Huh, never thought of that. So true...and I will add to this. In the past jobs in service have been able to absorb people into it to take up the loss of jobs (Say in agriculture and such.) So when Henry Ford made his assembly line, jobs were created pretty much everywhere. Restaurants are but one great example of this.

But with the techno revolution, the service sector was already pretty full. Now it is saturated. If I see one more new gas station down here in Florida, or another restaurant open, it will be too soon. I remember TWO, TWO Starbucks in the same mall. Such a false economy...

Now add automation and boom...

I'm really not sure about that. The agricultural and industrial revolutions didn't exactly have that effect, it just moved jobs from one place to another right? I mean, my job almost didn't exist 10 years ago. Not saying there is no challenge, but the elimination of thankless menial labour has to be a good thing overall no? I'm more worried that our slaves are finite resources that will need replacing eventually, one hopes not with the human variety.

A generation or two ago I doubt that poor Guatemalans could get fat, regardless of culture, because they simply didn't have access to the surplus energy required. This surplus energy shows up in nitrate fertilizers used for agriculture, powered tools of all sorts, and manufactured goods, like used bicycles.

It comes, of course, from fossil fuels.

A bicycle may seem a simple and primitive device, but just try to build a bicycle chain in your home workshop and you will see that making safety bicycles is possible only in a modern industrial state. It's not surprising that the development of the safety bicycle only barely preceded that of the automobile and the airplane.

The bicimaquina raw material is discarded bicycles from richer people -- nothing wrong with that, it's good, frugal engineering. But it should be borne in mind when plotting the future that hardly used bicycles are not a renewable resource, and require energy and infrastructure to produce.

Bicycling does give one a good appreciation of the value of energy. For example, 125 Watts is a respectable output for a touring cyclist; keep that up for 8 solid hours, and you have one kilowatt-hour. One kW-hr is a day at hard labor. A typical household in the developed world uses the equivalent of the labor of three or four hard-laboring slaves every day.

Of course, those slaves aren't the most efficient. You'll notice that the machines shown all use a direct mechanical drive. They could generate electricity, but that would cost -- multiply a few 90% efficiencies together and pretty soon you're getting nothing done by leg power.

Bicycle drive does allow good power production from human beings, and multi-geared bicycles are adaptable to people of differing strength. Not as much fun as flipping a switch, but easier than turning a crank.

It's plain that cheap fossil fuels won't last forever, indeed they may not last for much longer, and probably will never be available to much of the world at the same level as we currently enjoy in the US or Australia. Will we find ourselves scouring garages and cellars for disused bicycles?

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

@newtboy,
as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane.

More from charliem's article's abstract:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear.

The article he linked IS saying that they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets. They note this is a relatively unknown area as opposed to northern regions that emit methane. Charliem just didn't read the reference he pulled out at is it is counter evidence to his and your own statements.

As for your point:
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow
I never said anything about that, I said:
if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere
As in I was talking about not merely ending our emissions, but also sequestering and pulling out of the atmosphere all the CO2 lingering there from us over the last century as well. That's pushing CO2 concentrations back down from nearly 400 to under 300. Re-read my statements in the correct context and they'll make more sense.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now.
Again, context matters doesn't it? I'm describing how a person from 1915 would not look at our world today and wish they could go back to their time, end all CO2 emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences we're suffering in 2015. If you want to talk about food distribution, your right and we've had problems with it forever. If you want to talk food production though, it's never been higher, if you go look at global agriculture output it's a steady increasing line as surely as the instrumental temperature record.

For the record, I absolutely state that the evidence throughout the entire instrumental record is a warming planet since records began in 1900. I absolutely state that the evidence is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to warming. I absolutely state the the evidence is irrefutable that we are raising global CO2 concentrations with our actions. Where I diverge from those like you is I do NOT see the scientific evidence declaring the results are catastrophic. It's simply not there to be found, in many cases it is in fact contrary to the limited evidence we DO have on it as well.

Actually, I was taught (in a good private school in Texas) that secession happened because the North taxed the hell out of agricultural products (the South's only real income) and not the industrial products of the North. This was, allegedly, in large part due to slavery and attempts to tax it away. The North/FED didn't try to free slaves until the war was on, and as mentioned, only freed the Southern slaves until after the war.
What this means is that, while slavery was integral to many of the reasons for the civil war starting, it was far from the only reason. Slavery was actually already diminishing at that time in the south, and was likely to disappear fairly quickly without the war if things stayed the same.
If you are looking for a catch all 'reason' for the civil war starting, it was perceived draconian political unfairness.

This is a copy paste from WIkipedia, but it is fairly accurate.

Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to influence the national government. By the time of the 1860 election, the heavily agricultural southern states as a group had fewer Electoral College votes than the rapidly industrializing northern states. Lincoln was able to win the 1860 Presidential election without even being on the ballot in ten Southern states. Southerners felt a loss of federal concern for Southern pro-slavery political demands, and their continued domination of the Federal government was threatened. This political calculus provided a very real basis for Southerners' worry about the relative political decline of their region due to the North growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output.

