Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Despite being a technology nerd, I've been pretty resistant to the siren calls of many of them. We don't have cable TV, just Netflix. No FB, Twitter, Insta-whatever for me. I bought my wife a cellphone, but didn't get one myself til around 2012, when an employer told me it was necessary for the position. And then it was a write-off.

So, just say no. Unless someone is paying handsomely to be able to access you at all hours, turn off that phone when it suits you. Nothing like a nice 2 hour sail with zero interruptions for clearing the mind.
[/derail]

Are you married? My wife doesn't sail . Unplugging is not optional

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A rather chilling story in today's NYT about current demographic trends:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/w...shrinking.html

It seems like it was only 10 years ago that I was still arguing with people who thought overpopulation was the world's biggest problem.

The extent to which the opposite is happening shocks even me. South Korea now has a fertility rate of 0.9 (!; replacement rate is 2.1), despite having spent $178 billion (!) in "baby bonuses" over the last 15 years. On current trends, China's population will decline by about one-half by the end of the century. In Japan, adult diapers outsell diapers for babies. Germany already increased the retirement age to 67 and will not bump it to 69, and are demolishing hundreds of thousands of unneeded houses and turning the land into parks. The fertility rate in the U.S., 1.78, is half of what it was in 1953, and is now lower than Sweden's. Italy has a fertility rate of 1.3.

...and I recently linked to an article claiming that average male fertility is down by 50%...

This is crazy. Without profound progress in automation, this will be an economic catastrophe. In much of the developed world, we are not noticing the full extent of this event because we make up a good part of the shortfall in people with immigration. But this is a short term remedy -- those countries from which people immigrate, are also mostly seeing drastic falls in fertility rates. Even India, which had a fertility rate of almost 6 as recently as 1964, is now only barely replacing itself, and is expected to fall below replacement rate already in 2024 https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...fertility-rate.

Those robots won't come a moment too soon. The world will be a very, very different place in a few decades.

Well, there's two bits of crazy that will need to change:

1. end the current Western trend of making children a luxury item. Why are two full-time salaries necessary?
2. make a few basic changes to an economic system which relies so much on overconsumption

[edit - we need an economy that better rewards what people do for each other, as well as what we can talk people into buying.]

In the short-term, immigration is a reasonable solution... with its own problems (exploitation, nationalist or racial resistance.)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Are you married? My wife doesn't sail . Unplugging is not optional

Happily and going on 31 years. Respecting each others' space is a key part of its success.

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is crazy. Without profound progress in automation, this will be an economic catastrophe. In much of the developed world, we are not noticing the full extent of this event because we make up a good part of the shortfall in people with immigration. But this is a short term remedy -- those countries from which people immigrate, are also mostly seeing drastic falls in fertility rates. Even India, which had a fertility rate of almost 6 as recently as 1964, is now only barely replacing itself, and is expected to fall below replacement rate already in 2024 https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...fertility-rate.

Those robots won't come a moment too soon. The world will be a very, very different place in a few decades.

But? Wouldn't consumption equally fall? No need to sustain today's production levels if there is less demand from less people. I agree it would be catastrophic to today's volume of economic gains. But maybe it's an adjustment for the better of everyone, not just those that gain financially off of mass consumption of a large population? Historically there are instances where child bearing was rewarded, and encouraged by governments and the religions, for the purpose of building armies, and consumers, and cheap labor. Actually some very oppressive policies put into place sometimes to obtain those goals.
So IMO it might not be catastrophic, but a balancing, a change in how we approach economics and policy. It might actually be good, especially with regard to enviornmental sustainability.

A gay friend of mine once relayed to me how she stopped religious people judging her. She asked them to think that perhaps in "God's plan" that he created a certain portion of the population to be gay in order to slow procreation. So as to maintain sustainability. I thought that was brilliant! She was not religious. I am noy religious. But perhaps evolution, mother nature, and our own idiocy by polluting our water, air, and food sources is a direct cause of; infertility, infant mortality, and deaths caused by poverty and war.

Lot's to think about.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

But? Wouldn't consumption equally fall? No need to sustain today's production levels if there is less demand from less people. I agree it would be catastrophic to today's volume of economic gains. But maybe it's an adjustment for the better of everyone, not just those that gain financially off of mass consumption of a large population? . . . .

Well, do some reading on the economic consequences of demographic decline.


