Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Wild Country: Set of 7 X WC Rockcentrics. (Sizes 3 to 9) Anodized different colours! SUPER SPECIAL!  $119.00
30% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 5 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 128
Author
No More Overseas Travel? - Running out of oil?

Dom
7/11/2007
9:58:23 AM
On 6/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>who ever said it was about genes, its about culture.

Very interesting to see the responses to the points raised by Anthonyk. In 1994 a study in to intelligence was published by some people at Harvard. There was also some research done on the link between race and intelligence in the same study. It is a very interesting read, its called The Bell Curve

Author Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray
Publisher Free Press
Publication date September 1994
Media type Hardcover
Pages 845
ISBN 0-02-914673-9


anthonyk
7/11/2007
3:07:18 PM
On 6/11/2007 m9whereisthat wrote:
>dig dig dig anthonyk
>
>keep on digging. hyperbole tends to reveal

On 7/11/2007 rod wrote:
>Or alternatively, when you're in a hole stop digging...unless of course
>its to export coal.

eh whatever. i stand by everything i've said and haven't heard anything constructive saying otherwise

>Very interesting to see the responses to the points raised by Anthonyk.
>In 1994 a study in to intelligence was published by some people at Harvard.
>There was also some research done on the link between race and intelligence
>in the same study. It is a very interesting read, its called The Bell Curve

i don't know why you keep dragging it back to race, i never said anything about race at all. shows people only read what you want to read instead of what the words are saying

Dom
7/11/2007
3:19:52 PM
On 7/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:
>i don't know why you keep dragging it back to race, i never said anything
>about race at all. shows people only read what you want to read instead
>of what the words are saying

I didn't say that you had made the link in your previous posts I was merely pointing out that a study had been conducted in the area which yielded interesting results. Take! brought up an interesting issue when he was throwing mud at you.

anthonyk
7/11/2007
4:16:36 PM
On 7/11/2007 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>... back on more base level of the topic of No More Overseas Travel? -
>Running out of oil?
>
>Here are some old bits of philthy gold off another thread to help the
>show along ....
>
>On 3/03/2006 Phil Box wrote:
>>My pride and joy is a 1944 Chev Blitz 4wd world war 2 truck. These things
>>were designed to take a direct hit and still be driveable. She can do
>the
>>quarter mile in under 26 minutes, score.
>

lol..

yes back to the original thread, i saw a little snippet about an active german submarine that is running on hydrogen fuel so it seems like its becoming more practical. if you can use it in an environment where people are trying to shoot at you its probably getting practical to use it in cars too, which have a tendency to run into things like other cars & doesn't mix with highly volatile gasses all that well.

of course the submarine has the advantage they can stick the fuel tanks outside some pretty serious armour in case they explode, but its getting there. maybe thats why they introduced hydrogen powered hummers in the US, so you've got a whole lot of car between you and the fuel tanks in case they decide to blow up..

rod
7/11/2007
11:53:57 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7078857.stm

another nutter on the over-population/per capita consumption bandwagon, please don't assume this means i agree with him.

BigMike
8/11/2007
12:06:46 AM
On 7/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:

>yes back to the original thread, i saw a little snippet about an active
>german submarine that is running on hydrogen fuel so it seems like its
>becoming more practical.

That's brilliant! While they're at it they should make some kind of aircraft using hydrogen. I'm thinking a big inflatable one. Although some might say that idea will go over like a ....
rod
8/11/2007
4:20:53 AM
broken finger?

IdratherbeclimbingM9
8/11/2007
9:30:34 AM
The common link is 'german'.
Do they ever learn?
Heh, heh, heh.

anthonyk
8/11/2007
3:17:11 PM
On 8/11/2007 BigMike wrote:
>
>That's brilliant! While they're at it they should make some kind of aircraft
>using hydrogen. I'm thinking a big inflatable one. Although some might
>say that idea will go over like a ....

i wonder if they called it Hindenburg II

i thought they should have called the new A380 plane Titanic II, as far as I know the name is still available
Wendy
9/11/2007
10:21:02 AM
Regardless of religion/race, thereís a very high correlation between the education of women and birth rates. Education gives women opportunities to support themselves and choices to do something other than have a family. In developing nations and under religions and ideologies that oppress women, women have more babies and from a younger age largely from lack of other choices. Poor school experience in Australia also leads to young women choosing to have children Ė they see being a mother as a role in life when they have not succeeded at other popular roles in life, ie education/career. Education also provides information and confidence for women to access and use contraception.

