Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Here be giants.

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 - RAFH

1
Don't get me wrong. We SHOULD examine those things separately. They are important. But to include them in a food production discussion is beyond stupid.

No, we should examine them TOGETHER.  You know, HOLISTICALLY.  Otherwise you are doing just what you condemn what you fondly imagine octohatter reductionist scientist do - focus on solving a little bit of a problem at the expensive of the WHOLE.

If you design a system in which everyone can produce enough calories to live on, but at a cost of having everybody dotted around on 10 acre lots, you are simply creating a new sustainability problem to replace the one you think you've solved.

Look, Dave, I appreciate, and even admire your commitment and enthusiasm to trying to "save the world" by developing ways of living more sustainably.  But the road to unsustainability is paved with solutions to one part of the problem that create problems elsewhere.

Don't take that road.
I'm not taking any wrong roads.  You know damn well that I'm working on other parts of sustainable living, not just food production, but for some reason you are all of a sudden acting like I'm not interested in that.  I am, but I'm not going to group them together.  For the same reason that you (rightly) didn't want to group human and fossil energy together.

What's happening here is what often happens when you see that you are about to lose an argument.  Rather than admit "OK I was wrong" ... you dispense squid ink, hoping that no one will notice that you were wrong.  What were you wrong about?  Most recently ... trying to say that the fact that cereal grains were staples means that their EROI was low. (i.e. lower than say animal foods)

In this case, your squid ink is especially transparent because you are doing EXACTLY what you told ME not to do wrt conflating human and fossil fuel energy. 
You're missing the point, Bluffy, as is your normal operation procedure. Separating and accounting for individual categories does not inhibit or prevent one from keeping track of all of them as a whole. Ya know, like on a spreadsheet, you can have subtotals and totals and grand totals and even great-grandtotals.
Already way ahead of you bro. I have that spreadsheet in my head but there's no point in publishing it to this crowd. And also it will change.  The way I'm building this thing is similar to the way you imagine that life evolved.
No it's not.

BTW, mental spreadsheets are pretty much meaningless. Though this is consistent with the rest of your documentation and a big part of why you suck at science.
2

I'll do it when *I* get damn good and ready.  Don't rush me.  And don't pull that squid ink shit on me again.  I'll see right through it every time.

I'm not rushing, you Dave.  In fact, I'm doing the opposite.

And nothing I have written is squid ink - unless of the "transparent" kind that you can "see through".  In which case, it's not squid ink, is it?

Yes, I've been completely transparent - shown you all my working.
Transparent Squid Ink is an interesting concept. Just another of the delights Bluffy comes up with on a regular basis.
3
2)  I hope you are not trying to imply that the idea of not spending much time on food production being the thing that enables us to create us to create blessings of civilization is new for me.  It's an old idea for me and it is one of the motivators for me to do what I'm doing.  For years I have thought it to be very odd that on the one hand we say we are civilized, but on the other hand we have husbands and wives both working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment.  Something is wrong with that picture.
Something is wrong with that picture. Bluffy, have you data supporting your claim that "we have husbands and wives both working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment." That this is a prevalent circumstance? Because I don't know any couples with children wherein both adults are working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment. I know of couples that both work, I'm in one of them. And though the Girl's job is somewhat high stress, primarily because of despotic management, it's a 40 hour a week job. Mine is also and virtually zero stress and my income is going primarily towards buying a sailboat. My daughter and her husband both work, but they don't do much more than 40 hour weeks, ever. Another couple I know, friends of my daughter, both work, but the woman does not work full time and her job teaching teachers how to teach is not the least bit stressful while her husband works a relatively low stress 40 hour per week job,. None of these people are in financial distress nor just barely providing the basics. We all live in our own homes, all of which are pretty nice.

So where's your data?