***************
There were other factors, such as various tariffs and the fact that there was a large push to forbid new states to permit slavery, which would further limit the voting power of the South.

@radx

Nothing really new I can say again in response.

It's natural that France and Germany being major decision makers in the eurozone will suggest bailouts that also help their own banks, no surprise at all. Witness the US's about turn post WWII from rebuilding Germany into a de-industrialised agricultural state to an industrial powerhouse to counter Soviet influence in about a year.

I think you have to look, not at Troika funding with or without pension cuts and the like, but with or without the funding. See my post above for what I think would happen in a disorderly collapse. I think honestly we can both be certain that the effect on output and unemployment would have been far worse in a disorderly collapse.

Like I said to oritteropo, I'm not debating that the IMF estimates were correct or even that the IMF has a particularly good history of reform (although you could certainly argue that Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia economically at least were successes). As far as low/middle class Greeks suffering, yes I agree it sucks. Most who risk being indicted for corruption are sure to have emigrated permanently to their vacation homes purchased on stolen money, but that doesn't unfortunately change the reality.

Actually you said it's no where near time to panic. You also said the people of Kiribati are going to be washed away by a tsunami (but it never happened before in all the times they've been hit by tsunami) and not overwhelmed by sea rise (which IS what's happened to them).


You are just wrong about Texas producing more than California, we're number two in cattle production and ....
Food Facts
California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.
California is the nation's number one dairy state.
California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.
California's leading export crop is almonds.
Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation's leading producer of strawberries, averaging 1.4 billion pounds of strawberries or 83% of the country's total fresh and frozen strawberry production. Approximately 12% of the crop is exported to Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Japan primarily. The value of the California strawberry crop is approximately $700 million with related employment of more than 48,000 people.
California produces 25% of the nation's onions and 43% of the nation's green onions.
and if that's not enough to convince you ...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2182/what-percent-of-food-comes-from-california

It is never 1 to 1 guns VS farmers in the situations you are talking about. The food gets stolen, sold, and eaten. It is not stolen and allowed to rot. If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.

I call BS, the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today. You mentioned one. They are universally agreed on (by energy companies) who have made solar farms, nuclear, wind, etc.

Ahhhh. So now you see why it's time to panic...adaptation of the tech takes time, time that we don't have to waste. If it takes 50 years to stop adding greenhouse gasses, we need to see where that leaves your children's children. Adaptation of new tech is going to happen while we are restricting consumption...it's been that way for decades (see 'car mileage requirements') so it HAS happened in the past, and is happening today...without wars.

If no one panics and no one acts, that's where we'll be if we're lucky. Those figures you linked assume we will stop rising the level of CO2 we add daily and/or keep it below a certain level...an assumption I think is wrong and ignores reality.

Um, well, yeah, 78% less glacier doesn't mean 78% less runoff, it means far more than 78% less, because of glacial dams, evaporation, and upstream use it means probably NO runoff downstream. 22% of the already scarce water won't feed India. Period.
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years, but even those numbers leave billions without water or food. That's far worse than any group ever starved by 'men with guns'.

To be fair about being fair there are a lot of assumptions in your post. One they did not arrest him on the spot. That leaves a little dignity for the World War 2 veteran. Although the State picking it up at all is a douche move. Two, he probably will not go to jail at all. They say "Up to 60 days" which really means "We just like to give round numbers that won't ever fucking happen because it's sensational."

You could in theory be sentenced to a year in county time for trespassing, but that will not happen the first 40 times or so. (I have seen people sentenced to that much time. And by people I mean "person".)

Off that subject, if law officers obsessed over every immoral law out there then in no world system would there be any law. The laws against crack rock? Extremely, blatantly racist. Pot laws? I think a bit immoral. Laws against effective protest measures, gay marriage, fuck, even public nudity. All these laws are someone else's bullshit of how things ought to be.

The next problem is that of cause and effect. We have banned child molesters from most of the city areas in an attempt to get them away from "our" children. The side effect is that we really haven't solved the issue. The chronically homeless (Not to be confused with the majority of homeless who actually get out of being homeless) are mentally ill and or on drugs. Although not particularly dangerous or volatile, this is Florida, and even our homeless are more dangerous than other parts of the county.

Lastly, there are no moral jobs out there. If you work for a hospital, business, restaurant, power company, phone company, agricultural etc you are working for an evil, evil place. This is America--money keeps us running. And the homeless have no money.

Leafcutter ants are supposed to taste like bacon.

I've eaten crickets, mealworms and ants. The experience was never...satisfying.
This leads me to think, if you're living in an over populated party of the world, you should be encouraged to eat insects if local agriculture cannot sustain the population. I do not plan to eat bugs when there are 3billion people in India. A lack of population planning, control and education in foreign communities does not equal me eating bugs. If my own country fails in these regards then I will accept the consequences when that happens.

Crab fisherman, among dozens and dozens of others. Being a cop is less dangerous than many many jobs not considered 'dangerous', but because cops complain and whine so much, most people would believe being a cop is the most dangerous job out there. Statistics say it's no where close.
EDIT:The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers
(notice anything missing there?)

