Jump to content
semente

The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Angry and above all annoying.

 

Well, environmentalists have been annoying for a long time then. She is trying to put her ideology into practice. I mean sailing to the US instead of taking a plane, has some dedication on her end.

 

I think we need to be MORE annoying if we want to deal with global warming before it is too late.


Current:  JRiver 24 on Win 10 PC (AMD Ryzen 5 2600 with 32 GB RAM) or Daphile on an I5-2500K with 16 GB RAM

DAC - TEAC UD-501 DAC 

Pre-amp - Audio Research SP-16

Amplification - PS Audio S300

Speakers: Wharfedale Linton Heritage

Cables:Tara Labs and DiMarzio Interconnects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm talking about the presentation, not the message.

 

Yes, heaven save us from annoying people! 😉


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> eero Pro router -> EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, firedog said:

Can I ask why it's important to emphasize that he's a "naturalized" citizen? Does that somehow make him less of a citizen?

I didn't emphasize it.  In the past I've heard people say he has no business spending money in US politics because he isn't a citizen.  He is a naturalized citizen.  That is different than a native citizen.  Not an emphasis just a description of how he is a citizen since many people know he is Hungarian by birth. 


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, semente said:

What do you mean by America.

The continent?

The people who live in the continent?

The USofA?

The people who live in the USofA?

Some people who live in the USofA (privileged middle aged white men?

Business (originating from or based in the USofA)?

In the USA, people typically refer to America.  Yes actually there is north and south America and it isn't all the USA.  So yes by America I mean USA.  And yes the people who live here.  And while his actions make help one group while not another (which is usually the case with anything of significance) I believe in totality it is a negative for the USA's population overall.  For that matter I think the same of the Koch brothers (or as it now is the one Koch brother).  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

 

My wife is a naturalized citizen. Never knew she was part of a giant globalist conspiracy to take over America and put all the stupid white conservative men in concentration camps.... actually, on second thought... maybe she's on to something... ;)

 

But I'll just stick to ignore lists, both of which esldude and sthf are now on ( they're the first). Threads like this are good for that. 

I see you are still displaying unusual talent for jumping to conclusions that don't make sense.  Pity you'll not see this since I'm on ignore. 

 

I described him as a naturalized citizen which he is.  I didn't say he was a globalist conspirator, in fact I said I thought there was no conspiracy, but he had the resources to apply influence in several ways that can make it look that way.  Yet somehow you dreamed up the idea I implicated naturalized citizens as naturally part of a conspiracy along with other motivations I never implied (in fact denied).  Since you have gotten all the facts wrong it is fine with me if you ignore my posts.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, botrytis said:

People complain about George Soros but we never hear anything about how the Koch Brothers funded the Anti-global warming ideology. 

I started to mention the Koch Brothers, but figured it would lead to even more needless knee jerk reactions.  I think they are on the other side, and bad for the country as a whole.  And yes at least in my circle of acquaintances you would hear people complain about the Koch Brothers effect on politics.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I would say some part of that is very possibly due to the Asperger's. Folks on that part of the spectrum are often very intelligent but have an anomalous affect (using the psychological meaning of that word). So I cut her some slack in that regard.

I can cut her some slack on that too.  It is more the petulant child who will school the adults on how things not need to be done, but must be done that rubs me the wrong way.  

 

She follows the IPCC summary about how we have to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 30 or so years to keep the warming at 1.5 to 2 degrees C.  The next part is after that we have to be at zero emissions and/or start removal of carbon from the atmosphere on a large scale.  I've got bad news for you.  That latter part at least isn't going to happen.  I don't see a viable way to achieve that in such a time frame.  

 

So Greta Thunburg lays down the law about what we must do.  Says she isn't going to work in science as we already know what we need to do we simply have to stop emissions.  Well a child can think that way.  It isn't a winning formula for how to do it.  I also think she has been scared beyond reason about her future being stolen.  And yes I know what the future possibilities are in regards to what the IPCC report says can happen.  Making the bulk of the world effectively uninhabitable by humans is dire.  But that isn't in the cards for Greta Thunberg's lifetime.  

 

There are theoretical ways to achieve what is needed, but given the political nature of the world I fear it effectively cannot happen that quickly.  You always have a hard time convincing people to radically in very short time frames alter what they do for a future effect many alive won't experience all that much, and which doesn't become a total disaster until they are are gone.  No matter how certain it is. 