There also seems to be an implied connection in anthonykís argument between lower birth rates in developed nations and an influx of people (of baby making persuasion) from underdeveloped nations who then become high resource using babies. I donít quite get this. Despite Australiaís low birth rate, I donít see our government inviting people of developing nations into Australia at any great rate. And also, for people that do arrive in Australia and gain access to our education and health systems, their rates of reproduction, especially in younger generations goes down. For the above mentioned reasons Ė womenís access to education, information and opportunities has a direct affect on birth rates. Would you choose to have a baby every year of your reproductive life if you could control it?

As Take! mentioned, babies in developed nations use far more resources than those in more highly populated but poorer countries. Have a look at Australiaís resource use compared to Ethiopia for example. Per capita, weíre shocking. And there are already more people in Australia living higher standards of living than the country can handle. Anyone read Jared Diamondís Collapse? He has a whole chapter on how Australia is the developed nation most likely to collapse in the near future. I donít think itís at all unreasonable to take over population and resource use into consideration in the decision to have children. Chinaís one child policy sounds immensely sensible to me (not discussing the problems of enforced abortion, infanticide and sex selection). Maybe alternative minded people will have alternative minded children. But maybe not. Children have minds of their own.

But maybe itís also worth considering in the decision to have children is what sort of future we are leaving for them. If we donít change our ways now, the loss of cheap climbing holidays will be the least of our worries. Our environmental problems are leading to serious health, social, economic and political problems. Not only are we at grave risk of losing the beauty and biodiversity in the world, but our ability to maintain civilisation as we know it. Canít remember where I read this, but someone has done an historical study which noted that whenever humans have been faced with the choice of starvation or raiding, humans have raided. If you look at Africa, drought and starvation feed conflict all over the place. Climate change and over use of non renewable resources could easily lead to this situation across the world.

Go and plant some trees. Buy local seasonal produce. Put some solar panels on your roof. Ride your bike. Car pool (you can fit 5 in most cars you know Ė do you remember climbing trips as an impoverished student when you all crammed into the only available car with half the gear under your feet and on your lap?). The bus to Horsham is outrageously cheap now. Vote Greens Ė itís not a wasted vote, you can always direct your preferences as you wish, and they get more government funding for more primary votes. And they have a chance to get the balance of power in the senate this year.

Have a look at your ecological footprint Ė

http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/personal/introduction.asp

Itís quite scary. I thought I had a very green lifestyle but if everyone on the planet lived like I do, weíd need nearly 4 planets to sustain us. That yearly trip to northern climes is my downfall every time. But at least if you take an extended climbing holiday, you only make that long haul flight once Ö.

It might look hopeless, but every little bit helps. Donít get caught up in thinking thereís no point in doing anything Ė not only are there lots of people at least trying to do something, but they are inspiring others to do so as well.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
9/11/2007
10:48:19 AM
An inspiring read.
Thanks Wendy.

Do you reckon we are going to crash before we get raided, or will education evolve us (& hopefully the 'raiders' too), out of the mess we create before then?

widewetandslippery
9/11/2007
11:46:51 AM
This is why we all need guns. "Humanity is overrated" gotta love that shirt (see todays paper)

anthonyk
9/11/2007
12:46:56 PM
On 9/11/2007 Wendy wrote:
>There also seems to be an implied connection in anthonykís argument between
>lower birth rates in developed nations and an influx of people (of baby
>making persuasion) from underdeveloped nations who then become high resource
>using babies. I donít quite get this. Despite Australiaís low birth rate,
>I donít see our government inviting people of developing nations into Australia
>at any great rate. And also, for people that do arrive in Australia and
>gain access to our education and health systems, their rates of reproduction,
>especially in younger generations goes down. For the above mentioned reasons
>Ė womenís access to education, information and opportunities has a direct
>affect on birth rates.