One of the worst effects of demographic decline is the effect on pension systems, where fewer young people have to pay for more old people -- and can't. And demographic decline generally causes economic decline and makes everyone poorer.


But automation might be able to replace the disappearing labor force, and there are positive effects of less people on the earth. I'm cautiously optimistic about the more distant future, if we can only avoid wiping each other out in wars. We need less and less land to support each person, and with less people, then global land use changes radically and for the better. Cities become better and people move away from the countryside, leaving more and more space for wilderness. People live longer and quality of life gets better for fewer people -- provided automation keeps up and labor shortages don't kill us.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Happily and going on 31 years. Respecting each others' space is a key part of its success.

Amen
My darling bride knows she can text me when I’m out but she also knows I’m not answering
Works for us
Same thing at work

[SailOar]

Autonomous Saildrones are the newest weapon in fighting climate change

• Saildrone has deployed over 100 AI-equipped drone sail boats to monitor ocean and weather data, count fish populations and map the ocean floor.
• Saildrones have a sail with solar panels and an airplane-like tail
• They can monitor ocean currents, wind speeds, sunlight radiation, sea and air temperature, relative humidity and carbon dioxide emissions and relay it back via satellite
• The Surveyor is a much larger Saildrone that will map all of the oceans with sonars that can record the depth of the bottom

The Saildrone Surveyor is ready to map the ocean floor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XoTAvcKgOE

[SailOar]

Shell ordered to deepen carbon cuts in landmark Dutch climate case

• A Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to drastically deepen planned greenhouse gas emission cuts
• Earlier this year, Shell set a target to cut the carbon intensity of its products by at least 6% by 2023, by 20% by 2030, by 45% by 2035 and by 100% by 2050 from 2016 levels
• The court ordered Royal Dutch Shell, by means of its corporate policy, to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 with respect to the level of 2019
• This is a landmark ruling that could trigger legal action against energy companies around the world

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Shell ordered to deepen carbon cuts in landmark Dutch climate case

• A Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to drastically deepen planned greenhouse gas emission cuts
• Earlier this year, Shell set a target to cut the carbon intensity of its products by at least 6% by 2023, by 20% by 2030, by 45% by 2035 and by 100% by 2050 from 2016 levels
• The court ordered Royal Dutch Shell, by means of its corporate policy, to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 with respect to the level of 2019
• This is a landmark ruling that could trigger legal action against energy companies around the world

Shell isn't the only company to feel the wrath. Exxon Mobil and Chevron, getting some of their just deserts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...n-over-climate

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

Shell isn't the only company to feel the wrath. Exxon Mobil and Chevron, getting some of their just deserts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...n-over-climate

In the end we are the only ones that will suffer .

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by newhaul

In the end we are the only ones that will suffer .

Yeah don’t know what I’ll do with all that clean air and water

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by Midnight Son

Shell isn't the only company to feel the wrath. Exxon Mobil and Chevron, getting some of their just deserts.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...n-over-climate

You don’t think every man/woman/child who consumes their products will get their just deserts as well?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Yeah don’t know what I’ll do with all that clean air and water

Not much because you won't be able to afford to do much .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Shell ordered to deepen carbon cuts in landmark Dutch climate case

• A Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to drastically deepen planned greenhouse gas emission cuts
• Earlier this year, Shell set a target to cut the carbon intensity of its products by at least 6% by 2023, by 20% by 2030, by 45% by 2035 and by 100% by 2050 from 2016 levels
• The court ordered Royal Dutch Shell, by means of its corporate policy, to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 with respect to the level of 2019
• This is a landmark ruling that could trigger legal action against energy companies around the world

One more money grab by a government that us poor folk will end up paying for

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by Sailmonkey

You don’t think every man/woman/child who consumes their products will get their just deserts as well?

The world is changing, I don't like some of the changes, you don't like some of the changes.

These corporations have deliberately obfuscated reality for their benefit, Exxon for disingenuous manipulation of the media, with bogus reports and research.

Chevron with using the justice system, to go after a lawyer who successfully brought them to heel, for their transgressions against the locals in Central America.
So, NO, their quasi criminal actions should be roundly punished.


I use lots of fossil fuels, if I could switch to hydrogen power, I would do so in an instant.Solar just doesn't cut it around here in the winter.
Best wishes from the far North.