Starmers senior strategic advisor says he is shite
Sky News @SkyNews · 45s Simon Fletcher, who recently left his role as a senior strategic adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, has written an article saying he regrets helping him win the Labour leadership.
Voters won't listen to Fletcher till Benedict Cumberbatch plays him on telly. #ClassicDom.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
When we cruised from Vancouver to China a few years ago we encountered literally thousands of sea otters in Northern Alaska floating on their backs in groups of three and four, with their young on their tummies, and it was quite the cutest thing we have ever seen
Indeed. This tendency caused them to be hunted almost to extinction for their fur.
They were altogether, and floated past us as we gentle nudged through them, and it was a wonderful sight of pure nature in its elements
Interesting animals - they are tool users (smash invertebratyes with a pebble on a stone block anvil on their tummies) and a major keystone species - they maintain the kelp forest ecosystem by eating the sea urchins which weould otherwise denude the kelp (long seaweed).
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Merge in turn, doesn’t mean overtake a dozen cars to push in at the last minute - it means get in lane in a sensible manner, well before the lane disappears.
I normally always agree with you but not on this.
"Well before the lane disappears" is the herd creating a tailback half a mile long. Which if done in residential areas can mean people stuck in the lane unable to reach a side street to get out of the traffic because the length of the queue has been doubled.
The last minute is the merge point, its where merging is supposed to happen.
Residential areas it’s fine to do that. Dual carriageways and motorways, where the merge arrows start 400m before the lane runs out, are different.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I went to Dunrobin Castle a few years ago and they have a falconry display there. The guy doing it said that he's often asked "why don't the birds just fly away?" He said that they know full well how good they've got it with him. I think he said an eagle owl - which he had out that day - can expect to survive 2 to 3 years in the wild. The one he had was getting on for 20 years old.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
And when the REEs run out?
Recycling. You can recycle almost anything if you ave the energy. I suspect todays rubbish dumps will become tomorrows mines.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
When we cruised from Vancouver to China a few years ago we encountered literally thousands of sea otters in Northern Alaska floating on their backs in groups of three and four, with their young on their tummies, and it was quite the cutest thing we have ever seen
Indeed. This tendency caused them to be hunted almost to extinction for their fur.
They were altogether, and floated past us as we gentle nudged through them, and it was a wonderful sight of pure nature in its elements
Which is why green issues aren't all about what is good for homo sapiens economically. There is a long passage in James Michener's "Alaska" about the sea otter fur trade. It was super warm, of course, but also completely waterproof, unlike other land based furs ISTR. And, of course they lay on their backs saying hunt me.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
And when the REEs run out?
REEs aren't destroyed when you make a battery.
So, the only question is - are there are enough REE for 10 billion humans?
And the answer is, there are enough for 500 billion humans.
Probably pointless even suggesting it, but anyone interested in a nuanced, largely fact-based discussion on trans issues should listen to this morning's Woman's Hour where a lawyer who specialises in trans issues (and is trans herself), Robin Moira White, was interviewed.
Thanks for flagging this, just listened to it. I think it's been said on here that Emma Barnett is a very good presenter/interviewer, and she was top notch in that segment. It's interesting that Robin Moira White compared trans rights to gay rights. As has been pointed out on here, it's not quite so neat and tidy.
99% of comparisons are never neat and tidy, and I think there is a valid comparison there despite it being inexact. My main takeaway was that White implicitly acknowledged that the situation was complicated and context is all. Her referring to cases she has taken on behalf of individuals & companies who had been charged with being transphobic or breaking the law in this area seemed to me a clear recognition of how tricky it is.
I find companies discriminating against trans people utterly bizarre. Irrespective of one's view on the tricky side of this issue, why anyone running a business would care about their staff's identity is a complete mystery to me.
I'm not a woman, so perhaps I shouldn't give a view on this, but I find the whole when is a woman a woman debate a bit meh. As I said earlier, from the state's perspective, deciding when a man is a man is much more important.
Businesses are not transphobic in my experience. I have a relative who is trans, who worked for a while at a well-known company, with branches on many high streets. The company took pains to ensure that they didn't have to work at their "local" branch, to minimise the chance of meeting some-one who knew them before transition.
Everybody has to imagine they are being offended nowadays, we have bred a generation or two of whinging whining arseholes. Time to get back to the good old days.
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
In fairness Phillip, you are a free thinker but very guilty here of trotting out a cliched, hackneyed PB Tory favourite.
HIPS was a policy launched 15 years ago – a generation ago. Its relevance to Cooper's candidacy today is absolutely zero.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
One observation I have which might make me sound less than my usual centrist viewpoint, but how come so may people who claim to be environmentally aware seem to have quite large numbers of children? Surely people who complain about overpopulation should be setting an example and opting to have none - and doing so en masse, not just those who use their environmentalist views to cover up that fact that they don't really like children!?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
I wonder if there’s an animal version of Richard Dawkins, telling farm bred creatures who spend their entire lives being prepped for the slaughterhouse that they’re the lucky ones who got to be born in the first place!
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
In fairness Phillip, you are a free thinker but very guilty here of trotting out a cliched, hackneyed PB Tory favourite.
HIPS was a policy launched 15 years ago – a generation ago. Its relevance to Cooper's candidacy today is absolutely zero.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
Yes PT is right: "you should use all available road space in both lanes with drivers at the front of the queues taking it in turns to 'merge in turn' or 'zip merge' as the Americans call it. This can help reduce the overall length of the queue significantly and minimises the risk of disruption at junctions further back up the road".
