Greta Thunberg

I don't feel I live in a democracy.
It's like when people say communism hasn't been done correctly.
Neither has democracy, on a large scale.

 

Oh well, then its ok to be happy with a prime minister who manipulates with lies and tries to shut down parliament for weeks in order to get his way.

 

They all manipulate with lies.
But some of them truly believe they aren't doing so.
I just don't want one of those.
Corbyn has made sure I would vote against my own ideals. Good job, Corbyn.
He scares me more than Boris.

 

Indeed!
Pollination Drones Seen as Assistants for Ailing Bees

 

If you're going to expand on this after all you might as well give the other reasons why you're happy with him as a prime minister.

Just because Corbyn isn't suitable either doesn't make Bojo a fine choice. It's also very arguable most politicians manipulate with lies to the same extent as Bojo does. Or would even try to close down parliament in order to get their way. Are you really ok with such tactics?

 

What do you prefer? Such technological solutions and no natural pollinating, or a balance between humans and their agricultural habits and functioning thriving diverse ecosystems?

 

Nobody advocates the Devil better than VG. No contest!

 

I'm certainly not anti-bee by any means (and I wouldn't want to be called a Bee-got). But I can see that if we're ever to operate greenhouses on Mars or the South Pole, regular bees won't stand a chance. Consider how many farmers today actually rely on rain for their crops to survive. Most are into automated irrigation systems.

Since humanity has basically decided to populate until the planet is ruined, I'd say we're already 50 years late on developing this and other automated food production technologies. So we may come pretty close to Soylent Green before we get it all worked out. That is, IF we keep making babies, particularly in developing nations where environmental concerns generally take a back seat.

What will ultimately happen is the wealthy will live long, healthy lives. The rest of us will have small families and expire earlier. I've already seen this play out in my own family. The rich ones who got cancer survived one or two rounds over decades, the rest died from it the first time and only held on a couple of years. However, my rich uncle Bucksworth (not his real name) sold his boat to keep Granny alive, so not all that is wealthy is a greedy pig.

She lived another decade! That was many years ago. He has a yacht now. I bet it gets terrible mileage (or is it knot-age?).

 

You did not answer the question. I guess you think we can have both. Or do you think its inevitable ecosystems will collapse and we better take care of our own?

I agree, it might be a viable option on Mars. But we were not talking about Mars where agricultural activity will only be inside and depend on technology, simply because there's no ecosystem with living stuff there.
My question is do you want regular agriculture to invest in and depend on intensive farming with robotic pollination, at the expense of natural pollinating insects (because hey, we can develop robotic bees and its too much work to keep diverse ecosystems)? Or should we invest in environmentally friendly methods so we don't have to thrive at the expense of a lot of other creatures?

Automated irrigation systems aren't a burden on the environment.

Humans/'humanity' have not consciously decided that, its just what's happening if we as a whole go on like we do. People like Thunberg are making an effort to let us make a conscious decision on this.
Btw: There has been a lot of advancement in food production and it has for a large part been happening in the last 50 years. There's overproduction in many places. My country (which is in the top of agricultural advancement) exports 80% of its agricultural products. It's also one of the countries where the decline in wild insects is most noticable.

I'm not sure if these experiences should be paramount in the decision wether to try to get our lifestyles and food production in balance with nature or invest in robotic bees and the like at the cost of diverse ecosystems. Or if they do, in what way.

 

Look on the bright side. Between 1961 and 2016, when the world's population grew 145%, average per capita income grew 183%. GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$) | Data Seventy-five percent fewer people have real incomes of less that $1.90 per day than in 1981.Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day (2011 PPP) (% of population) | Data Only two countries have food supplies fewer than 2,000 calories per day, compared with 54 countries in 1961. FAOSTAT So no need for doom and gloom, but no need for complacency either. Self-driving trucks will be on the highways in 3-4 years (some with human pilots are there now). What could possibly go wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...?

 

All of the roads, houses, machines, people, land, etc. within the entirety of civilization today represent less than 10% of the monetary wealth of the world. The wealth behind the currencies everybody uses is all invested in speculation, with over a trillion dollars invested in AI research last year alone. Supercomputers just coming online right now are estimated to have the capacity of the human brain and, within twenty years, will have a million times the capacity of the human brain. These machines don't have to think anything like a human being in order to outperform human beings, and will take most of the speculation out of Wall Street transactions, leaving investing in each other and the environment the only remaining alternative.

Everywhere you go in a singularity, there you are! While the machines are about to know humanity better than we know ourselves.

 

They been pollinating plants for years and years with aircraft.

 

The concern is not only that our agricultural crops can't be pollinated, but that the lack of wild bees and other pollinating insects will cause wild plants to decline, which impact in return will burden ecosystems to the point they will collapse.
A lack of wild plants causes a decline in certain animals, which in return causes a decline in other animals. Sure, there will always be something left and it may take a few generations... but do we wanna go with aircraft pollination at the expense of wild pollinating insects? And is it worth going on as we do at the expense of a far less diverse ecosystem/environment?

 

We're losing the insects, plants, and the aquifers and topsoil as well. No matter how you look at it, we require entirely different technology for feeding people, and the number of researchers is rapidly growing.

 

Yeah well, I think we don't need entirely new technology for feeding people. We need entirely new technology for our use of energy and to decrease pollution. The main reason for intensive farming is to maximize harvests for profit. If we would incorporate losses due to bad harvests (now financially unwanted because everything from investments til crop crowing and selling is maximized and intensified for max monetary gain) we could do much better keeping a balance between humans and nature.
Sure, we need to advance technologically as well in food production, but I'm convinced there its a combi of old techniques with new. We need to be smart about it. Optimizing instead of maximizing.

 

81 year old Jane Fonda has been arrested for the 3rd time protesting climate change at the capitol.



Ted Danson was there too. Ted Danson, Jane Fonda Arrested Over Climate Change Demonstration

 

Hanoi Jane can go to hell.

 

No, the american troops got there first after Uncle Ho and Gen. Giap knocked the shit out of them !!!

 

In other, relevant news...............

Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record

 

Did she started burning cars and instigating violence again?!

 

No, she was giving neck massages with her thumbs.