Philosophical question of the day

[katie279]

Think the point here is there's nothing wrong with carbon - indeed we're living proof of that.

Specifically carbon compounds in gas form are the problem given the fact it can interfere with the climate.

If that's converted to any physical form (wood, coal, pencils or Bill Gate's new lodge) then there's no issue at all!

 

[Efour]

It's because we are releasing 300 million years worth of natural "carbon capture" by burning it.

 

[katie279]

Spot on - hence the challenge for me is simply how do we capture 300 million years worth. Really not as massive a task as it sounds - just needs concerted effort.

 

[Van_Dammesque]

No, probably not, as the land required would exponentially outstrip any other purchases or activities made!

 

[katie279]

Worth reviewing what the tech world is up to - eg Bill Gate's carbon capture tech - one small capture plant or the space for 40 million trees.....

relying on trees ain't going to add up....!

 

[Angilion]

It's because we are releasing 300 million years worth of natural "carbon capture" by burning it.

And that's still a tiny proportion of the total CO2 release, year in year out. Only about 5% of CO2 emissions are anthropogenic and only part of that 5% comes from burning fossil fuels.

The ecosystems already capture ~20 times as much CO2 as the entire human-caused output of CO2. Maybe working on that to get an extra few percent performance out of it would be a better approach than trying to suddenly and radically change human tool usage.

So...where's the Earth's BIOS and how do we increase the FSB a couple of percent?

 

[katie279]

Yes, although think this is less about percentages, more about balance - bit like saying you raise ice from -40C to -1C and nothing happens, therefore what harm would another 2C do. But your point is sound, ie optimising is where we should focus as much as reducing - and I'm certainly not a fan of regression (ie stop using cars etc).

I believe just as the sun rises you have to hammer the del key, f2 and f3 as you can never remember which button the Earth's latest bios uses?

 

[Rofflay]

Yes, although think this is less about percentages, more about balance - bit like saying you raise ice from -40C to -1C and nothing happens, therefore what harm would another 2C do. But your point is sound, ie optimising is where we should focus as much as reducing - and I'm certainly not a fan of regression (ie stop using cars etc).

I believe just as the sun rises you have to hammer the del key, f2 and f3 as you can never remember which button the Earth's latest bios uses?

There is more to cars than CO2, The fumes and soot travel into the Uterus and cause birth defects. Even with an all electric vehicle there is still brake dust that does the same and pollutes air. Then there is the rubber tires not only microplastic pollution when they shred but rubber plantations.


Cars are one of the main problems, Lets assume everyone in the world has a right to one, Thats 7 billion vehicles say 3 per lifetime? That is 21 billion vehicles. What happens by the way when China and Africa become two car households as well? People should have another look at high tech transport as we can not afford 21 billion vehicles to scrap every lifetime.

 

[RoboCod]

There is more to cars than CO2, The fumes and soot travel into the Uterus and cause birth defects. Even with an all electric vehicle there is still brake dust that does the same and pollutes air. Then there is the rubber tires not only microplastic pollution when they shred but rubber plantations.


Cars are one of the main problems, Lets assume everyone in the world has a right to one, Thats 7 billion vehicles say 3 per lifetime? That is 21 billion vehicles. What happens by the way when China and Africa become two car households as well? People should have another look at high tech transport as we can not afford 21 billion vehicles to scrap every lifetime.

We won't. Soon it won't make sense to have a car sat on your drive doing nothing for 90% of the time. Once driverless technology is ready, when you need to head to work you'll simply book your "johny cab" with an uber type app and it will be at your house in moments. Car ownership will plummet as it no longer becomes financially viable.

 

[Rofflay]

We won't. Soon it won't make sense to have a car sat on your drive doing nothing for 90% of the time. Once driverless technology is ready, when you need to head to work you'll simply book your "johny cab" with an uber type app and it will be at your house in moments. Car ownership will plummet as it no longer becomes financially viable.

Still 7 billion cabs seems too much i want to see the frictionless transport without rubber and metal dust. If you work with these conditions you wear a mask. But today were putting schools and kids next to heavy traffic and wondering why all these birth defects are so popular.

 

[RoboCod]

Still 7 billion cabs seems too much i want to see the frictionless transport without rubber and metal dust. If you work with these conditions you wear a mask. But today were putting schools and kids next to heavy traffic and wondering why all these birth defects are so popular.

We won't need 7 billion cabs because 7 billion people don't need to be in transit all at one time.

Popular defects eh?

 

[dowie]

We won't. Soon it won't make sense to have a car sat on your drive doing nothing for 90% of the time. Once driverless technology is ready, when you need to head to work you'll simply book your "johny cab" with an uber type app and it will be at your house in moments. Car ownership will plummet as it no longer becomes financially viable.

Not sure it will stop being financially viable - like they're not necessarily going to become dramatically more expensive, but the need for a two car+ household would be less - the regular commute, as you point out, could involve the automated uber to the park and ride station in the morning rather than say (excuse the traditional gender roles) the husband having one car for his commute that gets parked up and left all day and the wife having another car that can be used for ad hoc trips, dropping off kids at school/nursery, taking kids to swimming lessons.

You could essentially step things back to having a single family car - you'll still want the baby seats in the back, the ability to take the dog etc..etc.. that can be used for the ad hoc trips, taking stuff to the local tip, going on holiday in the UK etc.. you don't want to faff around ordering a cab in the middle of North Wales after you've been out walking and with muddy boots, wet waterproofs etc.. or to the beach in Cornwall when you've got a load of wet wetsuits, surf boards etc...

It would certainly change some streets - in places where there are small detached houses and semi detached houses from like the 50s, 60s etc... these streets were planned with a single garage/driveway and plenty of households don't use the garage, so one car gets parked on the drive and the street itself becomes a maze of 2nd cars cars parked across half the pavement on both sides of the road... could definitely do with going back to single car households just to clear these streets.

 

[katie279]

The point on tyres is valid, but again assumes we are in stasis, which we are not.

The reason we use rubber is it's the best material we've 'found' to grip and soften rides - the sacrifice is it doesn't wear very well. A precursory glance at material science shows how much of a revolution is happening here (not least then supporting domains like 3d printing). Hence metal alloy based wheels that flex like rubber, grip far better and wear thousands of times slower are already in sight

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...tread-that-never-wears-out-1021608-2017-06-30