But trouble is those who have queued in the wrong place are unlikely to have their anger placated by waving the relevant page of the Highway Code at them as you go by. Consequently, I also queue up in the wrong place.
If Starmer doesn't want a £15 p/h minimum wage, why on earth was he out with a protest for McDonald's to pay £15 p/h ?
Have you tried the sausage muffins? I don't mean the sausage egg muffins, just the pure sausage muffins. The people making those deserve more than the minimum wage.
Next question for Starmer - "Why should I, as a care assistant be worth less than a McDonald's worker"
That's a good argument but only if you haven't tried the sausage muffins.
They should be paid more because they are delicious, or paid more for danger money because they are that bad?
The former. But then also the latter, for any McDonalds product involving fish.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
AIUI Smart motorways cut down on accidents but raise deaths? Is that safer, it depends how you score it, but probably not, hence the adverse publicity.
There have been rumours of speed tickets for 1mph over the limit for many years, and it probably does happen somewhere but is extremely rare.
Not sure about the safety stats, but I can imagine that it could genuinely be safer. That is no consolation to anyone who has suffered a bereavement on a smart motorway, but I am wary as there have been several high profile stories in recent times.
I sort of instinctively think this must be caused by humankind fucking the planet up but am open to new information on it. The wee sods are really up for it though. Relatedly I love an otter but I'm always slightly puzzled why they are so beloved since they're quite high up the scale of mustelid savagery. I guess Ring of Bright Water must take some of the blame/credit.
Reminds me of an Old Firm Saturday - but in fairness also Slateford/Easter Rd on a derby day.
Otters are 'clean' I suppose. If only because nobody sees their shite (or if they do, blames it oin foxes or dogs usually). I once had to help look after some ferrets. Which are just sort of tame polecats. The smell ...
IIRC one take home message from the Maxwell books was how an otter could slice through your hand very quickly and easily (perhaps one of the later ones). Though in hindsight the shark fishing one was better, if only for the bizarreness of trying to set up a giant "rock salmon" fishery in the Small Isles.
Maxwell's was a good writer, much more so than he was a businessman! The film involved much sugaring of his 'complicated' life and was probably much more responsible for the Disneyfying of otters. His relationship (such as it was) with Katherine Raine and the latter years of his life have a whiff of the Gothic about them.
There was Tarka the Otter of course - set in the Two Rivers of northern Devon. I don't remember being it nearly so cosy - much grimmer with the otter hounds - but I last read it as a child so maybe ought to revisit it. The author Henry Williamson had his own, erm,. unusual aspects ...
...Williamson was one of my favourites when young(er) but he seems to ...have sunk back into obscurity, maybe due to his politics....
I don't if overtaking one vehicle. If I have been in the outer lane for a while, I do signal, as the lane change could be seen as unexpected.
That's the key bit
IIRC that wording at one time (it may have changed again) said that after you overtook you were expected to move back into the left lane so indicating was not required
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
One observation I have which might make me sound less than my usual centrist viewpoint, but how come so may people who claim to be environmentally aware seem to have quite large numbers of children? Surely people who complain about overpopulation should be setting an example and opting to have none - and doing so en masse, not just those who use their environmentalist views to cover up that fact that they don't really like children!?
Depends if your perspective is global or local, we're actually at below replacement levels in the UK.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Probably not as shit as being a battery hen however.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
Best estimates are that modern electric car batteries are good for 10-20 years, and even then quite useful for electrical storage.
Probably pointless even suggesting it, but anyone interested in a nuanced, largely fact-based discussion on trans issues should listen to this morning's Woman's Hour where a lawyer who specialises in trans issues (and is trans herself), Robin Moira White, was interviewed.
Thanks for flagging this, just listened to it. I think it's been said on here that Emma Barnett is a very good presenter/interviewer, and she was top notch in that segment. It's interesting that Robin Moira White compared trans rights to gay rights. As has been pointed out on here, it's not quite so neat and tidy.
99% of comparisons are never neat and tidy, and I think there is a valid comparison there despite it being inexact. My main takeaway was that White implicitly acknowledged that the situation was complicated and context is all. Her referring to cases she has taken on behalf of individuals & companies who had been charged with being transphobic or breaking the law in this area seemed to me a clear recognition of how tricky it is.
I find companies discriminating against trans people utterly bizarre. Irrespective of one's view on the tricky side of this issue, why anyone running a business would care about their staff's identity is a complete mystery to me.
I'm not a woman, so perhaps I shouldn't give a view on this, but I find the whole when is a woman a woman debate a bit meh. As I said earlier, from the state's perspective, deciding when a man is a man is much more important.
Businesses are not transphobic in my experience. I have a relative who is trans, who worked for a while at a well-known company, with branches on many high streets. The company took pains to ensure that they didn't have to work at their "local" branch, to minimise the chance of meeting some-one who knew them before transition.
Everybody has to imagine they are being offended nowadays, we have bred a generation or two of whinging whining arseholes. Time to get back to the good old days.
Ah, those good old days. When everyone was as obnoxious, prejudiced and as hypocritical as you.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Don't shatter the illusions of vegans. They think all animals chat to each other like in Disney.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Probably not as shit as being a battery hen however.
And you know what... that's what we do. We pass laws that improve the welfare of farm animals.
And humanity progresses, one little bit at a time.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
AIUI Smart motorways cut down on accidents but raise deaths? Is that safer, it depends how you score it, but probably not, hence the adverse publicity.
There have been rumours of speed tickets for 1mph over the limit for many years, and it probably does happen somewhere but is extremely rare.
Not sure about the safety stats, but I can imagine that it could genuinely be safer. That is no consolation to anyone who has suffered a bereavement on a smart motorway, but I am wary as there have been several high profile stories in recent times.
"Public concern has been focused on fatalities occurring on ALR and DHS motorways - those without a permanent hard shoulder. In three of the last four years, the share of fatalities occurring on these motorways was lower than the share of traffic carried, suggesting that a lower share of fatalities occur on DHS and ALR compared to the motorway network as whole. The only exception was 2017, when the share of fatalities was higher than the share of traffic carried..."
Tends to suggest my trainer was correct, and that it is the profile of the incidents that is giving the perception that Smart motorways are more dangerous.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
I don't think many animals read PB posts. Even if they did, I doubt they would be offended.
"Labour has to be hungry enough for power to curb some deep instincts and laser-focus on those policies that reach those who usually vote Conservative."
Polly Toynbee.
Every Lab activist needs to recite this every morning.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Probably not as shit as being a battery hen however.
Mm. Not sure there's actually a great deal in it. I'm constantly amazed, when watching nature documentaries, what terrible lives most animals lead. Constant hunger, cold, hardship, competition and getting eaten.
Some animals seem to have it ok. But very, very few.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Don't shatter the illusions of vegans. They think all animals chat to each other like in Disney.
There are no care homes in the wild for ageing animals. Most get culled by predators, and the ones that dont starve to death.
"Labour has to be hungry enough for power to curb some deep instincts and laser-focus on those policies that reach those who usually vote Conservative."
Polly Toynbee.
Every Lab activist needs to recite this every morning.
Good Lord, Ms Toynbee talking sense? Whatever next?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
Essentially we get overwhelmed with complexity, which somehow tips us towards a predilection towards disaster. It is a perpetual feature of modernity.
On a historical scale, there will definitely be setbacks, but humans will go on. Regarding climate change; everything we have done since the industrial revolution has been an experiment that we keep on adapting to, and that will continue to be the case, one way or the other.
However, the urgent problem is the incoherence and decline of the west; specifically the liberal democratic model of government and the ideas of autonomy, freedom, individual rights and privacy that come with it. These have to be defended these against a pincer movement of hostile totalitarian regimes, and surveillance technology that seeks to manipulate human behaviour.
"Labour has to be hungry enough for power to curb some deep instincts and laser-focus on those policies that reach those who usually vote Conservative."
Polly Toynbee.
Every Lab activist needs to recite this every morning.
Yep. Labour will need to be good enough to get a decent amount of previous Tory voters to vote Labour, vote LD or abstain. Having Angela Rayner anywhere near power doesn't help with that objective.
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
And when the REEs run out?
Recycling. You can recycle almost anything if you ave the energy. I suspect todays rubbish dumps will become tomorrows mines.
In the case of EVs, I doubt it, if only because battery recycling centres are already planned alongside the the new battery factories just starting to be constructed.
All the EVs built to date are only a small fraction of a single year's likely output in about five years time. Manufacturers are for once being smart, as they already see how tight the supply of certain key minerals is likely to be.
In any event, batteries don't use much in the way of REE. Copper, cobalt, nickel, aluminium... etc yes.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
Essentially we get overwhelmed with complexity, which somehow tips us towards a predilection towards disaster. It is a perpetual feature of modernity.
On a historical scale, there will definitely be setbacks, but humans will go on. Regarding climate change; everything we have done since the industrial revolution has been an experiment that we keep on adapting to, and that will continue to be the case, one way or the other.
However, the urgent problem is the incoherence and decline of the west; specifically the liberal democratic model of government and the ideas of autonomy, freedom, individual rights and privacy that come with it. These have to be defended these against a pincer movement of hostile totalitarian regimes, and surveillance technology that seeks to manipulate human behaviour.
If you read theorists of complex adaptive systems or even any system in which there are transition states, the natural thing is for all systems to evolve towards the brink of nonlinear change, i.e. catastrophe.
Smart motorways are debated in great detail on the Sabre Roads Forum - link below.
In summary, Smart motorway deaths are similar to motorways with hard shoulders - the point is hard shoulders encourage unnecessary stopping and being stopped on a hard shoulder is itself dangerous.
The other thing is that the absolute number of deaths we are talking about is tiny. It would be complete insanity to either spend billions adding hard shoulders back or reducing capacity by one lane just to save 0 to 10 deaths per year.
It would take so long and be so costly to add hard shoulders that the real danger is that this campaign will lead to the most important parts of the motorway network being reduced by one lane which would have an absolutely crippling impact on the economy.
So the result of the Daily Mail's campaign may well be exactly what Extinction Rebellion want.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Don't shatter the illusions of vegans. They think all animals chat to each other like in Disney.
Disney is probably to blame for children getting eaten when they do things like climbing into polar bear enclosures.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
Probably not as shit as being a battery hen however.
Mm. Not sure there's actually a great deal in it. I'm constantly amazed, when watching nature documentaries, what terrible lives most animals lead. Constant hunger, cold, hardship, competition and getting eaten.
Some animals seem to have it ok. But very, very few.
To be fair, this article from the AA does appear to back Philip up. I have never thought about it that hard before, always just assumed that those who pushed in were queue jumping. It would seem that they are in the right!
Yes PT is right: "you should use all available road space in both lanes with drivers at the front of the queues taking it in turns to 'merge in turn' or 'zip merge' as the Americans call it. This can help reduce the overall length of the queue significantly and minimises the risk of disruption at junctions further back up the road".
But trouble is those who have queued in the wrong place are unlikely to have their anger placated by waving the relevant page of the Highway Code at them as you go by. Consequently, I also queue up in the wrong place.
