[alancalverd]

You could save yourself a lot of pointless effort by simply suggesting that I read the Guardian. I don't see evidence of anyone else reading your posts, and the Guardian is quite well written if a bit predictable.

[yor_on]

Alan, I'm not writing it for anyone.

[yor_on]

Well, except myself. It's my thoughts, and you're welcome to comment on them.

[yor_on]

One example. We could use AI and public transportation instead of private transportation. That would diminish pressures on f.ex rare earth's, pollutions and energy consumption's. So why don't we see it set in practice?

Blame your game.


spelling

[yor_on]

And no Alan. Not directed at you, this last post.

Humanity.

[yor_on]

Kind of missed commenting on protecting foods with biopolymer fibers in that post where I mentioned those artificially made 'nano fishes' made of so called 'nano meta materials', putting it all under a same label. They are not the exact same and wrappings made of true bio degradable materials are worth while. But we already have them, wax, paper. One problem being, you can't patent it. Where would the profits be?

Have a read, and a smile  https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/vgopep/a_study_describes_a_new_type_of_packaging/

[yor_on]

It's not only me noticing how this game works.

[yor_on]

Another example is the lack of recycling, due to the same game. No profits in it.

[yor_on]

Didn't you know?

That you have to be at the border to starvation to start recyclling anything. Or at the border to a tipping cascade. But you don't even recognize it when it comes knocking on your door, do you?

[yor_on]

F.ex forbidding the use of plastic where glass can do the same, and be recyclable.

[yor_on]

There are a lot of simple remedies already existing, but they share a same fault. They demand you to change your infra structures, losing profits and jobs. They will create new ones, but that doesn't count.


spelling

[yor_on]

Yeah, you can't change, neither yourself nor your game.

[yor_on]

HMS Titanic on its first, and last, voyage.

That's how it looks

[yor_on]

It all comes down to a simple fact. You wouldn't recognize sustainability if it so stared you in the face. Profits and this game, that's all you're good for.


syntax

[yor_on]

It's so easy to prove.

[yor_on]

And trying to blame it on our politicians, industrialists, banks etc, becomes just a avoidance of looking on who it is lifting them up, creating role models, supporting and maintaining this game. They may be some of the worst role models existing for a game of sustainability, but that's not what you're playing, is it?

[yor_on]

Every time I link a new article you can find a new proof of this game, staying. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence for this game already, in this essay. And it won't change by a revolution.

[alancalverd]

HMS Titanic on its first, and last, voyage.

That's how it looks

RMS (Royal Mail Ship), please. HMS is military only.

[yor_on]

You're correct Alan. RMS possibly, not HMS. It loses something there though :)

So  " Titanic on its first, and last, voyage."

[alancalverd]

Not "possibly".

Titanic was a civilian ship authorised to carry passengers and mail, not a military vessel loaded with guns. The distinction is clear and obvious, even to the color of the flag  she flew: blue ensign for a civilian ship commanded by a member of the Royal Navy Reserve and carrying mail.  White is reserved for the Royal Navy itself or ships commandeered or authorised  by the  Ministry of Defence, and red for all merchant ships under civilian command. Royal Air Force search and rescue vessels are also "HMS" and carry a blue ensign with the RAF roundel.

Therefore definitely RMS, not HMS.

And it wasn't her first voyage, which was from Belfast to Southampton.

Facts are very important in science.