🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

William: Its not love

Death: What is it

William: Some aimless infatuation which for the moment you feel like indulging. Its missing everything that matters.

Death: Which is what?

William: Trust, responsibility, taking the weight for your choices and feelings and spending the rest of your life living up to them, and above all not hurting the object of your love.

Death: So that's what love is according to William Perish?

William: Multiply it by infinity and take it to the depth of forever and you will still have barely a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

Death: Those are my words

William: They are mine now

-- Meet Joe Black

#Quote #Quotes

@Empiricism_Reloaded

You sleep well, despite our differences I have enjoyed talking with you.

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

It is a communist/far-life sort of ideology... Id rather refrain from personal attacks against science, but I do agree it lacks a certain understanding of the finer points of economics at least.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

Sadly I know.. ER clearly has this notion, and its quite common, that economies, money, anything of a capitalistic nature is inherently going to produce evil things... Its obviously a very flawed and incorrect take, but one that is sadly common.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich @Empiricism_Reloaded

> The one that Freemo would prefer, because he’s a sociopath, is for all of us to suffer and maybe just die. If there are no humans, there’s no human impact. If we at impoverish ourselves, we’ll have less impact. This is the far left’s answer.

I do hope you realize im joking when I say that... i suppose half joking as there is a smidgen of truth to it... but no im not serious when i talk about liking the end of the human race.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Less fuel is more profitable than more fuel for the same food... so yes industry cares about profits first... which is exactly why your scenario of agriculture that uses less fuel means more profits. Unless its wasteful of other resources that arent fuel, then its less desirable.. which means less resource effiency but also less profit.

This clinging to the idea of money and profit meaning bad is a huge gaping flaw in your logic.. not to say that maximizing profit at the expense of all else is always good, its not... but more often than not it tends to be a good system.

@TruthSandwich

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Sounds **extremely** appealing for people seeking to make profit... fuel costs money, if you can make food with less than industry would jump at the chance. If it restores nature at the same time thats a huge selling point for most people, so would mean even more profits for the increased demand... sounds like a for-profit companies wet dream honestly, not something that would discourage them.

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

This is the only face I got :)

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

Why not engineer a way to get what you need out of the ecosystem without causing ecological damage... it sounds like an ecological engineering problem to me. Why so hung up on it being one or the other?

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

Awww, you clearly know how to sweet talk me :)

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

Also depends how far into the future we are talking.. but yes, if we knew how the future was going to look it would already be here :)

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

By that point we would have colonized and destroyed the rest of the solar system first :)

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@Empiricism_Reloaded

No not really. I mean yes, fossil fuels shouldnt be used everywhere, but thats not because of the CO2 problem. 0 net co2 fossil fuels generated from solar is not making the co2 problem any worse. The problem is, its just not as efficient as using the electricity directly when possible... which is why any actual future will have both in it, electricity used directly when its the best choice, and 0 co2 fossil fuels when that is the correct choice... as with most things in life absolutism is never the answer.

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

Effectively infinite atleast, yea.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

Yes hydrogen has containment issues longterm too, plenty of concerns around hydrogen.. but still, it has its uses.

As for metal-hydrides used to contain hydrogen, its very effective and not just a theory. The issue is that to create the metal hydrides 1) is probably not economical large scale for cars 2) is highly regulated due to its use in nuclear reactors, so just not allowed.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

Agreed, Im not proposing this as the universal best option. Its to make a point here that all goes back to one failure in logic that was claimed, that just because a resource is finite it isnt necceseraly bad, nor does it imply we will fun out of it. But as I stated there are many other reasons we might not want to use a finite resource that has little to do with if its finite or not.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@TruthSandwich

hydrogen is weight optimized but very volume inefficient. Gasoline is volume optimized but weight inefficient.. both types of fuels have their place for diffent types of engines, but generally gasoline is more useful for most things.

That said you can do some magic with metal hydrides to store hydrogen in a volume compact way, but thats another topic.

@Empiricism_Reloaded

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Jesus christ... the reversable fuel idea isnt mine, it is one very well funded and established in the scientific community. It also isnt contrary to wind and solar it compliments it... The energy usually comes from wind or solar (or nuclear or wherever) to reverse the fuel int he first place.. the process of creating the fuel consumes the same amount of CO2 as it produces when burned. So it is a type of wind/solar energy, it is still a fuel (and in many cases a fossil fuel) and it is carbon neutral.. this isnt some pipe dream I came up with, its reality and already done. Now im not saying its a better option than electric cars, but it is a viable and already accomplished thing.

@TruthSandwich

@Empiricism_Reloaded

Why would you need fairies when you can get it from solar panels and wind turbines? If you make fossil fuels or hydrogen fuel from wind and solar energy you are carbon neutral.

@TruthSandwich

@Empiricism_Reloaded no industry, for profit or otherwise, grows infinitely. MArkets have limits. The point is, more important, that even if your motivation is ecological you are still part of economy and profiting (as a company) and that profit is intentional, you just refuse to call it profit when it is.