Quote of the day

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
The physical world of which instinctive behaviours are an important and necessary part, needs reinstating. In this day and age many people are alienated from nature. Even sex is wrapped up in a false costume of pornography. I am a fan of subjective aspects of the world!

Poverty is not invariably a property of working class people but often has been the lot of working class people.
I'm a philosopher. I'm not a fan of the subjectivist aspects of the world; I'm objectivist in general. I have tried to see the earth turn rather than the sun rise. It's difficult not to be harsh, because honestly, I think subjectivism has been over-emphasised in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of the objective, for political purposes, for the past 400 years - and that's the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis. I don't seek to lay this at the door of a fan of the subjective aspects of the world; I recognise, like social skills, in some 'dog watching humans shag' way are valuable insights I don't possess. But philosophically, in the big picture of the grand sweep of human evolutionary history, facts matter more! It's a matter of our relation to reality, and we have to be right to reality to survive. So de-emphasising the objective by over-emphasising the subjective was a mistake, and correcting that mistake is key to solving the climate and ecological crisis. We need to adopt science as truth as a rationale to apply the necessary technology, starting with limitless clean energy from magma, to overcome climate change. Being ashamed of our overly sensitised subjective selves, and so assuming sacrifice is necessary to sustainability is a mistake. Objectively, we can solve this in a way that allows for a prosperous sustainable future!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:17 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
The physical world of which instinctive behaviours are an important and necessary part, needs reinstating. In this day and age many people are alienated from nature. Even sex is wrapped up in a false costume of pornography. I am a fan of subjective aspects of the world!

Poverty is not invariably a property of working class people but often has been the lot of working class people.
I'm a philosopher. I'm not a fan of the subjectivist aspects of the world; I'm objectivist in general. I have tried to see the earth turn rather than the sun rise. It's difficult not to be harsh, because honestly, I think subjectivism has been over-emphasised in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of the objective, for political purposes, for the past 400 years - and that's the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis. I don't seek to lay this at the door of a fan of the subjective aspects of the world; I recognise, like social skills, in some 'dog watching humans shag' way are valuable insights I don't possess. But philosophically, in the big picture of the grand sweep of human evolutionary history, facts matter more! It's a matter of our relation to reality, and we have to be right to reality to survive. So de-emphasising the objective by over-emphasising the subjective was a mistake, and correcting that mistake is key to solving the climate and ecological crisis. We need to adopt science as truth as a rationale to apply the necessary technology, starting with limitless clean energy from magma, to overcome climate change. Being ashamed of our overly sensitised subjective selves, and so assuming sacrifice is necessary to sustainability is a mistake. Objectively, we can solve this in a way that allows for a prosperous sustainable future!
The trouble with materialism is it allows no philosophy of beauty or recognition of evil which are subjective. Materialism is reductive which idealism(immaterialism) is not. Science is materialist and science is important but science is not the be all and end all of existence. True, it's science that will solve the ecological crisis if anything can. However for scientists to be permitted to do their work in peace there must be a culture of belief that honours science and scientists .
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
The physical world of which instinctive behaviours are an important and necessary part, needs reinstating. In this day and age many people are alienated from nature. Even sex is wrapped up in a false costume of pornography. I am a fan of subjective aspects of the world!

