The latest billionaire space circle jerk.

[The Grand Nudger]

??  I'm at a loss to understand your point here.  Overall, you seem to be saying increasing livestock is good for the environment and people have to eat meat.  Is that what you mean to say?

I was hazarding a guess as to one of the many reasons that the fb might arrive at a low estimate, there...but, yeah. Ill hop over to that below.  

Something like that, though, yes.  Like I mentioned in the beginning, it's complicated.  As we currently do it, mostly, it's not good for the environment, though it's effects can be and obviously have been overstated.  I don't advocate for the expansion of the conventional model.  As we can do it, and as we must do it, in the absence of petrochem ag - yes.  

It's a bit of a conundrum. We're going to need (alot) more natural fertility - but the main way we produce natural fertility today is itself tied up in the mining and pumping of food as an extraction industry. The War on Dirt. Oddly enough, that's the basis of the argument that feedlots, of all things, have a place in our sustainable future.


@Ranjr
Feedlot vacancies while numbers of pastured animals increase can suggest that more producers are trying to tap into the premium market.   That market is dominated by consumers looking to make an ecological and ethical choice, and that's what the industry provides them (or, at least..attempts to).  It's true that grass fed cattle will produce more methane than grain fed over the course of their lives - and partly because they live longer - but in practice, the cattle raised to tap into this market come from operations which explicitly market their carbon choices.  Their carbon sequestration methods could offset anywhere from 20-60% of that 5% of emissions down to livestock - and alot of them cut their emissions from transport in delivery or market range as well.  

Essentially, the market for sustainable meat is growing..and conventional operations are more and more concerned themselves.  What used to be a steadily plowed monoculture of grain with a feedlot may now be a local no till strip grazing operation that follows cattle with laying hens, and the hens with pigs.  Or maybe they're still doing the same thing...but pay far more attention to their inputs.  That's how pastured cattle can drive a reduction in emissions which might end up getting used as a benchmark.  

Its more likely that the fb was using an unrepresentatively low (or at least argued to be) benchmark and that rippled out into their estimates, than some bias influencing their findings.  This is certainly not the case with propagandists and shills who repeated a number retracted with explanation by it's own author, long after that retraction.

---

Grain diet produces less methane than grass.  Not sure how pastures are helping there.  Holstein steers will still go to feedlots.

Have you ever heard the desert island food puzzle ?  You are shipwrecked on a deserted island and all you have are two crates of corn flakes and a crate full of live chickens.  What do you do, eat some of the cornflakes and feed some to the birds until they are gone, then eat the chickens, or eat the birds first, then the cornflakes.  Answer: birds first.  You lose calories if they eat the corn flakes, then you eat them.

You breed the birds.  They'll eat anything, even each other. Yall gonna kill your egg machine over some corn flakes? Who even likes corn flakes?

They started out as jungle birds....we're pretty sure...though you'd be hard pressed to find them in any jungles now.

[Anomalocaris]

I am not begrudging problem solving. What I am warning against is ego driven profit chasing. Rockets require fossil fuels to get into space. So if we replace every passenger jet, which also requires fossil fuels, with rockets, and takeoffs of rockets were as daily as our current takeoffs of passenger jets, at the same volume, would not help in solving climate change.

I don't see a 100% future where all burning of fossil fuels will cease. But we certainly can as a species reduce that burning to a manageable level. But right now, "space tourism" is not only impractical, it won't end our burning of fossil fuels. 

For right now as far as space exploration, that needs to be limited to science, not exploitation. 

In theory, I'd love to see the majority of humans being able to view the planet in orbit. I do think psychologically it could imprint the notion that our only home isn't to be fought over and one we all share. But the fact is, fossil fuels are killing our planet. And I don't think it is as simple as replacing passenger jets with rockets in the same numbers. 

Imagine space travel launching rockets at the same rate every day as passenger jets. It still requires burning fossil fuels in both cases. That solves nothing. 

I am for space exploration. But for now, I think humanity would be better served at limiting rockets to science, not pleasure.

Space rockets don’t use fossil fuels. They never have.

Boru

On the contrary, kerosine, a petroleum fossil fuel, is the most used, and most widely used, propellants for space rockets.   It has very desirable properties as first stage rocket fuel.    So in rockets that employ different types of fuel for different stages, kerosine typically represent by far the largest fraction of the total fuel load.     Amongst others Saturn 5 used it, Soyuz, Zenit, Delta, Atlas, Elon Musk’s Falcon uses it now.     Some space powers such as russia and China are actually moving away from highly toxic synthetic rocket fuel towards much safer and more benign refined kerosine. 