There are more unpredictable dangerous situations to be dealt with in MANY other professions. It's not a lack of preparation that kills crab fishermen, it's the unpredictability of the ocean. It MAY be true (can't find statistics) that cops are more likely to be attacked by a human than most other professions, that doesn't make it more dangerous or unpredictable than other unavoidable, unpredictable dangers in other jobs.

Far more civilians are killed by cops than cops are killed by civilians. (This means your assumption/assertion that civilians can assume cops won't kill them, but cops can assume civilians will kill them is ridiculously wrong and backwards.) Last year, 111 cops died in the line of duty, of those, only 39 were 'killed' (as in homicide, 33 by firearms), the rest were all accidental. In that time, cops intentionally killed 316 civilians (that number also does not include 'accidental' deaths). That's almost a 10-1 ratio where it's 10 times more likely that a cop will be a killer than be killed.

It is no longer a minority of cops that perceive threats everywhere and 'take things too far' before they become actual threats. If citizens did this, they go to jail. Cops should not be above the law in any way.

I agree with 'cops should be on camera 100% of the time they're being cops (which is all the time, so includes at home, if they're armed there). It may not have avoided or minimized the Brown case though, it may easily have proven he was shot at and executed as he surrendered, adding fuel to the fire.

PS dangerous and hazardous are synonyms.
PPS. It's @newtboy....one word.

Well, a movie about non-self-aware robots that just follow their programming would be kinda boring.

Beside, we need more movies about the singularity. It's going to happen and it's going to be the single greatest upheaval to human culture since agriculture.

Neils thoughts on the viral video

*** August 3, 2014 -- Anatomy of a GMO Commentary ****
Ten days ago, this brief clip of me was posted by somebody.

It contains my brief [2min 20sec] response to a question posed by a French journalist, after a talk I gave on the Universe. He found me at the post-talk book signing table. (Notice the half-dozen ready & willing pens.) The clip went mildly viral (rising through a half million right now) with people weighing in on whether they agree with me or not.

Some comments...

1) The journalist posted the question in French. I don't speak French, so I have no memory of how I figured out that was asking me about GMOs. Actually I do know some French words like Bordeaux, and Bourgogne, and Champagne, etc.

2) Everything I said is factual. So there's nothing to disagree with other than whether you should actually "chill out" as I requested of the viewer in my last two words of the clip.

3) Had I given a full talk on this subject, or if GMOs were the subject of a sit-down interview, then I would have raised many nuanced points, regarding labeling, patenting, agribusiness, monopolies, etc. I've noticed that almost all objections to my comments center on these other issues.

4) I offer my views on these nuanced issues here, if anybody is interested:
a- Patented Food Strains: In a free market capitalist society, which we have all "bought" into here in America, if somebody invents something that has market value, they ought to be able to make as much money as they can selling it, provided they do not infringe the rights of others. I see no reason why food should not be included in this concept.
b- Labeling: Since practically all food has been genetically altered from nature, if you wanted labeling I suppose you could demand it, but then it should be for all such foods. Perhaps there could be two different designations: GMO-Agriculture GMO-Laboratory.
c- Non-perennial Seed Strains: It's surely legal to sell someone seeds that cannot reproduce themselves, requiring that the farmer buy seed stocks every year from the supplier. But when sold to developing country -- one struggling to become self-sufficient -- the practice is surely immoral. Corporations, even when they work within the law, should not be held immune from moral judgement on these matters.
d- Monopolies are generally bad things in a free market. To the extent that the production of GMOs are a monopoly, the government should do all it can to spread the baseline of this industry. (My favorite monopoly joke ever, told by Stephen Wright: "I think it's wrong that the game Monopoly is sold by only one company")
e- Safety: Of course new foods should be tested for health risks, regardless of their origin. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration (in the USA). Actually, humans have been testing food, even without the FDA ,since the dawn of agriculture. Whenever a berry or other ingested plant killed you, you knew not to serve it to you family.
f- Silk Worms: I partly mangled my comments on this. Put simply, commercial Silk Worms have been genetically modified by centuries of silk trade, such that they cannot survive in the wild. Silk Worms currently exist only to serve the textile industry. Just as Milk Cows are bred with the sole purpose of providing milk to humans. There are no herds of wild Milk Cows terrorizing the countryside.

5) If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling non-prerennial seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing -- and will continue to do -- to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct.

In life, be cautious of how broad is the brush with which you paint the views of those you don't agree with.

Respectfully Submitted
-NDTyson

This is exactly right.

"GMO" is agriculture taken almost to its purest form. We're rewriting the sheet music now rather than simply conducting the orchestra, but the end product is still to produce the symphony.

Instead of selecting for desirable traits over generations to get what we want, we can create it directly.

The problem, of course, is that some entities will and are using this new tool to do harm. If someone wants to protest that, I'll be right there with them, but don't ban hammers just because they can be used to hurt people. We have houses to build.