Poverty is not invariably a property of working class people but often has been the lot of working class people.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:17 pmI'm a philosopher. I'm not a fan of the subjectivist aspects of the world; I'm objectivist in general. I have tried to see the earth turn rather than the sun rise. It's difficult not to be harsh, because honestly, I think subjectivism has been over-emphasised in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of the objective, for political purposes, for the past 400 years - and that's the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis. I don't seek to lay this at the door of a fan of the subjective aspects of the world; I recognise, like social skills, in some 'dog watching humans shag' way are valuable insights I don't possess. But philosophically, in the big picture of the grand sweep of human evolutionary history, facts matter more! It's a matter of our relation to reality, and we have to be right to reality to survive. So de-emphasising the objective by over-emphasising the subjective was a mistake, and correcting that mistake is key to solving the climate and ecological crisis. We need to adopt science as truth as a rationale to apply the necessary technology, starting with limitless clean energy from magma, to overcome climate change. Being ashamed of our overly sensitised subjective selves, and so assuming sacrifice is necessary to sustainability is a mistake. Objectively, we can solve this in a way that allows for a prosperous sustainable future!
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 amThe trouble with materialism is it allows no philosophy of beauty or recognition of evil which are subjective. Materialism is reductive which idealism(immaterialism) is not. Science is materialist and science is important but science is not the be all and end all of existence. True, it's science that will solve the ecological crisis if anything can. However for scientists to be permitted to do their work in peace there must be a culture of belief that honours science and scientists.
Why not? I don't exclude morality from my "materialist" philosophy. Rather, I seek to explain the occurrence of morality in the evolutionary history of humankind. Cross referencing Saussure's structural relations of the kinship tribe, with the observations of Jane Goodall, I argue that morality is behaviourally intelligent in origin; a sense ingrained in the individual by the evolutionary advantage of moral behaviour to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe in competition with other organisms. With the occurrence of human intellectual intelligence, morality was intellectually defined, rather than merely felt - and then, morality became objectified when hunter gatherers joined together to form multi tribal social groups, and needed an explicit moral code all would live by. i.e. religion.

Aesthetics is a lot more subtle, and much more deeply rooted. Primitive animals make use of aesthetic qualities in mating rituals. I do not explain aesthetics, but similarly regard the aesthetic sense as an evolutionary adaption to reality, conducive to survival - and so, consistent with a "materialist" explanation.

The problem, as I see it is that I'm writing about a philosophy that didn't occur - because the Church adopted an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy - starting with Descartes Meditations, has claimed all the virtues for the spiritual/subjectivist conspiracy, while maligning science as heretical and dangerous hubris. Philosophically, I'm obligated to recreate 400 years of lost history in which science was welcomed as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, pursued and honoured as truth, such that technology would have been applied in a moral framework as proof of God's beneficence. I'd be inadequate to that task if I lived for 400 years, but we can surely agree, the people of that lost history would have morals and aesthetics?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:39 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
The physical world of which instinctive behaviours are an important and necessary part, needs reinstating. In this day and age many people are alienated from nature. Even sex is wrapped up in a false costume of pornography. I am a fan of subjective aspects of the world!

Poverty is not invariably a property of working class people but often has been the lot of working class people.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:17 pmI'm a philosopher. I'm not a fan of the subjectivist aspects of the world; I'm objectivist in general. I have tried to see the earth turn rather than the sun rise. It's difficult not to be harsh, because honestly, I think subjectivism has been over-emphasised in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of the objective, for political purposes, for the past 400 years - and that's the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis. I don't seek to lay this at the door of a fan of the subjective aspects of the world; I recognise, like social skills, in some 'dog watching humans shag' way are valuable insights I don't possess. But philosophically, in the big picture of the grand sweep of human evolutionary history, facts matter more! It's a matter of our relation to reality, and we have to be right to reality to survive. So de-emphasising the objective by over-emphasising the subjective was a mistake, and correcting that mistake is key to solving the climate and ecological crisis. We need to adopt science as truth as a rationale to apply the necessary technology, starting with limitless clean energy from magma, to overcome climate change. Being ashamed of our overly sensitised subjective selves, and so assuming sacrifice is necessary to sustainability is a mistake. Objectively, we can solve this in a way that allows for a prosperous sustainable future!
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 amThe trouble with materialism is it allows no philosophy of beauty or recognition of evil which are subjective. Materialism is reductive which idealism(immaterialism) is not. Science is materialist and science is important but science is not the be all and end all of existence. True, it's science that will solve the ecological crisis if anything can. However for scientists to be permitted to do their work in peace there must be a culture of belief that honours science and scientists.
Why not? I don't exclude morality from my "materialist" philosophy. Rather, I seek to explain the occurrence of morality in the evolutionary history of humankind. Cross referencing Saussure's structural relations of the kinship tribe, with the observations of Jane Goodall, I argue that morality is behaviourally intelligent in origin; a sense ingrained in the individual by the evolutionary advantage of moral behaviour to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe in competition with other organisms. With the occurrence of human intellectual intelligence, morality was intellectually defined, rather than merely felt - and then, morality became objectified when hunter gatherers joined together to form multi tribal social groups, and needed an explicit moral code all would live by. i.e. religion.

Aesthetics is a lot more subtle, and much more deeply rooted. Primitive animals make use of aesthetic qualities in mating rituals. I do not explain aesthetics, but similarly regard the aesthetic sense as an evolutionary adaption to reality, conducive to survival - and so, consistent with a "materialist" explanation.

The problem, as I see it is that I'm writing about a philosophy that didn't occur - because the Church adopted an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy - starting with Descartes Meditations, has claimed all the virtues for the spiritual/subjectivist conspiracy, while maligning science as heretical and dangerous hubris. Philosophically, I'm obligated to recreate 400 years of lost history in which science was welcomed as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, pursued and honoured as truth, such that technology would have been applied in a moral framework as proof of God's beneficence. I'd be inadequate to that task if I lived for 400 years, but we can surely agree, the people of that lost history would have morals and aesthetics?
Descartes's relegating animals to automata has resulted in abominations of cruelty a few of them perpetrated by Descartes himself.

Materialism is better in this respect than Cartesian dualism. Idealism however is even better as absolute idealism includes that mind, a subjective aspect of being, is not only individual and unique but also absolute, according to which of the two aspects of being you are thinking of. Idealism also allows for panpsychism which obviously includes the ethic that since each being is an experiencer each being is worthy of respect.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:24 pm
The physical world of which instinctive behaviours are an important and necessary part, needs reinstating. In this day and age many people are alienated from nature. Even sex is wrapped up in a false costume of pornography. I am a fan of subjective aspects of the world!

Poverty is not invariably a property of working class people but often has been the lot of working class people.
Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:17 pmI'm a philosopher. I'm not a fan of the subjectivist aspects of the world; I'm objectivist in general. I have tried to see the earth turn rather than the sun rise. It's difficult not to be harsh, because honestly, I think subjectivism has been over-emphasised in Western philosophy, to the exclusion of the objective, for political purposes, for the past 400 years - and that's the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis. I don't seek to lay this at the door of a fan of the subjective aspects of the world; I recognise, like social skills, in some 'dog watching humans shag' way are valuable insights I don't possess. But philosophically, in the big picture of the grand sweep of human evolutionary history, facts matter more! It's a matter of our relation to reality, and we have to be right to reality to survive. So de-emphasising the objective by over-emphasising the subjective was a mistake, and correcting that mistake is key to solving the climate and ecological crisis. We need to adopt science as truth as a rationale to apply the necessary technology, starting with limitless clean energy from magma, to overcome climate change. Being ashamed of our overly sensitised subjective selves, and so assuming sacrifice is necessary to sustainability is a mistake. Objectively, we can solve this in a way that allows for a prosperous sustainable future!
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:34 amThe trouble with materialism is it allows no philosophy of beauty or recognition of evil which are subjective. Materialism is reductive which idealism(immaterialism) is not. Science is materialist and science is important but science is not the be all and end all of existence. True, it's science that will solve the ecological crisis if anything can. However for scientists to be permitted to do their work in peace there must be a culture of belief that honours science and scientists.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:39 amWhy not? I don't exclude morality from my "materialist" philosophy. Rather, I seek to explain the occurrence of morality in the evolutionary history of humankind. Cross referencing Saussure's structural relations of the kinship tribe, with the observations of Jane Goodall, I argue that morality is behaviourally intelligent in origin; a sense ingrained in the individual by the evolutionary advantage of moral behaviour to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribe in competition with other organisms. With the occurrence of human intellectual intelligence, morality was intellectually defined, rather than merely felt - and then, morality became objectified when hunter gatherers joined together to form multi tribal social groups, and needed an explicit moral code all would live by. i.e. religion.