yes that is right, the birth rate does go down, it was a bit of a tangent referring to the high birth rates eg of people in africa. there's three tiers here- massive reproduction levels due to lack of education/resources etc, moderate levels which is the norm, and low levels eg western secular society.
the main argument was that reducing western fertility doesn't help at all, because economic necessities lead us to find other means to maintain our target population, and if maintaining a low rate is what you want you're better off doing it with a western (secular) approach because its a lower rate than other cultures, even without deliberately not having children. I think our approach of placing emphasis on individual lifestyles is far more constructive than eg the one child policy in china or more drastic measures that have been used in parts of the world. At least we don't end up with hoards of disenfranchised young men causing trouble because there aren't enough women to go around.

the other point is i don't think anyone has the right to pass guilt and judgement on other people who have a responsible lifestyle and want to have families, its a fundamental part of life.

Wendy
9/11/2007
1:31:01 PM
On 9/11/2007 anthonyk wrote:
.
>
>yes that is right, the birth rate does go down, it was a bit of a tangent
>referring to the high birth rates eg of people in africa. there's three
>tiers here- massive reproduction levels due to lack of education/resources
>etc, moderate levels which is the norm, and low levels eg western secular
>society.
>the main argument was that reducing western fertility doesn't help at
>all, because economic necessities lead us to find other means to maintain
>our target population, and if maintaining a low rate is what you want you're
>better off doing it with a western (secular) approach because its a lower
>rate than other cultures, even without deliberately not having children.
> I think our approach of placing emphasis on individual lifestyles is far
>more constructive than eg the one child policy in china or more drastic
>measures that have been used in parts of the world. At least we don't
>end up with hoards of disenfranchised young men causing trouble because
>there aren't enough women to go around.
>
>the other point is i don't think anyone has the right to pass guilt and
>judgement on other people who have a responsible lifestyle and want to
>have families, its a fundamental part of life.
>
>

The focus on individual lifestyles as a means of cutting population and hence resource use is however a double edged sword. We might be having less babies because of it, but it is our individualistic lifestyles that are using up excessive resources in the 1st place. And i think our government has been very clear that they would prefer nice white, heterosexual, educated women to get out of the workforce and back into the home than increase immigration from needy countries. See: one for you, your husband and your country, baby bonus that increases with the salary of the job the woman leaves, refusal of access to ivf for lesbians and single women (although ivf itself is another turbulant kettle of fish). Although there are obviously a whole stack of problems with China as a result of the one child policy, i think it would unfold differently in a western secular nation. And i'm not talking about locking people up for having babies, but simply changing our focus from encouraging people to have lots of babies to supporting people to make responsible choices about appropriate numbers of babies. And I'm not hassling people with responsible lifestyles choosing to have babies. But it is worth noting that even apparently green western lifestyles are too resource intense to support the world population living at that standard. What I would love to see in the world is a lowering of western extravagence in order to enable better overall standards of living and I would assume that a moderating of population would take place automatically with improved health and education standards across the world.

And M9, I think we're still heading for the crash if we don't do things differently damn soon, but as Australia is touted as the first rich nation to reach crisis point, I guess we'll be the raiders. The rest of the world had better run to the hills!

Wendy
9/11/2007
1:33:47 PM
From AAP today:

"Prime Minister John Howard says the world isn't about to come to an end because of climate change.

Mr Howard made the comment today while defending his claim that economic management is the only big issue of the federal election."

Johnny obviously isn't too stressed about all this though. His fabulous economic management will save the world.

EJ
9/11/2007
1:51:51 PM
On 9/11/2007 Wendy wrote:
>From AAP today:
>
>"Prime Minister John Howard says the world isn't about to come to an end
>because of climate change.
>
>Mr Howard made the comment today while defending his claim that economic
>management is the only big issue of the federal election."
>
>Johnny obviously isn't too stressed about all this though. His fabulous
>economic management will save the world.



