mistermack

A lot of people who find the holocaust horrible today, would have participated at the time. We're all a product of our social environment. I'm 73. When I was young, it would have been unthinkable that homosexual people ( the polite expression at the time ) could marry or adopt, or even hold a public position. You could hear the words "nigger" or "coon" in sitcoms, admittedly spoken by lowlife characters. But to say "fuck" on the air was unthinkable. Now you hear fuck all the time, but the racial slurs are absolutely barred, even in jest. All good stuff, but they are just examples of fundamental culture changes that are all good. But the people haven't changed, it's the culture that's changed. Take people born today, transport them back to the Nazi era, and they would do the same. Nazi Germany grew out of desperate times. People act differently under pressure. They tend to pick on anyone who stands out as different, and blame them for their problems. It's still happening in India, Bangladesh, Burma, China, and not too long ago in Northern Ireland. Those are just examples, not the whole picture. The common factor is human nature, it hasn't gone away, and it's not just Nazis on Jews.

I couldn't find that information. Can you link to it ?

They don't say if that's per day, per year, or per the 30 year time period, so it doesn't really tell you much. The UK figure is for a year, as are the others, so you can compare them like with like. I'm sure that the amounts released are not going to be harmful, I've read comments that the background level will be virtually unchanged.

The levels in the waste are not the relevant factor though. If A is dumping waste at half the level of B, but at double the rate, then the effect is the same in both. Level times rate is what's relevant. From the wikipedia figure above, China looks to be well down the list, and France is out on it's own in discharge rates. ( Although Japan isn't included in the list )

From what I remember from reading about fusion, Tritium is hard to confine and hazardous in it's useful form. I don't know the reasons for that, but making Tritium available in useful form and quantities is one of the aspects of nuclear fusion that is currently being actively researched and developed. It doesn't appear that producing it from low concentrations in the usual nuclear reactors is viable, as it's being discharged to the oceans around the globe at present. This is an interesting extract from the wikipedia page on tritium. France is dumping significant quantities :

No reason why it can't be done, but there might be a fire risk. It's so quick and easy in a small frying pan, I wouldn't bother trying it. It sounds like it would involve a bit of cleaning afterwards, but not in a lidded pot as you suggest. I use an air fryer quite a lot these days, that's quick and easy too.

Trying to think what else could save a building, my first idea would be a fairly thin fiberglass matting that could be draped over the roof, and down the walls using long poles. Then have a few pumps jet a fine spray of water onto the matting in the event of a fire, till the risk had gone. You would need a storage tank full of water, ready and waiting. The wet matting should stop the flames and heat for long enough for the fire to pass.

Of course, on another related note, you have the invention of the pressure cooker, which allows you to cook at up to 120 C using less energy. As with a normal pot, it's best to reduce the heat once steam is escaping, the cooker maintains temperature while steam is being produced. And if you combine a pressure cooker with a haybox, you have an even cheaper method. Just make a box that fits the pressure cooker. I've rarely had stuff stick to the base of a pan. Custard used to need constant stirring, but I buy tinned now. The thicker the liquid in the pan, the more likely it is to stick. If it's runny, it's usually fine.

That election was stolen.

Si Senor, derdego, forte lorez inaro. Dement lorez, demistrux, Fullo vensan peegsan dux !

I blame the grass skirts and barbecues.

God save our gracious king.

It's probably more to do with the counting than actual numbers. You're sure to get fed up with it, after 300,000,000. Who can blame them for taking a guess, if you lose count at 100,000,000 ?

But you have to accept that human nature includes excess. Some people can take a little heroin or cocaine now and then, with no problems. Others are hooked on the very first try. It's just a rush for some, but misery and death for others. Just because some don't get hooked doesn't make it the victim's fault. They can't fight what others have no problem with. Gambling is just like that. It's heroin and cocaine form some, and a harmless flutter for others. I would say ban it, if that was practical, but that would be an absolute gift for organised crime. So controlling it is my reluctant position. Maybe they do. But a lottery ticket is often a one-off. It's hard to go again and again and again. Whereas casino games get repeated over and over and over in a short time. If they odds are better to start with, by the time you have repeated the process over and over, you're certainty of losing grows. ( I'm guessing there, I'm not a mathematician) But anyway, state lotteries are nowhere near as addictive, most people can just have a little flutter now and then without getting hooked on it. Most people buy a lottery ticket and expect to lose. Gamblers who go to a casino think they can win. And that's the addiction hook.