Aesthetics is a lot more subtle, and much more deeply rooted. Primitive animals make use of aesthetic qualities in mating rituals. I do not explain aesthetics, but similarly regard the aesthetic sense as an evolutionary adaption to reality, conducive to survival - and so, consistent with a "materialist" explanation.

The problem, as I see it is that I'm writing about a philosophy that didn't occur - because the Church adopted an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy - starting with Descartes Meditations, has claimed all the virtues for the spiritual/subjectivist conspiracy, while maligning science as heretical and dangerous hubris. Philosophically, I'm obligated to recreate 400 years of lost history in which science was welcomed as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, pursued and honoured as truth, such that technology would have been applied in a moral framework as proof of God's beneficence. I'd be inadequate to that task if I lived for 400 years, but we can surely agree, the people of that lost history would have morals and aesthetics?
Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:57 pmDescartes's relegating animals to automata has resulted in abominations of cruelty a few of them perpetrated by Descartes himself. Materialism is better in this respect than Cartesian dualism. Idealism however is even better as absolute idealism includes that mind, a subjective aspect of being, is not only individual and unique but also absolute, according to which of the two aspects of being you are thinking of. Idealism also allows for panpsychism which obviously includes the ethic that since each being is an experiencer each being is worthy of respect.
I'm a carnivore. I'm also of the view that cattle farming is vital to resisting desertification. While I feel no need to justify eating meat, I would point out that nature is red in tooth and claw. Agricultural animals can be much better off than animals in nature - and the key to that kind of kind agriculture is limitless clean energy from magma, used to power desalination and irrigation - giving us the energy and water to develop wastelands rather than burn forests, and resist desertification while producing food.

The "ethic" you speak to seems identical in effect to the false assumption underlying the left wing environmental narrative; that we must "have less, pay more, stop this and tax that" to secure the future, and my argument is that's not only incorrect, but catastrophic. We must power through in face of the climate and ecological crisis; and strike a positively sustainable relation to the environment. If you knew that cattle farming prevented desertification, and let's also assume these cattle are fed sea weed, which reduces methane emissions by 60% or more, would you change your mind about eating meat? I think we should farm fish, because it's immoral for 8bn people to live from hunting the oceans, but again, it's about striking a positive balance with the environment; not an ethical objection to eating fish.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:58 pm
I'm a carnivore. I'm also of the view that cattle farming is vital to resisting desertification. While I feel no need to justify eating meat, I would point out that nature is red in tooth and claw. Agricultural animals can be much better off than animals in nature - and the key to that kind of kind agriculture is limitless clean energy from magma, used to power desalination and irrigation - giving us the energy and water to develop wastelands rather than burn forests, and resist desertification while producing food.

The "ethic" you speak to seems identical in effect to the false assumption underlying the left wing environmental narrative; that we must "have less, pay more, stop this and tax that" to secure the future, and my argument is that's not only incorrect, but catastrophic. We must power through in face of the climate and ecological crisis; and strike a positively sustainable relation to the environment. If you knew that cattle farming prevented desertification, and let's also assume these cattle are fed sea weed, which reduces methane emissions by 60% or more, would you change your mind about eating meat? I think we should farm fish, because it's immoral for 8bn people to live from hunting the oceans, but again, it's about striking a positive balance with the environment; not an ethical objection to eating fish.
Eating beef does not resist desertification in any sense.
WTF are you talking about?
WHilst I agree that traditional pasture systems are better than monoculture, You should acquaint yourself with the fact that Beef farming is responsible for the loss of millions of acres of rainforest to feed to ravenous hunger for american burgers.
And far from avoiding monoculture, many wheatfields are grown specifically to feed barn-living cattle, with the concomitant loss of biomass encument upon feeding higher up the food chain.

There may be a case for mixed pastureland and the biodiversity that goes with that as an alternative to grain farming, but there is nother here that validates a claim about desertification.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:58 pm
I'm a carnivore. I'm also of the view that cattle farming is vital to resisting desertification. While I feel no need to justify eating meat, I would point out that nature is red in tooth and claw. Agricultural animals can be much better off than animals in nature - and the key to that kind of kind agriculture is limitless clean energy from magma, used to power desalination and irrigation - giving us the energy and water to develop wastelands rather than burn forests, and resist desertification while producing food.

The "ethic" you speak to seems identical in effect to the false assumption underlying the left wing environmental narrative; that we must "have less, pay more, stop this and tax that" to secure the future, and my argument is that's not only incorrect, but catastrophic. We must power through in face of the climate and ecological crisis; and strike a positively sustainable relation to the environment. If you knew that cattle farming prevented desertification, and let's also assume these cattle are fed sea weed, which reduces methane emissions by 60% or more, would you change your mind about eating meat? I think we should farm fish, because it's immoral for 8bn people to live from hunting the oceans, but again, it's about striking a positive balance with the environment; not an ethical objection to eating fish.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pmEating beef does not resist desertification in any sense.
WTF are you talking about?
Watch this Ted Talk by Allan Savory, making the argument that herds of cattle trample grasslands, and spread dung, and so allow for decomposition that fertilises the soil, which then retains water and captures carbon, and produces food, rather than drying out and turning to desert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=1s
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pm WHilst I agree that traditional pasture systems are better than monoculture, You should acquaint yourself with the fact that Beef farming is responsible for the loss of millions of acres of rainforest to feed to ravenous hunger for american burgers.
I'm not entirely unaware of the environmental impacts of farming as currently practiced, but rather like Allan Savory, I'm suggesting we should do something different, and in that case - cattle farming can resist desertification. Wasn't that obvious?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pmAnd far from avoiding monoculture, many wheatfields are grown specifically to feed barn-living cattle, with the concomitant loss of biomass encument upon feeding higher up the food chain.
That's because fossil fuels are scarce and expensive relative to the form of energy I propose, such that energy cost is set in contrast to profitability, and animal and environmental welfare. Given sufficient clean energy this need not be the case.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pm There may be a case for mixed pastureland and the biodiversity that goes with that as an alternative to grain farming, but there is nother here that validates a claim about desertification.
You're stuck in a fossil fuel mindset. Limitless clean energy would change our relationship to land; we'd no longer need to dwell in river valleys peeing in eachother's drinking water! No need to exhaust natural water sources to produce crops, such that places like the Aral Sea run dry. Harness magma energy to produce fresh water - and we can make the deserts bloom!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:48 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:58 pm
I'm a carnivore. I'm also of the view that cattle farming is vital to resisting desertification. While I feel no need to justify eating meat, I would point out that nature is red in tooth and claw. Agricultural animals can be much better off than animals in nature - and the key to that kind of kind agriculture is limitless clean energy from magma, used to power desalination and irrigation - giving us the energy and water to develop wastelands rather than burn forests, and resist desertification while producing food.

The "ethic" you speak to seems identical in effect to the false assumption underlying the left wing environmental narrative; that we must "have less, pay more, stop this and tax that" to secure the future, and my argument is that's not only incorrect, but catastrophic. We must power through in face of the climate and ecological crisis; and strike a positively sustainable relation to the environment. If you knew that cattle farming prevented desertification, and let's also assume these cattle are fed sea weed, which reduces methane emissions by 60% or more, would you change your mind about eating meat? I think we should farm fish, because it's immoral for 8bn people to live from hunting the oceans, but again, it's about striking a positive balance with the environment; not an ethical objection to eating fish.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pmEating beef does not resist desertification in any sense.
WTF are you talking about?
Watch this Ted Talk by Allan Savory, making the argument that herds of cattle trample grasslands, and spread dung, and so allow for decomposition that fertilises the soil, which then retains water and captures carbon, and produces food, rather than drying out and turning to desert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=1s
I've argued this way for years. HOWEVER. THe problem is that cattle are kept in barns and fed grain from monoculture. The their shit is digested down and sprayed on the land befire ploughing which is CRAP compared to proper real live shit dumped direct from the co, which nourishes insects and herbs and promoted diversity.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pm WHilst I agree that traditional pasture systems are better than monoculture, You should acquaint yourself with the fact that Beef farming is responsible for the loss of millions of acres of rainforest to feed to ravenous hunger for american burgers.
I'm not entirely unaware of the environmental impacts of farming as currently practiced, but rather like Allan Savory, I'm suggesting we should do something different, and in that case - cattle farming can resist desertification. Wasn't that obvious?
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pmAnd far from avoiding monoculture, many wheatfields are grown specifically to feed barn-living cattle, with the concomitant loss of biomass encument upon feeding higher up the food chain.
That's because fossil fuels are scarce and expensive relative to the form of energy I propose, such that energy cost is set in contrast to profitability, and animal and environmental welfare. Given sufficient clean energy this need not be the case.
That is not relevant to the case at hand.

Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:25 pm There may be a case for mixed pastureland and the biodiversity that goes with that as an alternative to grain farming, but there is nother here that validates a claim about desertification.
You're stuck in a fossil fuel mindset. Limitless clean energy would change our relationship to land; we'd no longer need to dwell in river valleys peeing in eachother's drinking water! No need to exhaust natural water sources to produce crops, such that places like the Aral Sea run dry. Harness magma energy to produce fresh water - and we can make the deserts bloom!
No.
I'm stuck in a little problem called that facts.
There is not such thing as unlimited clean energy, if if there were it would not change the relationship with have to cattle and land.
In fact were there such a thing as unlimited energy we'd be more likley the lock up the cattle and farm more agresssively.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:56 pm No.
I'm stuck in a little problem called that facts.
There is not such thing as unlimited clean energy, if if there were it would not change the relationship with have to cattle and land.
In fact were there such a thing as unlimited energy we'd be more likley the lock up the cattle and farm more agresssively.
Your lack of comprehension is matched only by your lack of imagination. The molten interior of the earth is 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around, with an average temperature of around 5000 degrees centigrade. Further, 50% of the heat energy is radiogenic; produced by the breakdown of radioactive elements. It's reasonable to describe that as a limitless source of energy; for while not actually infinite, many times current global energy demand would not make a dent. Given such energy to spend, we could desalinate water and irrigate land that is currently unproductive because it has no water. In that context cattle would serve a vital role in developing land, feeding on hardy plants that grow in poor soils, improving the soil for different forms of agriculture to follow.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote:
The "ethic" you speak to seems identical in effect to the false assumption underlying the left wing environmental narrative; that we must "have less, pay more, stop this and tax that" to secure the future, and my argument is that's not only incorrect, but catastrophic. We must power through in face of the climate and ecological crisis; and strike a positively sustainable relation to the environment. If you knew that cattle farming prevented desertification, and let's also assume these cattle are fed sea weed, which reduces methane emissions by 60% or more, would you change your mind about eating meat? I think we should farm fish, because it's immoral for 8bn people to live from hunting the oceans, but again, it's about striking a positive balance with the environment; not an ethical objection to eating fish.
Fish farming needs strict political controls backed by law enforcement to prevent pollution by ant-lice and antibiotic chemical, and to prevent farmed salmon escaping and polluting wild salmon with their inferior genes.

Beef farming pollutes unless the beasts are fattened on plentiful pasture which is not created from destruction of rain forest. This quality of beef is too expensive for most people. Over -crowded feed lots with diseased beasts is not ecologically sustainable.

Developing cattle beasts that can thrive on seaweed seems a good idea. However feed made from sea weed may become as scarce as is good pasture or meadow hay; I do not know. Also a minor point it will cost money for R and D into commercial production of any novel feed. Laboratory muscle tissue seems to be sustainable once it becomes commercially available.
It is an uncomfortable fact that there are too many human beings for there to be luxury foods for all.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote:
The "ethic" you speak to seems identical in effect to the false assumption underlying the left wing environmental narrative; that we must "have less, pay more, stop this and tax that" to secure the future, and my argument is that's not only incorrect, but catastrophic. We must power through in face of the climate and ecological crisis; and strike a positively sustainable relation to the environment. If you knew that cattle farming prevented desertification, and let's also assume these cattle are fed sea weed, which reduces methane emissions by 60% or more, would you change your mind about eating meat? I think we should farm fish, because it's immoral for 8bn people to live from hunting the oceans, but again, it's about striking a positive balance with the environment; not an ethical objection to eating fish.
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:19 amFish farming needs strict political controls backed by law enforcement to prevent pollution by ant-lice and antibiotic chemical, and to prevent farmed salmon escaping and polluting wild salmon with their inferior genes.