I think also it's a relatively recent change so many people who've been driving a long time may not even be aware of it. Added to that, old habits die hard, as the comments today show.
Starmer's having his IDS quiet man moment, isn't he? Can't see a return from this, except of course Labour never ruthlessly dump their leaders mid-term unlike the Tories and Lib Dems.
If he is the IDS, who would be the Howard figure to shore up the vote? A second coming of Ed Miliband?
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
18 - 30 years o_O. Never heard of a cat living into it's 20s tbh. Average life span of a cat is 14 years in the UK. The cats on the horse yard we use all have homes, would all just rather live out in the barn.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
The problem is not that they reported it, it's the way they reported it that caused the panic. A measured bulletin which said that five petrol stations were having issues getting supply out of the 9,000 in the UK with no risk of any shortages would have been sufficient. Instead it was instant doom-mongering about the lack of petrol.
‘ @cathynewman asks Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves: "The Labour leader's policy is to allow trans people to self-identify their gender. Does that mean if someone was born male, but self-identifies as a woman... that they could access a women's refuge?" ‘
Starmer's having his IDS quiet man moment, isn't he? Can't see a return from this, except of course Labour never ruthlessly dump their leaders mid-term unlike the Tories and Lib Dems.
If he is the IDS, who would be the Howard figure to shore up the vote? A second coming of Ed Miliband?
Bizarrely, straight after the terrible 2003 conference, Yougov released a poll showing the Conservatives 5% ahead (things swiftly reverted to normal). Sometimes, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Starmer's having his IDS quiet man moment, isn't he? Can't see a return from this, except of course Labour never ruthlessly dump their leaders mid-term unlike the Tories and Lib Dems.
If he is the IDS, who would be the Howard figure to shore up the vote? A second coming of Ed Miliband?
I think a lot depends on how Starmer's leader's speech goes down tomorrow. If it's delivered well and has some substance and some socialism in it, he'll be fine. If not.....
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
‘ @cathynewman asks Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves: "The Labour leader's policy is to allow trans people to self-identify their gender. Does that mean if someone was born male, but self-identifies as a woman... that they could access a women's refuge?" ‘
The other thing about the Smart motorway debate is there are a whole host of A roads which are really like motorways in practice (eg A14) which have no hard shoulder and no regular lay-bys with telephones either.
These roads are massively more dangerous than both Smart motorways and motorways with hard shoulders.
Yet nobody is saying anything about these roads. What does the Daily Mail want to do about them?
The bottom line is that to put a hard shoulder on every big road would literally take about 10 years and cost tens of billions or you reduce every big road by one lane and destroy the whole economy.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Just because you can shout fire doesn't mean you should do so in a crowded theatre.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
18 - 30 years o_O. Never heard of a cat living into it's 20s tbh. Average life span of a cat is 14 years in the UK. The cats on the horse yard we use all have homes, would all just rather live out in the barn.
I had cats that reached 20 and 21. Without vets, of course, they would never live this long.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
The problem is not that they reported it, it's the way they reported it that caused the panic. A measured bulletin which said that five petrol stations were having issues getting supply out of the 9,000 in the UK with no risk of any shortages would have been sufficient. Instead it was instant doom-mongering about the lack of petrol.
I blame Phil McCann myself, and his English cousin Jerry Cann
O/T Rachel Reeves is still a lightweight. Better than Nandy and the revolting and even more lightweight Angela Rayner. The best candidate for leader Labour has is Yvette Cooper. Sadly Labour are far too politically suicidal to use their best talent
Andy Burnham has been the most impressive Labour politician of the past year IMHO.
But he’s not even an MP.
He has gained a little gravitas, but still too much in the lightweightery department for me. Yvette Cooper is someone that could appeal to wavering Tories who don't like to be referred to as "scum". The rest just look, at best, like a bunch of lecturers from the local technical college. Actually that is unfair to hard working lecturers.
Is that the same Yvette Cooper whose great contribution to British politics was HIPs?
Cooper looks good with rose tinted glasses. She's just another failed politician from the past.
In fairness Phillip, you are a free thinker but very guilty here of trotting out a cliched, hackneyed PB Tory favourite.
HIPS was a policy launched 15 years ago – a generation ago. Its relevance to Cooper's candidacy today is absolutely zero.
What has she said or done of interest since then?
She was responsible for the worst-designed campaign leaflet of the century:
I wonder whether this fuel crisis will incentivise more people to consider electric cars?
The thing that puts me off is the price tag - double the price of an equivalent non-electric car I reckon. And what about re-sale values? Will people want to buy a four year old electric car without being sure of the condition of the batteries?
You’re not supposed to buy them, you’re supposed to lease them.
Yes, the second hard market is going to be shocking, maybe not at 4 years, but definitely at 7 or 8.
Have a video of someone who bought a $30k Tesla, eight years old, that needs a $20k battery. https://youtube.com/watch?v=EbrIQioiv8k (Yes, this guy makes money from a Youtube channel documenting cheap examples of expensive cars, but he really didn’t expect this one. The car’s a write-off.)
Interesting. So, given this, are electric cars necessarily a step forward environmentally?
There’s a lot of arguments on both sides of that one.
The batteries themselves will be recycled, they’re worth a lot of money for other uses such as home battery packs or giant grid-scale UPS-type implementations such as Tesla are doing, or otherwise they’re full of rare earth metals with resale value.
The metal in the car body will be mostly recycled, the plastics and electronics will be junk though.
