It doesn’t follow.
Right, and since you think the entire universe affects you and your own, you have concern for the entire universe. The question is, which parts of the universe do you have more concern about?
[quoteuser=“excel”]
AKA, it’s stupid to take Jackson LaRose at his word.
[/quote]
Bullshit. It’s not my fault you misunderstood this passage,
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
As I said before, I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer,
The universe.
[/quote]
You may be able to take it out of context and make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but since it had already been established in previous posts between Autolykos and I,
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
I oppose being poisoned, and having my home ruined.
[/quote]
so I’m against “being poisoned” which had been defined as,
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
“Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure.”
[/quote]
and having my home ruined, which I had defined as,
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
Generally […] having the carrying capacity of my landbase reduced.
[/quote]
This concern has no limits, since I am unable to understand an atomistic interepretation of existence. Therefore,
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
how big of an area re you talking about?
[/quote]
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
I am unable to function atomistically, and therefore am forced to take a holistic approach to this answer,
The universe.
[/quote]
So, I oppose anything in the universe that,
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
[Causes] “Exposure to chemicals that will kill me or injure me due to said exposure.”
[/quote]
or
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
[causes] …the carrying capacity of my landbase [to be] reduced.
[/quote]
i.e., anything that poisons me, or ruins my home. If you drop a chemical bomb on some distant planet, does it do either of those? If we can be assured it wouldn’t, then I wouldn’t care.
So, you are just stupid, QED.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Right, and since you think the entire universe affects you and your own, you have concern for the entire universe.
[/quote]
Yes, thank you!
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
The question is, which parts of the universe do you have more concern about?
[/quote]
Hmm… Are you asking what areas of spacetime do I consider most salient for the well-being of my self and my own?
Which areas of spacetime and which things in spacetime, yes.
As I can’t imagine an atomic existence, I dispose of things by THE UNIVERSE!
Clean is simply the holistic manifestation of THE UNIVERSE!
You smell like wednesday.
Bullshit. It’s not my fault you lack the capacity to make a clear point, but must instead backpedal into jackassery to cover your tracks.
[quoteuser=“excel”]
As I can’t imagine an atomic existence, I dispose of things by THE UNIVERSE!
Clean is simply the holistic manifestation of THE UNIVERSE!
You smell like wednesday.
[/quote]
Ah, the vehement VENGANCE TROLL! GRR, I WAS CALLED OUT ON A MISTAKE, NOW I MUST MAKE ALL THOSE WHO EXPOSE MY IGNORANCE PAY… PAY..!
You are silly.
I though the whole “meh, technology will figure it out” argument hinged on the conservation of matter.
How are you reconciling the conservation of matter with “disposal”?
Let me guess… “THE UNIVERSE!”, LOL…
[quoteuser=“excel”]
It’s not my fault you lack the capacity to make a clear point, but must instead backpedal into jackassery to cover your tracks.
[/quote]
Concession accepted, LOL. You suck.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Which areas of spacetime and which things in spacetime, yes.
[/quote]
Good question…
It’s a tough one to answer outright, because my goals vs. my situation are so different.
I’d like to be locally self-sufficient, but as it stands, I am almost wholly reliant on long, convoluted supply routes for my sustenance.
Well, I need clean water to drink.
I need safe food to eat.
I need a place to live.
So, in order to become locally self-sufficient, I would need:
A source of potable, clean water nearby.
Clean soil.
A dwelling that will prevent me from dying of exposure. Capacity to have a fire would also be a big plus.
What are you getting at with this question?
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
Ah, the vehement VENGANCE TROLL! GRR, I WAS CALLED OUT ON A MISTAKE, NOW I MUST MAKE ALL THOSE WHO EXPOSE MY IGNORANCE PAY… PAY..!
[/quote]
Captain Projection to the face-save!
[quoteuser=“Jackson LaRose”]
I though the whole “meh, technology will figure it out” argument hinged on the conservation of matter. How are you reconciling the conservation of matter with “disposal”?
[/quote]
Surely someone with a holistic view of the universe, would know that in the complete interconnectedness of all things what is one man’s garbage can be some other organism’s treasure?
I thought that the “sustainability” argument hinged on reusability (for example, recycling) and the use of resources in such a way that waste-products do not damage you or the carrying capacity of your land? Since you’ve conceded that dropping chemical bombs on far away planets and suns do not concern you, the subject of disposal should not be beyond your struggling imagination?
Oh, the barbed taunts of such a rapier wit… be still, my trembling heart!
[quoteuser=“excel”]
Surely someone with a holistic view of the universe, would know that in the complete interconnectedness of all things what is one man’s garbage can be some other organism’s treasure?
[/quote]
In the grand scheme of things, yes. Doesn’t much adress the point at hand now, does it?