There has to be a shift from making decisions based on an economic rationale to basing decisions on an ecologic rational. I'm saying this not as someone who Mr Howard is refers to as " climate change extremist" but someone who believes in a basic set of rules. Its the same set of rules that governs populations of bacteria, elephants, plants ..... anything that relies on a resource based system.

So no I don't agree with Mr Howard on his claim that "economic management is the only big issue...."

I think that one of the biggest issues is the lack "sustainable" economic management policies among our two major political parties. Its definitely not the only "issue" though!

Relating this issue back to original thread, it disappointing to see the lack of funding going to initiatives such as geothermal etc, but the major parties are willing to back upgrades to our roads worth billions of dollars!! With previous discussions on oil running out by 2030 - 2040, what is the more pressing need, better roads or better(greener) forms of transport, to sustain our climbing well past 2030!

Any thoughts? :)
dalai
9/11/2007
1:58:33 PM
On 9/11/2007 EJ wrote:
>Relating this issue back to original thread, it disappointing to see the
>lack of funding going to initiatives such as geothermal etc, but the major
>parties are willing to back upgrades to our roads worth billions of dollars!!
>With previous discussions on oil running out by 2030 - 2040, what is the
>more pressing need, better roads or better(greener) forms of transport,
>to sustain our climbing well past 2030!
>
>Any thoughts? :)

I'm looking forward to all those multi lane bike paths (ie all the empty freeways and roads) crossing the city without moron motorists yelling abuse ;-)

Dom
9/11/2007
1:59:39 PM
We're already seeing the raiding in Iraq and soon we'll see Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcjLEwZqcQI


evanbb
9/11/2007
2:02:33 PM
On 28/10/2007 harold wrote:
>Zebedee is quite right with the cow thing. Its really basic high school
>chemistry. CO2 from the air is photosynthesized to grow the grass - cow
>eats the grass for energy - part of the carbon in the grass is belched
>out as CH4 (methane), the rest of the the carbon from the grass becomes
>part of the cow. So out of this cycle - carbon is absorbed out of the
>air, some of it is returned to the air as methane, some of it becomes a
>cow. There is no increase in carbon to the atmosphere, actually the opposite
>is true. The leather in your boots is made of carbon which has been fixed
>out of the atmosphere via the cow.


Sorry Dudes, this is waaaaay late in the piece but I better interject.

I work in Greenhouse Gas recording and have a good mat in the Fed. GHG office. Cows are WAY bad. Yes the carbon comes from the atmosphere etc, but the big difference is that cows turn it into Methane, about 25 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2. So, if cows only convert 2 in 25 carbon molecules into methane it makes this carbon twice as bad. I repeat, cows are bad.

anthonyk
9/11/2007
2:10:22 PM
On 9/11/2007 Wendy wrote:
> If you look at Africa, drought and starvation feed conflict all over the place. Climate
>change and over use of non renewable resources could easily lead to this
>situation across the world.

to throw the cat among the pigeons, net global warming and increased atmospheric carbon actually increases the capacity of global plant production. there's actually more capacity to produce food as a result of climate change, but yes it might not be where people are currently living.


some good suggestions wendy. personally i don't think you can do more than minimise your energy waste, buy from efficient energy sources where possible and lean politically towards groups that will invest R&D into new technologies (& introduce carbon regulation of some sort, eg trading). once it becomes eco-fundamentalist and self-flagellation to atone for other peoples sins it doesn't have any practical impact and actually makes some people averse to doing their bit when they might otherwise be open to it, because they don't want to be seen as "one of those goddam greenies".


on a similar topic, i'm interested in what peoples thoughts on nuclear power are. given the massive potential carbon output reduction under existing technology, i have to say the arguments i've heard against have been pretty shallow. don't forget under a lot of alternative schemes eg plug in hybrids, electric cars, hydrogen power, you need significantly *more* grid power production than currently exists- matching the current output is ambitious enough for alternative sources, but matching the power demand from transport as well is a much, much higher target. nuclear would have a significant role to play there, if you think carbon reduction is important, but it seems like thats too much to ask for a lot of people.

 Page 5 of 7. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 128
There are 128 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints