www.theguardian.com
11 000 morons will say some, here on the forum.11,000 "alarmists"?
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’
Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency
Pronto? You're going to start panicking 280 years in advance? Have you verified this with other sources?As the USA starts the process of pulling out of the Paris Agreement:
'Existing Paris climate pledges commit sea level rise to ‘one metre by 2300’:
Existing Paris climate pledges commit sea level rise to ‘one metre by 2300’
Global greenhouse gas emissions up to 2030 could be enough to raise sea levels by more than one metre by 2300, a new study suggests.www.carbonbrief.org
So yeah, sell that water front property pronto.
Population reduction, aka eugenics is not a new idea, this modern Stonehenge was erected in 1980.That is a really good question Jason!
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gBKaBzR8U0
Regarding ethics in general: Since I would normally find the back of an envelope and a pen and start doing calculations, if something puzzled me, I was a strong advocate for utilitarianism for some time, but there's not a whole lot of room for the individual. Strictly speaking, from a utilitarian standpoint, we should just kill 6 billion people. Then the remaining survivors would be much better of. I'm pretty sure that thought is as horrible sounding to you as it is to me. The thing about utilitarianism is that it's all or nothing. You cannot believe in some sort of ethical theory, and then say it doesn't work in all cases. Then it's better to dismiss utilitarianism completely and come up with something better, and since I'm not a believer, I cannot just look it up in a book. That leaves me with good old gut feeling and common sense, which both have limitations.
Eugenics is not population reduction. It's is a misunderstood version of Darwin, where some people believe that it would be a good idea to control the genome of the human species, modifying it, thereby creating "better" humans. Aka "racial hygiene". Before humans became able to modify DNA that was mostly practiced by killing humans that didn't fit the "plan", and let the rest breed as much as possible. Most people (including me) find that idea disgusting.
I did, and I provided links to the currently accepted scientific "consensus" typically found on wikipedia.
And photosynthesis still works in much the same way, increased CO2 reduces the water requirement.
And you've done nothing here but prove my point on the competitive reluctance to research and develop alternative energy harnessing technologies. (Q) academia was still claiming heavier than air vehicles would never fly several years after the Wright brothers had proven them catastrophically wrong, again.Perpetual motion is not possible. That is due to the laws of Thermodynamics:
Perpetual Motion Machines: Working Against Physical Laws
For centuries, people have been trying to invent perpetual motion machines. The laws of physics, though, are working against them.www.livescience.com
For once, actually click and read the link: USPTO FAQ: Quote: "What can and cannot be patented?"
Then why do you insist on watching "NEWS" from only one side of the argument. Try a balanced diet.Eugenics is not population reduction. It's is a misunderstood version of Darwin, where some people believe that it would be a good idea to control the genome of the human species, modifying it, thereby creating "better" humans. Aka "racial hygiene". Before humans became able to modify DNA that was mostly practiced by killing humans that didn't fit the "plan", and let the rest breed as much as possible. Most people (including me) find that idea disgusting.
I do not have a TV
Did you read my link about why perpetual motion is impossible? The Law of Conservation of Energy states:
It's sad, but it can't be done. It's not like getting something to fly. It's like getting something to fly faster than the speed of light. You probably can't patent that either.It claims much the same as the wikipedia link I posted, that over unity is impossible with current thinking. To examine the lesser known or publicised advances in thinking it's worth hunting for those that have not been accepted as dogmatic gospel, yet, and aren't pushed on the emotional victims of click bait outrage.Did you read my link about why perpetual motion is impossible? The Law of Conservation of Energy states:
"The total energy of an isolated system remains constant"
Said in another way:
Energy cannot emerge from nothing.
That is the reason why the patent system doesn't want to spend time reading about it, but you can be absolutely 100.0% sure that if you could actually demonstrate perpetual motion that worked, they would become quite ecstatic, an they would definitely love to see it. I would!
Edit: Even though I'm not an american I still read american news sites, and I try to read both sides, from MSNBC to Fox News. That is part of trying to figure out which sources are reliable. I also read Guardian and The Daily Whale, RT, Al Jazeera, Forbes, WSJ and Times of India just to name a few.
Which ones do you read?
Look, I would jump around screaming yee-haw right now, if someone had invented perpetual motion / "over unity". Nobody has been able to demonstrate such a thingy, because thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible. Anyone can make a Youtube video showing some sort of fraud that seems to work, but they have only proven their "concept" once it has been scrutinized by others, and that does not happen. Furthermore they would have to explain how it works, which they don't because that would contradict physics. It's a fraud, and in most cases it's an attempt to make people buy something that does not work, or raise money through crowd funding.
Ok, since you appear to prefer looking backwards, instead of forwards, consider the wheel, the bow and arrow, agriculture, architecture, mining, medicine, the heliocentric model of the Solar system, steam, electricity, ballistics, incandescent light globes, the internal combustion engine, plate tectonics, etc...Look, I would jump around screaming yee-haw right now, if someone had invented perpetual motion / "over unity". Nobody has been able to demonstrate such a thingy, because thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible. Anyone can make a Youtube video showing some sort of fraud that seems to work, but they have only proven their "concept" once it has been scrutinized by others, and that does not happen. Furthermore they would have to explain how it works, which they don't because that would contradict physics. It's a fraud, and in most cases it's an attempt to make people buy something that does not work, or raise money through crowd funding.
Perpetual motion
A perpetual motion or over-unity device is a device that, barring mechanical breakdown, is capable of running for an arbitrarily long period of time with no outside intervention or energy input. Such a device has never been built since the concept violates the laws of thermodynamics...rationalwiki.org
There is a flow of energy going through the system we call Earth. The energy comes from the Sun and leaves in the form of heat. Tapping into that energy flow is possible, and it does not contradict physics. It is physics that has taught us what energy is and it's physics that has taught us how to extract energy from the Sun.
You're not casting a particularly effective spell there sunshine. Theories are great, until they're obsoleted.
Ok, lets take a relatively simple idea, reportedly invented circa 200 BC, the Aeolipile or earliest known example of a steam engine. As you can see, if you read the links, it didn't gain much traction as a useful technology until roughly two thousand years later during the industrial revolution and its still in use today.
Say what now? Was that in English or are you just so emotionally distraught you can't type straight?
The speed at which you're responding indicates you're not reading the links. It suggests a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't like, and are probably getting angry about, making you even easier to manipulate. How would you know if it is or isn't relevant to your behaviour if you don't go and read it?