There’s a fair argument that today’s new EV batteries will be better than the previous generation, but might still be time-sensitive, as opposed to mileage-sensitive like most engines.
New EV batteries need those rare earth metals, which are coming from some interesting places, with some interesting labour practices.
Many of the future problems are very political in nature:
Charging network isn’t yet fit for purpose.
£40bn ish in road tax and fuel duty that will disappear.
EVs shut out to low-income households
Traditionally-engined vehicles shut out of city centres, mostly belonging to low-paid key workers.
(For reference I just bought a 15-year-old family car for £4k, where’s the EV version of that? I don’t want to spend several hundred quid a month on my daily driver. For many others, that’s not a choice they are able to make).
The first thing to remember about Rare Earth Elements is that they're not rare. It's just that - for a long-time - it wasn't economic to mine them anywhere other than China.
With the rise of EVs, we are going to see REE mines pop up all over the world.
And when the REEs run out?
Recycling. You can recycle almost anything if you ave the energy. I suspect todays rubbish dumps will become tomorrows mines.
The important things to remember about Rare Earths are
1) They aren't rare. 2) They aren't earths. 3) Lithium isn't a rare earth.
Anyone who start in with the whole "proven reserves" nonsense should be sent to a Cobalt mine in Africa. With a teaspoon. A very fucking small teaspoon.....
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I went to Dunrobin Castle a few years ago and they have a falconry display there. The guy doing it said that he's often asked "why don't the birds just fly away?" He said that they know full well how good they've got it with him. I think he said an eagle owl - which he had out that day - can expect to survive 2 to 3 years in the wild. The one he had was getting on for 20 years old.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Freedom of speech usually stops at shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Dozens of headlines about panic buying, were always going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sometimes the media need to think before they write, about more than just clicks, likes and retweets. Same goes for most of the last 18 months.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Far less habitat for biodiversity. Folk are less happy.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Just because you can shout fire doesn't mean you should do so in a crowded theatre.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
He will be delighted to see you are falling back in line 😂😂. The ups and downs of daddy-love eh?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
18 - 30 years o_O. Never heard of a cat living into it's 20s tbh. Average life span of a cat is 14 years in the UK. The cats on the horse yard we use all have homes, would all just rather live out in the barn.
Our last three household cats: 19, 20, 18. None of them were entirely household cats, spending a lot of time hunting any manner of little critters outside.
Mind you, all our animals seem to have long lives. Our pony was nudging 40 before he died, and even our huge draft (larger horses as you probably know have shorter lives) was nudging 30.
• His Electoral College project defeated • His Energy Renationalisation lie exposed • His £15 wage hypocrisy exposed • A Shadow Cabinet Minister resigned • A founding Trade Union disaffiliated
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Just because you can shout fire doesn't mean you should do so in a crowded theatre.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
He will be delighted to see you are falling back in line 😂😂. The ups and downs of daddy-love eh?
Am I supposed to pretend I don't agree with him on those times that I do? 😂😂
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
Advanced aliens might even think we were more technologically advanced than we really are, based on science fiction, and conclude they'd better strike sooner rather than later.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I went to Dunrobin Castle a few years ago and they have a falconry display there. The guy doing it said that he's often asked "why don't the birds just fly away?" He said that they know full well how good they've got it with him. I think he said an eagle owl - which he had out that day - can expect to survive 2 to 3 years in the wild. The one he had was getting on for 20 years old.
I hope they gave you free entry being a (slightly extended) part of the family
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
We are radically different from dogs and cats. A given dog or cat optimises for itself, not for the species, and it optimises for what worked for its ancestors. We should be able to optimise for the species, and to see that what worked for our ancestors is likely to be lethal in the future.
And purlease, about reaching for the stars. We have boldly gone about 1.3 light seconds from earth, 21 light hours if you count unmanned. It's not just that the universe is unimaginably big, the solar system is unimaginably big. We might spew a few self replicating thingies out, but the stars ain't reachable and never will be.
Researching the US Colonial pipeline attack, as I’m doing for the day job, came across two comedy pieces from the time, that I’ll be using for training.
Both videos make a point of saying, within the first couple of minutes, that there would be no shortages of ‘gas’ (petrol) were it not for every idiot brimming their tank, their Jerry can and even milk bottles.
It’s exactly the same as what’s happening in the UK at the moment.
Herd immunity mentality.
Worth watching the whole thing for the sheer idiocy of it.
They were quite sensible and laid back about it. It’s just a domino effect isn’t it, not bogroll banditry.
Labour are quite right to keep quiet about this and not go on attack, they are less a government in waiting trying to score cheap political points over this. There’s no supply problem. No blockades. There’s a very small haulage issue the government trying to keep under wraps whilst they sorted it. Got to feel sorry for government over this one, direct anger at those trying to score points over it, like The Sun.
The CO2 and food on shelves issue is different, government should have been more active sooner on that.
The problem is learned behaviour, and people can get really entrenched in their views. Which they base on experience even if it is wrong. There IS a shortage and there ARE problems because here I am queuing because they are queuing.
People are funny when they get behind the wheel. Traffic flow rationale doesn't sink in. They dislike 50mph limits on motorways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving because it "slows them down" when the opposite is true. They hate "queue jumpers" even though the highway code (and so often signs) instructs people to merge in turn because extending the lane closure by not doing just increases the congestion they are stuck in.
Merging in turn, by definition, is not queue jumping. Overtaking 30 people then putting your indicator on is.
Merge in turn is the highway code. Merge in turn near the restriction not half a mile back. You see that big fuck off queue of traffic not moving that you're stuck in? Its because you merged half a mile early and are now accelerating and braking hard to ensure nobody can merge in turn. People create the queue they get stuck in.