Beef farming pollutes unless the beasts are fattened on plentiful pasture which is not created from destruction of rain forest. This quality of beef is too expensive for most people. Over -crowded feed lots with diseased beasts is not ecologically sustainable.

Developing cattle beasts that can thrive on seaweed seems a good idea. However feed made from sea weed may become as scarce as is good pasture or meadow hay; I do not know. Also a minor point it will cost money for R and D into commercial production of any novel feed. Laboratory muscle tissue seems to be sustainable once it becomes commercially available.
It is an uncomfortable fact that there are too many human beings for there to be luxury foods for all.
A bit of seaweed in cattle feed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle as much as 82 percent, according to new findings from researchers at the University of California, Davis. The results, published today (March 17) in the journal PLOS ONE, could pave the way for the sustainable production of livestock throughout the world.
Feeding Cattle Seaweed Reduces Their Greenhouse Gas ...
www.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-sea ... 82-percent
www.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-sea ... ouse-gas-e
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:36 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:56 pm No.
I'm stuck in a little problem called that facts.
There is not such thing as unlimited clean energy, if if there were it would not change the relationship with have to cattle and land.
In fact were there such a thing as unlimited energy we'd be more likley the lock up the cattle and farm more agresssively.
Your lack of comprehension is matched only by your lack of imagination. The molten interior of the earth is 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around, with an average temperature of around 5000 degrees centigrade. Further, 50% of the heat energy is radiogenic; produced by the breakdown of radioactive elements. It's reasonable to describe that as a limitless source of energy; for while not actually infinite, many times current global energy demand would not make a dent. Given such energy to spend, we could desalinate water and irrigate land that is currently unproductive because it has no water. In that context cattle would serve a vital role in developing land, feeding on hardy plants that grow in poor soils, improving the soil for different forms of agriculture to follow.
You are full of bullshite, Pun intended.
That energy has always been there, yet remains largely untapped except in Iceland, where there are many difficulties in harnessing it.
I've asked before, and it is clear that you do not have a fucking clue how to solve the multiple problems in safe extraction and conversion to something useable.
Barn reared cattle are a serious problem, since that it is the most efficient way to raise them, but the most environmentally costly. Cheap energy would make that more attractive not less, since it would be easier to keep cattle all year round in barns whereas today it is expensive.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Vitruvius »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:56 pm No.
I'm stuck in a little problem called that facts.
There is not such thing as unlimited clean energy, if if there were it would not change the relationship with have to cattle and land.
In fact were there such a thing as unlimited energy we'd be more likley the lock up the cattle and farm more agresssively.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:36 pmYour lack of comprehension is matched only by your lack of imagination. The molten interior of the earth is 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around, with an average temperature of around 5000 degrees centigrade. Further, 50% of the heat energy is radiogenic; produced by the breakdown of radioactive elements. It's reasonable to describe that as a limitless source of energy; for while not actually infinite, many times current global energy demand would not make a dent. Given such energy to spend, we could desalinate water and irrigate land that is currently unproductive because it has no water. In that context cattle would serve a vital role in developing land, feeding on hardy plants that grow in poor soils, improving the soil for different forms of agriculture to follow.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:57 amYou are full of bullshite, Pun intended.
That energy has always been there, yet remains largely untapped except in Iceland, where there are many difficulties in harnessing it.
I've asked before, and it is clear that you do not have a fucking clue how to solve the multiple problems in safe extraction and conversion to something useable.
Barn reared cattle are a serious problem, since that it is the most efficient way to raise them, but the most environmentally costly. Cheap energy would make that more attractive not less, since it would be easier to keep cattle all year round in barns whereas today it is expensive.
So what you're saying is that I'm full of shit, while your main problem is that you're burdened with the facts? That doesn't sound right. Are you sure?

