Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I totally forgot about this forum.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BenTheBiased

Diet wasn't the only factor in the health of hunter-gatherers. They also got a ton of exercise from all that hunting and gathering, which is something your system mostly eliminates.

Although, since you mostly shun modern medicine, your system would also mostly eliminate the reasons most people live longer lives now than hunter-gatherers did, so there's that.
It's worrying that industries with a vested interest in a certain scientific finding being wrong are investing so much money in pseudoscience and propaganda in an effort to influence politics and public opinion into supporting unscientific positions that are beneficial for them but potentially catastrophic for the future of humanity. It's more worrying that they're having so much success in these efforts.

That said, the climate science stuff should also be split off from this thread.
Maybe I should stop raping babies. But hold do I know somebody else won't rape babies? I'd better keep raping babies!
King has the lowest receipt-per-dollar-contributed, Ferry has the highest. 

Actually, San Juan has the lowest. I wonder what their "Assistance/$1000 per capita" is?

Hmm, looks like it's 1.62. Even lower than Ferry's. And according to the map I posted, they only get back a paltry $0.46 for every dollar they put into the system! Man, they must be getting fucked over even worse than Ferry, huh?

Or so it would seem, until you realize that this...

ETA:  Health & Social Assistance/$1000 Revenue*

*This is the dollars of assistance related to Health Care and Social Assistance received by that county, for every thousand dollars of revenue that the services in question generate in total. bullshit. It's not a measure of "assistance." "Heath Care and Social Assistance" is the name of the industry they're measuring. The number given is the amount of revenue that industry generated in that county. The ($1,000) indicates that the given value is expressed in thousands of dollars.

Comparing the EROI of one person making enough food for himself and his family with a huge farm making food for hundreds of people is, as usual, ignoring the difference in scale. A lower EROI might still be more efficient if it frees lots of other people up from having to spend any energy on food at all. What's the EROI on what they are doing? Is it making up for the lower EROI of the farm?
I don't think there is any great virtue in feeding hundreds of other people.
Hmm, interesting, so you don't think there's any great virtue in, for example, something like this...

18 "Bring them here to me," he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.
Also, why is anyone supposed to be impressed by someone keeping some goats and drinking their milk? People have been doing that for thousands of years.
Okay, I'll tell Batman to let him go.
We could certainly do worse.
If only O'Malley were half as charismatic as his fictional counterpart.
President Tommy Carcetti will happen yet! You'll all see!
Good luck convincing the Mediterranean that tomatoes aren't essential. (Wasn't Dave singing the praises of Sardinian cuisine at one point?)
I suppose it's just a practical limitation, not a theoretical one. At first I was thinking that you probably couldn't even harvest as much solar energy on an acre as what it takes to produce a crop. But I think I'm wrong about that.
And of course we haven't hit the limit to the efficiency of solar panels or other renewable energy sources yet. And, like I said, if we can put solar panels in space, there's practically no limit to the amount of space they can take up. It's not something we can do yet, but it's also not something that's theoretically impossible. I don't see any reason to think we won't get there sooner or later.
Where is Michael Pollan's statement regarding that math? I'm thinking it's got some important context you are missing simply because he's not an idiot.

A lot of farmers estimate around 40 litres of diesel per acre per annum for row crops.  40 litres is about 350,000 kCal.  So divide your calorie yield per acre by 350,000 for a ballpark.

Corn is about 12-15 million calories per acre, so the multiplier for corn would be about 35-40[1].
Potatoes would be higher, wheat would be lower.

Right now, solar isn't particularly efficient for generating energy for storage (it's better fed into the grid), and I don't honestly think electric farm machines are the future. Batteries are pretty clunky ways of storing fuel.  I think the breakthrough with be catalysts that allow solar (or wind) to efficiently convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then, possibly, via biocatalysts, into something like isopropanol  i.e. liquid fuel.

Well, it depends on how efficient we can make the batteries. What we have now isn't necessarily what we'll always have. But yeah, some form of hydrogen fuel seems like almost an inevitability as the fuel of the future to me. It just makes sense.
ETA: but lower if you consider other energy inputs, but same applies to animal food calcs, and the really important thing is GHG emissions, so animal emissions need to go into the calcs as well
It's not just practical barriers. It's theoretical barriers.

Such as?
Well 1 acre of corn production is about 150 bushels X 85,000 kcal per bushel ... do the conversion --> 13,900 kWh X 10 (Michael Pollan) = 139,000 kWh to produce the crop

1 Gwh requires at least 3 acres of solar panels so 139,000 kWh requires about 0.4 acres.

So you need about 0.4 acres of solar panels to collect enough solar energy to produce 1 acre of crop.

Um, here's something I think is a practical barrier.

Yeah that's practical.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I think it was humber that said that it would lock up (though I could be misremembering after a few years). humber, IMO was a different person than Heinz, though the person currently posting as Heinz apparently (based on similar arguments and overall posting style) used several names (Harold Bricer, yevgheni, ProfPanGloss among them) on the old TalkRational forum and several others.
I'm almost positive yevgheni made that prediction, though humber might have too.

I used to type ProfPanGloss Pr0/0fPanGl=0ss, because at some point he used a thrust fromula with an airspeed term in the denominator at zero airspeed and thought that 0 / 0 = 0.

Humber, however, took the cake for ridiculous blunders. For any topic that came up he would claim to be an expert, and usually took only one or two posts to demonstrate that he didn't have a clue about the topic. And for physics, he produced some real howlers: Among them, that a lighter-than-air balloon drifting with the wind would go slower than windspeed, and that an object in a ballistic trajectory had an acceleration  (not velocity) of 0 at the top of its arc.
I remember both of those. Humber really did produce the best nonsense.
I'm just saying, when your options are "re-institute slavery" or "watch civilization crumble" (i.e., return to a 14th-Century way of life), I think maybe we can do better.
We can.  But not with renewable energy.  It's not just practical barriers. It's theoretical barriers.
Such as? Do you think there's some sort of theoretical limit to amount of renewable energy we can harvest that places it below our current energy needs? I'm not aware of any. The sun is an incredibly enormous power source. There's no reason it can't supply all the power we need as long as we have the technology to harness it.

But Walter Haugen has one possible approach that will work. I have another.
Yours is essentially reverting to the 14th century whether you admit it or not. The result of your principles applied to society would be the loss of most of the progress we've made since then.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Windgrins actually did do one with a prop that produced no thrust at one point. I posted it earlier in the thread...
Hey, Heinz, why didn't this cart work?
I'm just saying, when your options are "re-institute slavery" or "watch civilization crumble" (i.e., return to a 14th-Century way of life), I think maybe we can do better.