There probably are people doing that, but most of them will be doing two or more minimum wage jobs (service industry ones for example), where most of the stress comes from the fact that you have to work 60 hours a week, for minimum wage (or below), with poor management, and that barely covers your bills. The actual stress from the job usually comes from poor staffing patterns (I'm not even supposed to be here today!), shit going wrong (oh look, the tills are broken yet again), or busy periods like Xmas sales, etc), unrealistic sales demands and the way management handle that, and co-workers/management failing at doing their jobs.
Oh, I have no doubt there are some people living Bluffy's nightmare, what I reject is his implication this is the norm.
4
How about Sustainable Transportation, Dave?
Bluffy's not going anywhere and he's not setting any speed records so transportation is of no concern.
5
Don't get me wrong. We SHOULD examine those things separately. They are important. But to include them in a food production discussion is beyond stupid.

No, we should examine them TOGETHER.  You know, HOLISTICALLY.  Otherwise you are doing just what you condemn what you fondly imagine octohatter reductionist scientist do - focus on solving a little bit of a problem at the expensive of the WHOLE.

If you design a system in which everyone can produce enough calories to live on, but at a cost of having everybody dotted around on 10 acre lots, you are simply creating a new sustainability problem to replace the one you think you've solved.

Look, Dave, I appreciate, and even admire your commitment and enthusiasm to trying to "save the world" by developing ways of living more sustainably.  But the road to unsustainability is paved with solutions to one part of the problem that create problems elsewhere.

Don't take that road.
I'm not taking any wrong roads.  You know damn well that I'm working on other parts of sustainable living, not just food production, but for some reason you are all of a sudden acting like I'm not interested in that.  I am, but I'm not going to group them together.  For the same reason that you (rightly) didn't want to group human and fossil energy together.

What's happening here is what often happens when you see that you are about to lose an argument.  Rather than admit "OK I was wrong" ... you dispense squid ink, hoping that no one will notice that you were wrong.  What were you wrong about?  Most recently ... trying to say that the fact that cereal grains were staples means that their EROI was low. (i.e. lower than say animal foods)

In this case, your squid ink is especially transparent because you are doing EXACTLY what you told ME not to do wrt conflating human and fossil fuel energy. 
You're missing the point, Bluffy, as is your normal operation procedure. Separating and accounting for individual categories does not inhibit or prevent one from keeping track of all of them as a whole. Ya know, like on a spreadsheet, you can have subtotals and totals and grand totals and even great-grandtotals.
6
Going back to Pingu's "separate accounting" mandate ... in my mind the whole thing categorizes as follows ...

SUSTAINABLE LIVING
-Sustainable Housing
-Sustainable Food Production
--EROI (human)
--EROI (fossil fuel)
--EROI (renewable)
---EROI (solar)
---EROI (wind)
---EROI (hydro)
-Sustainable Energy Production
Ya left out animals other than human.
And you didn't break down Sustainable Energy Production.
A low impact mini hydro system is generally very sustainable and just a flow of 1 can produce 80 watts gross and probable 50w net. That's 1 ft3 dropping 1' /sec.  Get 10' of head and you have 0.5KW which would provide 12KWh per day, continuously. That water can also be used for irrigation and domestic purposes. And for very little investment in either construction or maintenance, that energy is basically free. Given that, what difference does it make how much of that energy you use for any given purpose? Maybe your'e running a hydroponics operation and this energy source provides night-time light and operates the pumps and so on. During the day, solar PV and natural light drives the system. The hydroponics produces vegetables, fruit, crayfish and fish. 

7
2)  I hope you are not trying to imply that the idea of not spending much time on food production being the thing that enables us to create us to create blessings of civilization is new for me.  It's an old idea for me and it is one of the motivators for me to do what I'm doing.  For years I have thought it to be very odd that on the one hand we say we are civilized, but on the other hand we have husbands and wives both working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment.  Something is wrong with that picture.
Something is wrong with that picture. Bluffy, have you data supporting your claim that "we have husbands and wives both working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment." That this is a prevalent circumstance? Because I don't know any couples with children wherein both adults are working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment. I know of couples that both work, I'm in one of them. And though the Girl's job is somewhat high stress, primarily because of despotic management, it's a 40 hour a week job. Mine is also and virtually zero stress and my income is going primarily towards buying a sailboat. My daughter and her husband both work, but they don't do much more than 40 hour weeks, ever. Another couple I know, friends of my daughter, both work, but the woman does not work full time and her job teaching teachers how to teach is not the least bit stressful while her husband works a relatively low stress 40 hour per week job,. None of these people are in financial distress nor just barely providing the basics. We all live in our own homes, all of which are pretty nice.