They aren't merging in turn. They are queue jumping. Arggghhhh!
I'm stopping now.
Can we discuss AV?
There's no such thing as queue jumping. Where is queue jumping mentioned in the Highway Code?
The rule is to stay in your lane and merge in turn. Read the Highway Code and stop having a go at "queue jumpers".
Grant Shapps really needs to spend some money advertising recent-ish changes to good driving. Starting with merge-in-turn before going on to how to drive round mini-roundabouts, and not sitting in lorry drivers' blind spots. And today's Mail front page has Boris ordering an inquiry into smart motorways.
I had to attend a Driver Awareness Course today (27 mph in a 20 zone). Interestingly the instructor claimed that Smart Motorways are safer than ones with hard shoulders. Now I have no idea if this is true, no suggestion that he was lying either, and why would he. I wonder if the high profile of the deaths on smart motorways has skewed the debate about safety? He explicitly said that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous.
He also said that some police forces have started giving tickets for 1 mph over the speed limit - i.e. no tolerance (10% etc). Be warned,,,
The last thing is ridiculous. The amount you need to watch your speedometer to make sure it doesn't tick briefly over the limit is taking your eyes off the road substantially more, almost certainly increasing accidents.
When my wife first moved to the UK her car's dashboard had a fault that meant most of the time the speedometer, rpm, fuel and temperature gauges didn't work. Occasionally they'd spring into life before the needles subsided again.
She was amazingly good at using the pitch of the engine to judge the speed she was going at, so that when we were driving on the motorway the speedo would infallibly jump up to dead on 70 whenever it gave a reading.
After a few years the MoT rules were changed, and we had to get the dashboard fixed, which brought an end to that fun.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Far less habitat for biodiversity. Folk are less happy.
And in 2001 there was no PB. The world had to wait till March 2004 for that great event.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Just because you can shout fire doesn't mean you should do so in a crowded theatre.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
He will be delighted to see you are falling back in line 😂😂. The ups and downs of daddy-love eh?
Am I supposed to pretend I don't agree with him on those times that I do? 😂😂
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
18 - 30 years o_O. Never heard of a cat living into it's 20s tbh. Average life span of a cat is 14 years in the UK. The cats on the horse yard we use all have homes, would all just rather live out in the barn.
We've had two well into the 20's Both 24 at death.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
Advanced aliens might even think we were more technologically advanced than we really are, based on science fiction, and conclude they'd better strike sooner rather than later.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
You see that very readily if you have a farm. Household cats life expectancy = 18-30 years; barn cats, even if well sheltered and fed (and ours have heated beds for winter), 8-12 years.
18 - 30 years o_O. Never heard of a cat living into it's 20s tbh. Average life span of a cat is 14 years in the UK. The cats on the horse yard we use all have homes, would all just rather live out in the barn.
Our last three household cats: 19, 20, 18. None of them were entirely household cats, spending a lot of time hunting any manner of little critters outside.
Mind you, all our animals seem to have long lives. Our pony was nudging 40 before he died, and even our huge draft (larger horses as you probably know have shorter lives) was nudging 30.
I think hunting helps extend cat's lives, as their teeth are much better than the ones who don't bother. We had 4 (Now 3), 2 of them are very regular hunters - much better teeth than the two non hunters, but need worming much more often.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I went to Dunrobin Castle a few years ago and they have a falconry display there. The guy doing it said that he's often asked "why don't the birds just fly away?" He said that they know full well how good they've got it with him. I think he said an eagle owl - which he had out that day - can expect to survive 2 to 3 years in the wild. The one he had was getting on for 20 years old.
Australian horse people tend to be surprised at how meticulous you have to be in England about shutting gates etc. Australian horses know what awaits them in the outback.
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Far less habitat for biodiversity. Folk are less happy.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
The problem is not that they reported it, it's the way they reported it that caused the panic. A measured bulletin which said that five petrol stations were having issues getting supply out of the 9,000 in the UK with no risk of any shortages would have been sufficient. Instead it was instant doom-mongering about the lack of petrol.
All the reports I saw on TV were pretty balanced and reported the facts. What people chose to hear might have been different. There will be more of these. Government needs to learn and if necessary take action. Ration cards should take us right back to the good old days that so many people yearn for.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22% The government 23% The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
Should the media not report? Yes Boris, no Boris? Be more like China perhaps? That is ridiculous. Blaming the media is, paradoxically, news management by government. Johnson has been invisible, because he knows his back of a fag packet "leadership" makes so many manageable situations turn into crisis.
Just because you can shout fire doesn't mean you should do so in a crowded theatre.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
Neither you nor @tlg86 are panicking morons. Try not to be so harsh on yourself.
I wonder which other PBers have filled up over the past few days. I know @DavidL is holding out until tomorrow. Morons all?
There is much is common between Greta Thunberg and realists who say that the powerful are virtue signalling.
At what point do those who actually are interested in facts, like Greta, agree that if the science is correct the catastrophe is going to happen and we can't and won't stop it?
Though I'm a full-fat environmentalist, I dislike Thunburg's pronouncements - the powerful are virtue-signalling to be sure but her humanist refrain is always the same: concern for humans rather than the rest of the natural world is easy to glean from her words. Consider this from the linked article:
"Our leaders’ intentional lack of action is a betrayal toward all present and future generations [she means humans].
Research published on Monday showed that children [humans] born today would experience many times more extreme heatwaves and other climate disasters over their lifetimes than their grandparents, even if countries fulfil their current emissions pledges."
