0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I didn't say better, nor are they rules for following. They are tests to classify a proposed action as moral or otherwise.However if everyone abstained from actions that fail my tests, the world could be a happier place. They are, after all, the basis of the legal system in a civilised country, and of international law.
Happier means happier.
What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?
Ways to make the world a happier and more efficient place are to reduce the population density everywhere to a sustainable level, abolish religion, and establish a single world government. We would have to kill a lot of parasites to achieve this, and establish means of preventing their recurrence.
What makes you think that current population density is not sustainable?How do you abolish religion? What should be done to those who practice religion in secret?
1. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but most of it is in the wrong place, and with increasing urbanisation, that problem is growing. So we need to process and transport it, which needs fossil fuels, which are not sustainable.About 30% of all food now grown, depends on artificial fertilisers and mechanical sowing and harvesting, all of which require fossil fuels. We might all scratch a living from the soil (it takes about one acre of arable land per capita in temperate regions) but most of us aspire to a western standard of living which demands at least 5 kW per capita of energy on tap, which requires fossil fuels.
2. Classify religious speech as hate speech wherever the religion preaches discrimination of any sort, and as fraud wherever anyone promises an afterlife or any other non-deliverable benefit in exchange for goods, money or service.3. Require educational curricula to include the dangers of faith and the history of religious conflict.4. Speak nicely to British Sikhs and explain that the reasonable exemption from crash helmet laws for those wearing turbans has created an unfortunate and unforeseen precedent that excuses egregious behavior on religious grounds. Suggest that for the greater good, they might agree to end the exemption as a good example and new precedent.
If the problem is fossil fuel, then the solution is electrification from more sustainable sources. Some researches I've read say that combination of solar, wind, and battery is the best option.
even without battery storage.
I was encouraged today by an interview with the CEO of the Energy Council who said that hydrogen was the way to go - some sense seems to have pervaded the corridors of power at last!
Quote from: alancalverd on 23/03/2022 17:21:35Happier means happier.Why does it preferred over less happy?Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2022 04:39:26What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?Are those cases just the same?
The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.
They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 22:11:23They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .And because it can use existing infrastructure for storage and distribution, and requires very little modification of the machinery we already use for moving and heating, unlike electricity which requires us to replace practically all vehicles and cookers, boilers, furnaces.....You can even burn hydrogen in a conventional power station to make electricity!
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 21:49:58The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.but a lot of cost and a considerable expenditure of fossil fuel to make the battery
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2022 06:17:55Quote from: alancalverd on 23/03/2022 17:21:35Happier means happier.Why does it preferred over less happy?Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2022 04:39:26What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?Are those cases just the same?If you think that happiness is an independent parameter from goodness, then it has nothing to do with morality.
The same argument could be used to resist disruptive transition from horse powered chariots to gas powered cars. In the end, effectiveness and efficiency of the technologies to serve their functions will determine whether or not they are more widely accepted.
Fact is that we have most of the infrastructure in place for a hydrogen-powered economy, so very little capital is required. Most domestic and industrial heating is done by grid-supplied gas, so the least end-user investment to achieve zero carbon is to change the gas from methane to hydrogen (we've already done the opposite, 60 years ago!). Similarly for vehicles: a bit more infrastructure is needed but most existing vehicles can be modified rather than scrapped, and we won't need to mine and process any more materials for batteries and motors (mining and refining use a lot of fossil fuel).