7 or 11 billion is all eminently do-able using the proper gardening methods. The problems are only political. If those who rape the land and take it away from indigenous and the poor can be killed and their bodies fertilize the ground I'm sure we can grow enough. "Encouraging the rich to have smaller families?" They already have the lowest fertility, did you mean the poor? The poor everywhere in the world except Africa are heading toward ZPG, but the overshoot it still going to hit 11 billion before it gets any better. It's a myth that the poor are still having huge families in the third world, haven't you seen Hans Rosling's statistics class on population? If you are suffering from outdated notions you had better look!
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1