By the same logic, disease prevention and modern medicine and reduction of infant mortality are also population control, only upwards instead of downwards. In reality, you can influence the birthrate without also killing people. It IS possible to do one and not the other, even if that comes as a surprise to you. And it's likewise possible to have a falling population, and still prevent disease and provide medicine. I know it's complicated, but take my word for it, if it's confusing.

No, but it's the same god. Problem with Israel is that there are two gods who want it. Shame they can't fight it out between themselves without involving humans.

Of course they have. That's where big words come from.

Stop subsidising peoples children would be a start. If you have kids, you should be able to support them. And totally free education, especially sex education, and free contraceptive products, all of the kinds. You're not talking about a lot of money there, just enabling things to happen. Then cut the power of the religions. Put religions into the same tax brackets as any other enterprise, and you could pay for it all and still be in huge profit. The thing is though, that governments LIKE a bigger population. They view any shrinkage as a problem. It reduces their power, and their income to have a drop in population. It makes growth look worse, and gives ammunition to the opposition. So governments of countries with negative population growth start campaigns for people to have more babies, and subsidise them in taxes, and make immigration easier. (while saying that they are doing the opposite) So it's all pretty inevitable that population WILL continue to explode. Unless they put me in power. That's where the world is going wrong. And of course, a world with 11 billion population WILL produce more CO2. You can't daydream that away. You're adding two Chinas to the world population. Energy price will win out. Look at what China is using, and add that twice over.

Companies are there to earn a living. When you risk your money, you do your best to make a profit and not go bust. (except people like Donald Trump) Bleeding heart liberals aren't going to bail them out, if they go bust looking after other concerns. It's not easy running a business. If it was, we'd all be billionaires. It's politicians who have the means and the duty to improve the world, not businesses. And it's the man in the street that has the power to influence the politicians with their voting intentions.

The thing is, companies are there to make money. Pharma is there to make money from Pharmaceuticals. For all commerce, their first responsibility is to the shareholders or owners. There's nothing wrong with that, it works. Improving the world is the job of voters. The politicians will only do what gets them votes, in general. Or what they calculate will win votes. It's up to the public to shape the world, by using the media, and influencing the politicians. The shape of the world is the work of the man in the street, at the end of the day. Both through what they do, and what they don't do.

A bit generous, surely ?

When you get a population explosion of other animals, mice, rats, elk, lemmings, or even wood boring beetles, we are quick to accept that the population is excessive and it's causing ecological problems. But none of these natural increases is anything like our own explosion. Maybe chickens are a match. I don't know why people are so resistant to recognising that it's a problem. When you look at where people are building, in India, it's a bit of a glimpse of the future. By the way, I don't believe for a minute that the population is going to top out and level off. Not without action. It has in wealthy countries, but I don't believe the world is going to level up in wealth within the next century. In any case, a lot of the wealth of the West is not transferrable. It's mostly in inflated property values, and infrastructure and institutions. You can't move a Surrey mansion to Afghanistan, even if you wanted to. And political stability has historically been one of the hardest things to transfer.

How come?

What follows is that fewer humans = less extinctions. You can argue if you like about how we behave, but human nature isn't going to change, whereas the numbers HAVE changed, and can be addressed. We certainly ARE too many for the planet, given the current and past behaviour, that's the point. You can daydream about behaviour changing, I'd rather tackle the numbers problem. That actually has a chance of working.

Well, since there's no fixed objective threshold for overpopulation, I can only answer for myself, which I did. When we are causing mass extinctions, I think we are too many.