---

So a rich uber billionaire decided to show of 3 days ago. "Look what I can do" is their mantra. 

I don't think anyone likes being poor or middle class and struggling. Been there done that. But these "Ford Vs Chevy" "NASCAR vs Indy" thrill junkies do not impress me. 

I love Tokyo Japan. I love Brisbane Australia, and YES, I fucking hated all the time it took to get there, but more than that the turbulence. To this day I have nightmares about turbulence. I could tolerate a trip to Tokyo if it only took 90 minutes.

And while I am glad my mail isn't delivered by horse and the Pony express, humans still had electric vehicle technology 100 years ago. 

What I have seen from Branson, and Musk and Bezos, isn't so much about advancing science, but advancing profits and consumption. 

It is most certainly appealing of the thought of getting a view of the earth from above. But right now, our species has far more important issues in climate change and pollution and poverty, than a bunch of uber billionaires who are showing off.

I am amazed Brian has both the time to find so many things to dislike, and then actually give each thing it’s due amount of complaint time.   He must have many more than 24 hours in each of his days.

[Silver]

Idle mind.

[arewethereyet]

Idle mind.

Addled mind.

[Brian37]

Space rockets don’t use fossil fuels. They never have.

Boru

On the contrary, kerosine, a petroleum fossil fuel, is the most used, and most widely used, propellants for space rockets.   It has very desirable properties as first stage rocket fuel.    So in rockets that employ different types of fuel for different stages, kerosine typically represent by far the largest fraction of the total fuel load.     Amongst others Saturn 5 used it, Soyuz, Zenit, Delta, Atlas, Elon Musk’s Falcon uses it now.     Some space powers such as russia and China are actually moving away from highly toxic synthetic rocket fuel towards much safer and more benign refined kerosine. 

---

So a rich uber billionaire decided to show of 3 days ago. "Look what I can do" is their mantra. 

I don't think anyone likes being poor or middle class and struggling. Been there done that. But these "Ford Vs Chevy" "NASCAR vs Indy" thrill junkies do not impress me. 

I love Tokyo Japan. I love Brisbane Australia, and YES, I fucking hated all the time it took to get there, but more than that the turbulence. To this day I have nightmares about turbulence. I could tolerate a trip to Tokyo if it only took 90 minutes.

And while I am glad my mail isn't delivered by horse and the Pony express, humans still had electric vehicle technology 100 years ago. 

What I have seen from Branson, and Musk and Bezos, isn't so much about advancing science, but advancing profits and consumption. 

It is most certainly appealing of the thought of getting a view of the earth from above. But right now, our species has far more important issues in climate change and pollution and poverty, than a bunch of uber billionaires who are showing off.

I am amazed Brian has both the time to find so many things to dislike, and then actually give each thing it’s due amount of complaint time.   He must have many more than 24 hours in each of his days.

Between billionaires and people like you and me, who do you think has more power? 

It isn't a mater of disliking anything. It is a matter of class warfare.

[HappySkeptic]

On the contrary, kerosine, a petroleum fossil fuel, is the most used, and most widely used, propellants for space rockets.   It has very desirable properties as first stage rocket fuel.    So in rockets that employ different types of fuel for different stages, kerosine typically represent by far the largest fraction of the total fuel load.     Amongst others Saturn 5 used it, Soyuz, Zenit, Delta, Atlas, Elon Musk’s Falcon uses it now.     Some space powers such as russia and China are actually moving away from highly toxic synthetic rocket fuel towards much safer and more benign refined kerosine. 

SpaceX now uses methane, not kerosene.  Bezos will copy Musk with his New Glenn orbital craft.  New Shepard used hydrogen, but that never needed to get to orbit.

[Peebothuhlu]

So....

Whiling away time and thought I'd stick an oar in.

What would people rather these rich folks do with their money?

Swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?

Simply giving it away won't solve thd deeper social, political, transport infrastructure...... the list of problems goes on.

If Musk etc want to further rocketry. Good on 'em.

Cheers.

(Not at work or keyboard)

[Jackalope]

What would people rather these rich folks do with their money?

I'll go with "pay more taxes".

[Fake Messiah]

Jeff Bezos thanked his own employees at Amazon saying "You guys paid for this." At least he's honest about exploiting and underpaying his workers.