[quoteuser=“excel”]
I thought that the “sustainability” argument hinged on reusability (for example, recycling) and the use of resources in such a way that waste-products do not damage you or the carrying capacity of your land?
[/quote]
It’s not just waste. It’s the whole idea of any sort of activity that reduces the carrying capacity of the land. I think you are taking a much too myopic, literalistic view of it as some sort of “extreme recycling”. Alos, you’ve dropped the whole Jevon’s Paradox in that definition, which is crucial to the idea of sustainability vis a vis industrial production.
[quoteuser=“excel”]
Since you’ve conceded that dropping chemical bombs on far away planets and suns do not concern you,
[/quote]
LOL, if we know it doesn’t affect me. I’m no astrophycisist, though.
[quoteuser=“excel”]
the subject of disposal should not be beyond your struggling imagination?
[/quote]
I don’t understand. Are you suggesting we just shoot trash into space?
[quoteuser=“excel”]
Oh, the barbed taunts of such a rapier wit… be still, my trembling heart!
[/quote]
LOL, don’t be butt-hurt because you suck.
Honestly, I wanted to see what kind of answer you’d give me. This answer seems straightforward enough to me. Also, I think I can understand your environmental concerns better now that you’ve explained how you want to ultimately live off the land.
Another post on exponential growth:
This time, let’s assume zero population growth - the world’s population stays right where it is today, around 7 billion people. Let’s also assume a constant growth rate in global energy consumption of 1.9% per year. (This is based on a population-weighted average of the projected growth rates from here for OECD and non-OECD countries, using the OECD population figure from here.) How long, then, would it take for the world’s population, holding at 7 bllion, to use all of the sun’s energy? Given that the sun outputs about 3.8610^26 joules per second, and global energy consumption is about 1.6510^13 joules per second (calculated from here), it would take over 1600 years for the latter figure to equal the former. At that point, per-capita energy use would be over 5.5*10^16 joules per second - in other words, every person on Earth would have over 3000 times more power at his disposal than all of human civilization collectively has today.
Hey, man, if it saves your self esteem, trash me as much as you want.
Go on…
Venus has clouds made of sulphuric acid. I’m sure noone shall ever sleep soundly in their beds.
LOL, no.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Also, I think I can understand your environmental concerns better now that you’ve explained how you want to ultimately live off the land.
[/quote]
That’s just it. If you don’t utilize your landbase to support yourself, I would argue that you aren’t a “native” in a sense, perhaps the most important sense.
This is an important point, because it almost runs parallel to the “tragedy of the commons”. Call it the “tragedy of occupation”.
Since we all are about as reliant on imported goods as any Jamestown colonist, we don’t have any connection to our land other than potential “resources” (read:dollar signs).
Our values get all switched up, and since we don’t rely on our homes for sustenance, it makes perfect sense to destroy them. The ultimate goal of ownership becomes maximum resource extraction per unit of time. Very little consideration is given to the carrying capacity of the land, because it doesn’t much affect our lives, or our bottom line.
The problem arises for me vis a vis freedom, because reliance on imports is a renunciation of autonomy, in a sense.
If I am reliant on imports, then I am also reliant on the importers, the manufacturers, the regulating governments, my employer, etc. for my very livelihood, which is a position that makes me rather uncomfortable.
On the other hand, if we are expecting our landbases to be our lifeblood, it becomes much more sensible to place sustainablility of activities above the potential profit margin of an activity.
Self-determination is freedom. Autarky is freedom.
Unless we all live off the land, we are only colonists/occupiers, not natives. We may be able to live in one place, but we are able to do so because of resources from far and away.
Exploitation, exportation, exhaustion, and expansion. That is how we survive today, and I am hard pressed to imagine how it can go on indefinitely, especially considering Jevon’s Paradox.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
let’s assume zero population growth
[/quote]
Suspending disbelief that the world’s population growth will be zero.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Let’s also assume a constant growth rate in global energy consumption of 1.9% per year.
[/quote]
Suspending disbelief that world energy consumption will rise linerarly.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
How long, then, would it take for the world’s population, holding at 7 bllion, to use all of the sun’s energy? Given that the sun outputs about 3.8610^26 joules per second, and global energy consumption is about 1.6510^13 joules per second
[/quote]
Suspending disbelief that we will devise a way of collecting ALL of the Sun’s energy with 100% efficiency.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
it would take over 1600 years for the latter figure to equal the former. At that point, per-capita energy use would be over 5.5*10^16 joules per second - in other words, *every person on Earth would have over 3000 times more power at his disposal than all of human civilization collectively has today.
[/quote]
*
Suspending disbelief that this calculation is anything besides an intellectual exercise…