So where's your data?
8
Dude, you can't even put together an articulate post.
You can't even discuss C14 with Pingu and Mike without a humiliating badger.
The Yellow Badger of Humiliation.
9
In the famous words of Robert E. Lee, "Let them eat cotton".
Where do you think the term "cotton-mouth" came from?
10
Quote
BREAD and BARLEY were the staple foods in ancient mesopotamia.  That means that BARLEY must have been CHEAP.  So those costs must have been low.  And the slavery thing doesn't explain it because even if you don't pay your slaves, you still have to feed them, or they won't be able to work.
By "staple" I assume you mean "widely available."

Cotton was widely available all over the American South in the mid 19th century.

Does this mean it was "cheap"?

I think the slaves would say "No."

Add another very common word to the list of things Bluffy doesn't understand.
And obviously doesn't feel the need to bother looking it up.

And then
::whoosh::

11
It really is Dave's fundamental (heh) error.

It's why he can't see the problem with YEC. For him, the MODEL works.  And so any DATA that he comes across must either support it (with a bit of a squeeze) or be fabricated by scientists, either because of their (:ironicat:) confirmation bias or because they are paid by The System.

I think he really thinks this.   He doesn't much enjoy ignoring data, so he feels uncomfortable when presented with data that seem to refute his model, but it doesn't actually shake his faith in his model because his model works as a model. It does what he wants it to do.  It tells a story he likes. 
Like the c14 thread where your straightforward process confused him because it suggested things he knew couldn't be true, and when I offered to explain your point in simple enough terms for his high speed mind and started, he bailed from the topic completely rather than helping me find the flaw in it? It's almost like he sees disagreement with his linear narrative as a flaw and gets frustrated that others don't just accept his narrative which is so obviously true and supported by the irrefutable evidence that he believes it.

Quote
You can even see it in his exasperation with our complaints about Savory and HMG.  He's EXPLAINED HMG.  In great DETAIL.  Does he have to explain it AGAIN?  Geez, Team Darwin can't READ.  And look, here's a link to paper by Savory EXPLAINING why methane production shouldn't be a problem with HMG. 

But the paper, of course, contains no DATA.
It must be difficult to be a frustrated genius.
Even more so to be a frustrated MINDKP.
12
Uh ... no.  I don't even own a gun.  Not even a BB gun.
neither did the unibomber. :hmm:
I am against ALL forms of violence. Guns, bombs, knives.  Etc.
How about being a dick?
13
Quote
"Dave, you are really flailing now.

Yes, one of the benefits of foods like grain is that they can be stored.  This is ONLY possible if they are produced IN EXCESS.

And they can only be produced IN EXCESS if the human "EROI" is high."

Depends on what you mean by "high" ...

If you mean "1.5 is high compared to 0.8 or 1.0" then ok ... ya

And you are correct that no storage would be possible with a number lower than 1.0.   and with losses and so forth, probably 1.5 or two 2.0 might be the minimum required for storing excess.

But as I have shown you with my rough calculations of Joe Hopping's operation, animal husbandry can be astronomically higher than this. So when I talk about "high" this is what I'm talking about.   EROI numbers of 10 or 100 or 1000 or more.

Not even in the same universe as annual tillage of grains.
Where's the data?
14
How much of a surplus do they produce that can be easily stored, moved and passed on to people who aren't doing hunting and gathering Dave? You might have to do more work than a hunter-gatherer to get your crop, vs collecting whatever staples the few remaining modern hunter-gatherer societies do. But when you do so you have a lot more food at the end of it.