That is a perceptive point. And something that she should be questioned on.
From my perspective, the human impact of climate change is the least important consideration. These 'future generations' don't need to be born.
Hmm. Much like your generation "didn't need to be born".
Let those who cry overpopulation sacrifice themselves first. Lead by example.
If you don't think there are way too many humans on the planet then you are part of the problem. Truth is we are all part of the problem (except the very few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes). Humans will never solve the problems of its own creation. That's why deep ecologists have pretty much given up. The hope is for a smiting from God. A virus say ...
It is extraordinary the progress humanity has made in the last five, ten, fifty and one hundred years. More people are fed well than every before. More people have access to clean water to medicine. Childbirth, almost everywhere, has gone from life threatening to routine.
And at the same time, all over the world, birth rates have collapsed. There is no Malthusian population explosion, because it turns out that when children live to adulthood, then parents don't have six kids.
Power generation has gone from burning coal, to burning gas, and solar and wind. Transportation is moving from the internal combustion engine, to batteries.
The most polluted countries in the world are also making those changes: four times as many EVs were sold in China last year than in the US. And China is the world's largest solar and wind market.
There is no evidence of imminent societal collapse. The UK of today is massively greener place than it was forty years ago - it uses less oil and dramatically less coal. (And the same is true of almost all the developed world.) And the developing world will follow that same pattern.
What is it about humans that they seem to need to predict disaster? Humankind just faced - and slayed - a global pandemic in 18 months. It proved that you can discover and scale and distribute more than SIX BILLION doses. That's better than anyone could have predicted.
Sure, there are challenges - such as ageing populations - but these aren't existential threats. They're irritations for a species that is getting ever better at improving the lives of all its members and living within its means.
You should read Technological Slavery by Ted Kaczynski.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the tens of millions of people who used to die in childbirth each year.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
Tell "progress is a myth" to the millions that died of measles, and mumps, and dipitheria, and TB.
Oh wait. You can't. Because they're dead.
You know how many people leave technologically advanced civilizations to go and enjoy the creature comforts of a pre-industrial age. Yes, even the ones who write books. And who join XR.
None.
That's called revealed preference. Their actions demonstrate that they actually quite like modern life.
Yes, of course, but consider how human-focused your words are.
Have you ever read Gerald Durrell? Aside from his excellent (and amusing) autobiographical stuff, he also wrote about animals. And one of the things that really stuck in my mind was how humans romanticise the lives of wild animals.
Basically: it's shit being a wild animal. None die of illness or old age.
Let's not pretend that animals would gaily and happily wander round in a state of bliss, absent humans.
I'm not pretending that for a moment.
So, in what way is the world of 2021 worse than the world of 2001 or 1921?
Versus 1921 you can only be thinking of humans - you can't seriously be thinking of other species, including amphibians, insects, plants etc. Your view is entirely human-centric. I'm not getting at you, 99% of humans agree with you not me. I'm painfully aware of that. But all of the other life on earth (except some domesticated animals which are quasi-human anyway) would agree with me if they had a voice.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
No, they wouldn't say that.
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
Advanced aliens might even think we were more technologically advanced than we really are, based on science fiction, and conclude they'd better strike sooner rather than later.
Somebody else has read The Three Body Problem
That thing about putting the coordinates of an innocent third party out there and watching it get zapped, just to confirm the theory, was pretty shitty.
Comments
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/yabba-dabba-shotts-man-puts-7654559
There is a long passage in James Michener's "Alaska" about the sea otter fur trade. It was super warm, of course, but also completely waterproof, unlike other land based furs ISTR.
And, of course they lay on their backs saying hunt me.
So, the only question is - are there are enough REE for 10 billion humans?
And the answer is, there are enough for 500 billion humans.
Remain leader: 31% (-2)
Resign as leader: 36% (+1)
[Labour voters]
Remain leader: 37% (-1)
Resign as leader: 41% (+3)
Via
@YouGov
, 26 Sep (+/- since Aug)
IIRC that wording at one time (it may have changed again) said that after you overtook you were expected to move back into the left lane so indicating was not required
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/electric/how-long-do-electric-car-batteries-last/
And used prices of electrical cars are outperforming the conventionally fuelled:
https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/electric/best-used-electric-cars-and-evs/
The union is angry with the direction of the party under Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, accusing him of a “factional internal war”.
And humanity progresses, one little bit at a time.
What would an extraterrestrial being report back to its masters if it had secretly been observing planet Earth for thousands of years? I think it would say "Planet Earth is a beautiful and rich place, but nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was, and nowhere near as beautiful and rich as it was before that. It seems to have been plagued by one species with extraordinary spread, scope and effect.
"Public concern has been focused on fatalities occurring on ALR and DHS motorways
- those without a permanent hard shoulder. In three of the last four years, the share
of fatalities occurring on these motorways was lower than the share of traffic carried,
suggesting that a lower share of fatalities occur on DHS and ALR compared to the
motorway network as whole. The only exception was 2017, when the share of
fatalities was higher than the share of traffic carried..."
Tends to suggest my trainer was correct, and that it is the profile of the incidents that is giving the perception that Smart motorways are more dangerous.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham-warns-labour-lose-25081375
Polly Toynbee.
Every Lab activist needs to recite this every morning.
Mm. Not sure there's actually a great deal in it. I'm constantly amazed, when watching nature documentaries, what terrible lives most animals lead. Constant hunger, cold, hardship, competition and getting eaten.
Some animals seem to have it ok. But very, very few.
"Who do you think is to blame for petrol stations running out of fuel?"