Strictly speaking, that energy has only been there only so long as the earth has been there, which is around 4.5 billion years. This is important because it's a measure of just how much energy there is, that the Earth's crust, 5–70 kilometres (3.1 – 43.5 mi) thick has solidified in the past 4.5 billion years. Magma is 4000 miles deep. Less that 1% of the surface has cooled in 4.5 billion years.

That also not correct. The largest producer of geothermal is the US, then Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Italy - then Iceland. Larderello in Italy has been operating since 1913; so geothermal isn't new either.

I have suggested a different approach to extracting geothermal energy; I think is feasible, and would overcome both the replacement rate problem, and the risk of geological instability - while also producing greater power. It is possible that what I propose is not possible. I accept that; even while I think it is possible.

I cannot make sense of the following:

"Barn reared cattle are a serious problem, since that it is the most efficient way to raise them, but the most environmentally costly. Cheap energy would make that more attractive not less, since it would be easier to keep cattle all year round in barns whereas today it is expensive."

I cannot speak at length on the subject of comparative methods of cattle farming, but I live in the UK, where we've been farming the same land, sustainably - for thousands of years. In the UK, cattle are grazed outdoors, and spend as little time as possible in the barn. Consequently, Allan Savory's arguments make a lot of sense to me - both in evolutionary terms, and what I see around me; cattle have a role in maintaining the land, trampling grasses and spreading dung, and thus could help resist desertification. So, getting rid of cattle to solve climate change is a bad idea. What we need instead, is limitless clean energy from magma, in excess of current global energy demand, to also power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation and recycling.

So again "have less, pay more, stop this, tax that" is the wrong approach to sustainability!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Sculptor »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:58 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:56 pm No.
I'm stuck in a little problem called that facts.
There is not such thing as unlimited clean energy, if if there were it would not change the relationship with have to cattle and land.
In fact were there such a thing as unlimited energy we'd be more likley the lock up the cattle and farm more agresssively.
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:36 pmYour lack of comprehension is matched only by your lack of imagination. The molten interior of the earth is 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around, with an average temperature of around 5000 degrees centigrade. Further, 50% of the heat energy is radiogenic; produced by the breakdown of radioactive elements. It's reasonable to describe that as a limitless source of energy; for while not actually infinite, many times current global energy demand would not make a dent. Given such energy to spend, we could desalinate water and irrigate land that is currently unproductive because it has no water. In that context cattle would serve a vital role in developing land, feeding on hardy plants that grow in poor soils, improving the soil for different forms of agriculture to follow.
Sculptor wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:57 amYou are full of bullshite, Pun intended.
That energy has always been there, yet remains largely untapped except in Iceland, where there are many difficulties in harnessing it.
I've asked before, and it is clear that you do not have a fucking clue how to solve the multiple problems in safe extraction and conversion to something useable.
Barn reared cattle are a serious problem, since that it is the most efficient way to raise them, but the most environmentally costly. Cheap energy would make that more attractive not less, since it would be easier to keep cattle all year round in barns whereas today it is expensive.
So what you're saying is that I'm full of shit, while your main problem is that you're burdened with the facts? That doesn't sound right. Are you sure?

Strictly speaking, that energy has only been there only so long as the earth has been there, which is around 4.5 billion years. This is important because it's a measure of just how much energy there is, that the Earth's crust, 5–70 kilometres (3.1 – 43.5 mi) thick has solidified in the past 4.5 billion years. Magma is 4000 miles deep. Less that 1% of the surface has cooled in 4.5 billion years.
There's lot of energy everywhere. But saying so, does not harness it usefully.

So again "have less, pay more, stop this, tax that" is the wrong approach to sustainability!
Your problem is just the same as all believers, you can't see the facts from the fantasy
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Quote of the day

Post by Belinda »

I resurrect a worthy thing from Vitruvius for quote of the day.
I have tried to see the earth turn rather than the sun rise.
This idea is worth discussing in its own discussion.
Post Reply