So while you do more work, you get a much bigger reward out of it. So it becomes worth it. If you had a choice between working 15 hours a week and having your rent, bills, and food paid for, but nothing more, so your bank balance always reads zero, or working 30 hours a week and having your bank balance in credit for a reasonable amount, so you can actually afford to buy new clothes, repair your car, buy gifts for your friends, lend them money if they need help, etc, which would you do?
NOW we are getting somewhere.  I contend that the STORABILITY and MOVABILITY of grains are the key attributes that people (especially tyrants) like because now you can store up plenty of food for a whole year in giant storage containers and send it with the army to subjugate people and lock it behind gates so people have to buy it and so on.  (And who cares if your people / army get dental / systemic CNDCs ... the important thing is that the tyrants maintain CONTROL)
I'm sensing a manifesto coming on.
15
Hunting / gathering wasn't even the FIRST food system of mankind as is commonly supposed. Animal husbandry and tillage predated it.  Hunting / gathering seems to be what displaced people resort to after they have been conquered / dispersed. For example, the Wai Wai people ... believed to be descendants of the Inca Empire.
WTF??!!???
16
Perhaps Dave is saying that the PERENNIAL crops contributed to the growth of Mesopotamian cities, but not the ANNUAL crops.

In which case, again, I have to ask: why was BREAD (made with annual grains, mainly barley and wheat) a STAPLE food?
No I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that ...

The argument "cities sprang up because of tillage agriculture which is less work than hunting / gathering" is wrong ... because tillage agriculture is NOT less work than hunting / gathering. It's MORE work.

My hypothesis for the rise of cities is ... The Desire for ...

CONTROL

Of the masses.

You're mixing up cause and effect.
and displaying serious paranoia.
17
"Cainian" agriculture took hold very early.

As did murder.

And other vices.
Have you any non-mythological source for any of this?

BTW, what the fuck does murder have to do with agriculture?
18
If you practiced "attention to detail" you would quote me accurately ... I wrote ...
Quote
Building those "great" cities had nothing to do with "Cainian (tillage) agriculture" at least not because it's "less work."
See that last bolded part?
I do see it. I don't see much, if any, difference between it and what Pingu posted about what you said. Perhaps you could explain what detail, attention to which, makes it different in any significant manner.
19
Because it's not less work.  It's more work.
More than what?

Remember, they didn't have big diesel gobbling farm machines back then, just oxen to pull their plows. They were even less mechanically inclined than you. And they didn't have to wander about looking for the grains, the grains were right there. And it's fairly likely they got more, bigger and better quality grains than they would have with just gathering wild grains.

So less work, far less work.
20
Perhaps it was meant as a metaphor  :hehe: 

Bluffy isn't very good with metaphors.
21
Heh

Quote from: Hebrews 5:13
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
Pretty well describes Bluffy to a T.
22
What are ya gonna do, tell God what to do?

Yes, this is the core issue: control.

Can we exert our own cognitive control over the motivational control of a supernatural being?


The scriptures say yes but theists are ignoring their moral sense for their tribalism.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Regards
DL

Why would you accept the word of a god you don't revere?
23
Sithrak is the answer.
q
Sithrak is the answer.
Absolutely!

If you can't love the god you hate,
try loving the god that hates you.

Well maybe it just doesn't give a shit about you,
but you'll still go to hell.
24
It's amazing how important meat lockers are for selling locker beef.
And to me it's even more amazing how lockers are not needed at all with a rabbit meat production system  due to the small body size of a rabbit.
You're kind of missing the point here, Hawkins.
That's something of an understatement.
So is that.
25
Yes it's true that Walter posted some more efficient figures a couple weeks ago.  I already addressed this, but I keep forgetting what type of knives we have in the drawer, so I'll say it again.  Possibly he is focusing more on higher calorie foods like potatoes. Also he has probably gotten more efficient with time.  So let's say he can produce 2000 food calories per hour of labor now or even 3000,  instead of the 1200 per hour or so that he reported in 2009. That is still significantly less than what I can do with my animal food system. 
Prove it, present the data! 

Oh, wait, you don't have any records, do you?