(May 28, 2019 at 2:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 28, 2019 at 12:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Huh? Not sure what you mean by this.

Eventually the planet's core will die, and the sun will die, and all life on this planet will die too. But right now, at this point in our species history, we are doing damage to our own ability to have a stable planet for our species. And the damage humans are doing is us, and is beyond anything the planet cycles through on it's own.

I suppose the phrase 'from my perspective' was giving you a little trouble, so I'll try to explain.

From my point of view/outlook/stance/approach/attitude a world without humans is not distinguishable from a world with no life whatsoever.  I'll be dead and won't know the difference.  If all humans are dead, then I'll be dead right along with them.  I won't know if chimpanzees, jellyfish, or that annoying dog two houses down are still alive.  I'll be dead, so I won't know if cockroaches, bacteria, pine trees or coral reefs survive.

'From my perspective' means 'from my point of view'.  If I'm dead, I won't have a point of view.  Therefore, the survival of some species and the survival of no species would be no different.

I hope this helps.  If you need further explanation about what English words mean, feel free to let me know.

Boru

Ok and?  You'll be dead and? It still should matter to our species while we exist. I wouldn't be here if it were not for prior generations, and humans still desire to leave something for their offspring. 

In cosmic time we do not matter. But we should matter now while we exist.

(May 28, 2019 at 3:12 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 28, 2019 at 2:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I suppose the phrase 'from my perspective' was giving you a little trouble, so I'll try to explain.

From my point of view/outlook/stance/approach/attitude a world without humans is not distinguishable from a world with no life whatsoever.  I'll be dead and won't know the difference.  If all humans are dead, then I'll be dead right along with them.  I won't know if chimpanzees, jellyfish, or that annoying dog two houses down are still alive.  I'll be dead, so I won't know if cockroaches, bacteria, pine trees or coral reefs survive.

'From my perspective' means 'from my point of view'.  If I'm dead, I won't have a point of view.  Therefore, the survival of some species and the survival of no species would be no different.

I hope this helps.  If you need further explanation about what English words mean, feel free to let me know.

Boru

Ok and?  You'll be dead and? It still should matter to our species while we exist. I wouldn't be here if it were not for prior generations, and humans still desire to leave something for their offspring. 

In cosmic time we do not matter. But we should matter now while we exist.

You're not getting it.  Of course it matters to me while I exist.  But once I don't, I won't be able to tell a world without humans from a world without any life.  Think about it, it isn't that hard a concept to grasp.

Boru

(May 28, 2019 at 9:43 am)Jehanne Wrote: Is this why there are so few intelligent civilizations in our Galaxy?

Quote:The War Against Climate Science Is in Full Swing

When it comes to Roe v. Wade, it is clear that anti-abortion forces feel that now is their moment. If ever abortion is going to be outlawed, it's going to be with a Republican in the White House and a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Hence all the new abortion laws, which run so contrary to existing case law that the first of them (the one in Mississippi) has already been stayed by a federal judge.

Similarly, the time has come for climate-change deniers to make their last, best stand. Donald Trump is a willing partner in this, for a number of reasons. Among them: (1) it pleases the base, (2) he's always been skeptical about science and those pointy-headed scientists, and (3) Barack Obama felt climate change was a major threat, and Trump reflexively takes the opposite stance from his predecessor. Anyhow, the administration has already withdrawn from the Paris accord and rolled back a bunch of Obama-era regulations. Now, it is time for the next phase.

In the next few months, Team Trump will finish erasing any and all Obama-era rules designed to combat climate change, particularly the aggressive steps the 44th president took in the area of automobile efficiency. The State Department will also advise other countries that the U.S. is not to be challenged on this subject, and that any nation that does not play ball could be sanctioned. And finally, the rules for government scientists will be changed in a bunch of different ways. For example, instead of projecting the impact of climate change through the end of the century, they will only allowed to be project to 2040. Since the really scary stuff is expected to hit around 2050, this is an obvious effort to distort the narrative and to justify the administration's actions.

The administration is fighting an uphill battle here, however. When it comes to regulations, the big, blue states are going to step up and pick up much of the slack. For example, if California decrees that cars must get 35 MPG by 2040, the automakers will have to meet that standard, regardless of what the federal government says. As to sabre-rattling in the direction of meanies on other continents who insist on talking about climate change, that might work on Saudi Arabia, Israel, and a few other countries that are particularly beholden to the administration. However, the Emmanuel Macrons and Angela Merkels of the world will just laugh. And as to the scientists, it's likely that the exodus to the private sector and to the world of education will continue. And, of course, there is nothing that the administration can do to force scientists at MIT or Berkeley to cook the books.

In short, then, the administration may win the battle, but they are going to lose the war. It says something when David Gergen, who would never be mistaken for a left winger, writes that the failure to confront climate change is very possibly the biggest black mark against the Trump administration. And there will come a time when voters start punishing the GOP for their anti-climate change positions. We will see if 2020 is that year. (Z)

ElectoralVote -- May 28, 2019

RIP, Earth.

What? my Volkswagen Passatt gives an average of 62MPG now in 2019, they want >35MPG by 2040  I don't understand the problem

(May 29, 2019 at 5:35 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote:

(May 28, 2019 at 9:43 am)Jehanne Wrote: Is this why there are so few intelligent civilizations in our Galaxy?



ElectoralVote -- May 28, 2019

RIP, Earth.

What? my Volkswagen Passatt gives an average of 62MPG now in 2019, they want >35MPG by 2040  I don't understand the problem

Not every vehicle is a Passatt.  The idea is to get MOST vehicles above 35 MPG.

Boru

That's some kind of mileage driving on a track, 62 MPG. My Kia Forte got a best of 41 MPG when I did mostly highway with it, but strictly in town I get about 24. I have a truck I pull our travel trailer with. It gets 10 MPG in combined driving and 7 MPG when towing the travel trailer. It has 3 fuel tanks, for a total of 53 gallons. Drive it 350 miles and pay $200 to fill it back up. I don't take it camping much. New vehicles aren't any better. I rented a new Suburban (think truck-sized station wagon) and it got 7 MPG. I could almost see the gauge move left while I was driving it. 

(May 29, 2019 at 7:30 pm)Fireball Wrote: That's some kind of mileage driving on a track, 62 MPG. My Kia Forte got a best of 41 MPG when I did mostly highway with it, but strictly in town I get about 24. I have a truck I pull our travel trailer with. It gets 10 MPG in combined driving and 7 MPG when towing the travel trailer. It has 3 fuel tanks, for a total of 53 gallons. Drive it 350 miles and pay $200 to fill it back up. I don't take it camping much. New vehicles aren't any better. I rented a new Suburban (think truck-sized station wagon) and it got 7 MPG. I could almost see the gauge move left while I was driving it. 

I get that mileage with a mix of motorway driving (around 70mph) and town driving, I average 5000 miles per month (spend more time in the car than on customers sites!) I think a UK gallon is bigger than a US gallon so that may make a difference. The car is a 1600cc deisel, aprox 3 1/2 years old with 165,000 miles on the clock