 

I still remember when the air was brown and much of the natural water was polluted like a sewer (or worse).  There has been excellent progress made in those the last 50 years.  The changes for that were much smaller than required to stop man made contributions to global warming.  Yet it was a hard sale at the time.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Puts me in mind of a couple of things: Kennedy saying we should go to the moon "not because it is easy, but because it is hard;" and the old GE engineers'(?) slogan, "The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer."

 

Plainly, saying we're not going to achieve lofty goals isn't a great way to motivate people to try. I'm more inclined toward "Dammit, let's do this or go down fighting!" than concentrating on how difficult or perhaps impossible it might be. And any 16 year old, let alone one as motivated and with as blunt a manner as Ms. Thunberg, might well react with anger to repeatedly being told the previous generations have screwed things up so irretrievably that she must allow us to continue comfortably sliding toward hell rather than try to fix anything.

 

BTW, she and the kids around her do have some sense of humor:

 

 

How are things working out for GE these days? It was just a slogan for marketing you know.  One that actually was used by the Army Corp of Engineers in WWII.  One similar to the saying of the Finance minister for Maria Antoinette and King Louis.  The fellow that attempted a far reaching financial reform to deal with France's debt.  Which precipitated the French Revolution.  His plan was to tax the noble wealthy to pay off France's debt.  He personally kept his head, but had to leave the country.  So I'd say the US Army made better use of the slogan.  

 

I find this meme of anger at prior generations curious too.  Doesn't matter, when Greta is an adult and the previous generation or two is gone, one can be angry all you want.  It isn't going to get you toward a solution.  I don't see how it usefully motivates people toward handling what they face.  It isn't true that prior generations used up your future to leave the mess for you in their minds.  They made the best decisions they could.  The result may be the same, but spending time on anger or placing blame doesn't get you anywhere.  Maybe it is harmless if it gets people's attention.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

No, prior generations did NOT make the best decisions they could.

I think collectively at the time they did. I certainly don't think they were thinking, " you know we could trash the future environment making it easier on us. So let's do that. We don't care about our grandchildren.".


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Politicians were thinking "how can I get elected" & biz people were thinking "I'll get mine" - to say nothing of the aggressive PR campaigns by the fossil fuel industry.

Sure, just like any business does.  Just like all politicians do.  I did use the word collectively, because there is this idea future generations won't forgive past generations.  I'd think that includes more than just execs and gov't officials.  

 

I think most people were going about their daily lives like anyone does and weren't thinking about screwing up the environment so they sure weren't thinking of I'll screw it up now, profit, and let the future take care the effects of that.  

 

So here is something I'd like to know, it is 1970.  The environmental movement which mostly was established in the 1960's was on lots of peoples minds, and politically could have a good effect.  So in broad outlines what could have been done differently so that we weren't in this rock and a hard place situation now with 10-30 years to make drastic changes.  You'll have the benefit of hindsight.  However I don't mean something ridiculous like, "suddenly in 1970 everyone would have seen how important being green was and would only have supported sustainable business or done without".  No that won't cut it. Because there was no chance that was going to happen.

 

Go ahead and dazzle me with how some of you would have fixed things starting then.  

 

There were of course some who knew about warming and sea level rise prior to 1970.  It wasn't generally linked to increased carbon emissions until the late 1950's though knowledge of carbon in the greenhouse effect was known long ago.  Lyndon Johnson was the first US president to mention sea level rise and the use of fossil fuels being linked.  So I think 1970 is a good starting point for how it could have been done differently and done better.  So I'd really like to see how the generations since WWII could have done far, far better. 

 

And once you've convinced me you could have done it right starting in 1970, you can outline viable ways to make it happen between now and 2050.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

It's been 31 years since James Hansen's Congressional testimony, longer since his work was initially published. Compare how short a time it took to ban DDT after Silent Spring. This is more like the time lapse between the Surgeon General's report in 1963 and the state lawsuits against the tobacco companies, and for similar reasons: a wealthy industry with political and media connections working feverishly to postpone the day of reckoning. 

I agree.  Doesn't seem like a reason to condemn an entire generation for sins of the past.  If anything currently wealthy entities have their ducks in a row to an unprecedented level to continue that kind of activity.  


To paraphrase Rick James, "sighted listening is a helluva drug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...