The public 22%
The government 23%
The media 47%
YouGov today
It does indicate the public's common sense in attributing the blame
The media should hang their heads in shame, as well as 'me first' selfish motorists
On a historical scale, there will definitely be setbacks, but humans will go on. Regarding climate change; everything we have done since the industrial revolution has been an experiment that we keep on adapting to, and that will continue to be the case, one way or the other.
However, the urgent problem is the incoherence and decline of the west; specifically the liberal democratic model of government and the ideas of autonomy, freedom, individual rights and privacy that come with it. These have to be defended these against a pincer movement of hostile totalitarian regimes, and surveillance technology that seeks to manipulate human behaviour.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738
All the EVs built to date are only a small fraction of a single year's likely output in about five years time. Manufacturers are for once being smart, as they already see how tight the supply of certain key minerals is likely to be.
In any event, batteries don't use much in the way of REE.
Copper, cobalt, nickel, aluminium... etc yes.
In summary, Smart motorway deaths are similar to motorways with hard shoulders - the point is hard shoulders encourage unnecessary stopping and being stopped on a hard shoulder is itself dangerous.
The other thing is that the absolute number of deaths we are talking about is tiny. It would be complete insanity to either spend billions adding hard shoulders back or reducing capacity by one lane just to save 0 to 10 deaths per year.
It would take so long and be so costly to add hard shoulders that the real danger is that this campaign will lead to the most important parts of the motorway network being reduced by one lane which would have an absolutely crippling impact on the economy.
So the result of the Daily Mail's campaign may well be exactly what Extinction Rebellion want.
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39793&sid=0fe41cd672473c1a1691ff5caba0696b&start=1160
Matt B @Northern_Goblin
Replying to @AyoCaesar
Your class privilege is showing.
Try living in an area where there are groups that try your doors at night to see if they can break in.
Where cars are broken into, dogs are stolen and dealers operate in plain sight while intimidating residents.
That's who it's aimed at.
Ash Sarkar
@AyoCaesar
Mate, I live in Tottenham.
If he is the IDS, who would be the Howard figure to shore up the vote? A second coming of Ed Miliband?
The cats on the horse yard we use all have homes, would all just rather live out in the barn.
https://twitter.com/channel4news/status/1442527461665873920?s=21
Humans are part of nature. That cat, they seek to maximise their wellbeing and their chance of procreating. That dog, the same.
We are just seeking to do exactly the same as all the other animals.
You seek to make us less like nature, when you ask us not to optimise for ourselves. You are the one demanding that we disregard evolution.
That alien would say, humankind is progressing just as we did. They are gaining new knowledge and new skills, and maximise their potential. In a few thousand years, they will reach the next level of technological achievement and reach for the stars. We should probably exterminate them before they grow too strong.
(joking, of course)
These roads are massively more dangerous than both Smart motorways and motorways with hard shoulders.
Yet nobody is saying anything about these roads. What does the Daily Mail want to do about them?
The bottom line is that to put a hard shoulder on every big road would literally take about 10 years and cost tens of billions or you reduce every big road by one lane and destroy the whole economy.
No the media shouldn't be censored, but yes they should be more responsible.
There's a difference between saying you can report something and saying that you should.
Johnson has been invisible because this is a media created circus that will work itself out in a few days time when the panicking moron's tanks are full and the stations refuelled. There's nothing to say about it - plus of course this being Labour's Conference gives him a good excuse to not be on TV so he'd be silly to do that.
1) They aren't rare.
2) They aren't earths.
3) Lithium isn't a rare earth.
Anyone who start in with the whole "proven reserves" nonsense should be sent to a Cobalt mine in Africa. With a teaspoon. A very fucking small teaspoon.....
@YouGov
Do you think it is or is not acceptable for a senior politician to publicly call their political opponents ‘scum’?
All Britons - 19% acceptable / 70% unacceptable
Lab voters - 36% / 52%
Con voters - 5% / 89%"
Dozens of headlines about panic buying, were always going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sometimes the media need to think before they write, about more than just clicks, likes and retweets. Same goes for most of the last 18 months.
Folk are less happy.
Mind you, all our animals seem to have long lives. Our pony was nudging 40 before he died, and even our huge draft (larger horses as you probably know have shorter lives) was nudging 30.
Here's a list of 10 cats that are documented to have lived well into their 30s: https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-top-10-oldest-cats-ever/
• His Electoral College project defeated
• His Energy Renationalisation lie exposed
• His £15 wage hypocrisy exposed
• A Shadow Cabinet Minister resigned
• A founding Trade Union disaffiliated
5 entirely self inflicting & utterly avoidable disasters.
And purlease, about reaching for the stars. We have boldly gone about 1.3 light seconds from earth, 21 light hours if you count unmanned. It's not just that the universe is unimaginably big, the solar system is unimaginably big. We might spew a few self replicating thingies out, but the stars ain't reachable and never will be.
She was amazingly good at using the pitch of the engine to judge the speed she was going at, so that when we were driving on the motorway the speedo would infallibly jump up to dead on 70 whenever it gave a reading.
After a few years the MoT rules were changed, and we had to get the dashboard fixed, which brought an end to that fun.
(Did he pledge to modernise Labour? You know what I mean
We had 4 (Now 3), 2 of them are very regular hunters - much better teeth than the two non hunters, but need worming much more often.
Worldwide? Or just in the UK?
The data would appear to not back you up: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction
I wonder which other PBers have filled up over the past few days. I know @DavidL is holding out until tomorrow. Morons all?
Note: I have not filled up since last Monday.