/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11262335
Are you saying that adding sources of energy will decrease the total energy?

>>11262335
Jevons Paradox

>>11262335
We already lower our standard of living in many ways for the sake of health and the environment.

GDP is a poor measure of economic quality
it counts wasting money designing something stupid, building it, ggetting into a fight with the planning authority and then demolishing it as positive to GDP.
europeans americans were naturally adapting their population size to live within their resource constraints before the globalist addicted to the expansion model started importing every violent retard they could get their hands on to lower wages.

>>11262367
*europeans, americans and asians

>>11262335
>Implying GDP accurately measures standards of living for all

>>11262367
Don't forget credit expansion

>>11262335
>oil consumption is widespread
>therefore economic growth is largely enabled by increased oil consumption
>somehow that means it's impossible to substitute that oil for something else.
I am not even saying your conclusion is wrong, but definitely your reasoning.
>>11262367
tru dat
>>11262353
not quite

>>11262367
>europeans americans were naturally adapting their population size to live within their resource constraints before the globalist addicted to the expansion model started importing every violent retard they could get their hands on to lower wages.

That's all false.

>>11262335
Both are not linked. Ever heard of energy efficiency? Also global warming is linked to CO2 emissions, not energy. Less pollution, clean air and efficient technology means higher standards of living.

>>11263760
Might have something to do with the fact all of our factories are now in Chine you know.

>>11262335
Yes

>>11262335
We won't lower our standards of living, but our standards of living will be lowered.

>>11262367
>globalist addicted to the expansion model
specifically these are the construction and finance corporations, who have historically held the power since the start of the industrial revolution

think about it:
expansion = development of pristine land

they need to be exposed

>>11262367
>expansion model
and if it weren't for that I wouldn't have to worry about extinction of orangutans every time i eat a goddamn granola bar with palm oil in it

I don't there's any way someone who advocates for economic/population growth at this point can be anything other than a full blown psychopath.

>>11262367
>expansion model
and if it weren't for that I wouldn't have to worry about extinction of orangutans every time i eat a goddamn granola bar with palm oil in it

At this point, I don't think there's any way someone who advocates for economic/population growth can be anything other than a full blown psychopath.

>>11262335
>So if GDP's growth and energy are linked, the only way to really fight global warming isn't nuclear or renewables, it's basically to lower our standards of living right?

No. Well, you could do that, but nobody wants to and nobody will, so it’s basically a no. Just use energy sources that don’t cause global warming.

How fucked are we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WclYu5l4G0

>>11265941
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPjrFjAxwlw

>>11265707
>and if it weren't for that I wouldn't have to worry about extinction of orangutans every time i eat a goddamn granola bar with palm oil in it

Why do you care about animals going extinct?
Nature sucks ass

>>11262335
why wouldn't a method of producing energy that doesn't produce much pollution, like nuclear, be the answer to that?

>>11266044
You suck ass. Should I advocate for your death?

>>11262367
>>11265707
we need more people, he more people we have the higher the chance someone will come up with a idea to fix this mess

>>11262335
GDP and horse shit were correlated until automobiles were around. Technological innovation and societal changes can break trends.

>>11263782
the main reason is replacing expensive coal with cheap gas and wind

>>11262335
>So if GDP's growth and energy are linked, the only way to really fight global warming isn't nuclear or renewables, it's basically to lower our standards of living right?

There is green energy and dirty energy. High energy use is not a problem if that energy comes from clean, renewable sources. So no, building nuclear or renewables is a good way to fight global warming.

However the cheapest and easiest way is to also lower our standards of living, yes. However people have demonstrated that they are not willing to do that. Consumption just increases every year relentlessly, despite climate being talked more and more about. So it is not a solution that will be possible in practice, IMO. It goes against human nature.

>>11263782
Emissions per capita has decreased in the west even when including foreign production of goods we consume. Pic related

>>11266180
here, have 3 billion more africans, when do we get fusion power?

Most true posts here don't get any replies.
Only posts that are controversially retarded do.
When browsing a thread you should realize that you don't really reply to posts that you agree with. You only reply to posts you disagree with. We're all here to get mad.

>>11266434
Wow it fell by 5% in the last decade at best.
At this rate we'll have emissions down in no time.
How many decades are you willing to sacrifice?
All of them.

Yang wants to replace GDP with better metrics. I know nothing about economics but hoarding and/or spending money doesn't sound like a good metric of prosperity.

Prosperity is measured in blood. Yours or your enemies.

>>11262335
We've changed the status quo before

>>11266180
Or we have more sociopaths sabotaging competent altruists in order to rise to power.

>>11266180
ya... we 12 billion more "scientists" to think of solutions to world's problems. that's right. good thinking doooood

>>11266180
ya... we need 12 billion more "scientists" to think of solutions to world's problems. that's right. good thinking doooood

If you had 10bn people you of average iq 100
what would the average IQ be if you killed off the dumbest 9bn?

>>11268132
depends on the standard deviation

>>11268321
describe it in sd then?

>>11268344
no u idiot. you need the distribution to get the number you're looking for.
for fuck sakes im surround by fucking retards.
you should thank me for enduring your puny brain

>>11266160
>You suck ass.

No u.

>>11268132
pretty big

>>11262335
>it's basically to lower our standards of living right?
Thats right peasant

>>11266434
So basically it decreased because of the economic crisis of 2008...which is linked with the peak of conventional oil. Thanks for proving my point.

>>11263760
>global warming is linked to CO2 emissions, not energy

Quoted for truth. Replace fossil fuel energy sources with carbon neutral ones, and climate change is solved without compromising standards of living.

With nuclear available for decades, this is a political not a technical problem.

>>11268661
Right... that's what France did. Would you say France doesn't produce CO2? Meat consumption, airplanes, transportation all produce a lot of CO2 and nuclear just won't magically make all that disappear.

>>11268664
obviously the number isn't zero
but with nuclear electricity production and replacing fossil fuels with electricity in such uses like automotives carbon emission can certainly be brought down to manageable level

>>11268671
>and replacing fossil fuels with electricity in such uses like automotives carbon emission can certainly be brought down to manageable level
Then nuclear production need to increase dramatically. Since nuclear is expensive as fuck, I don't see that happening.

>>11268936

LFTR.

>>11268936
what the fuck are you talking about, nuclear is literally the cheapest source of electricity after hydro