I think the key would be to not use any additional resources to grow, harvest, etc.

This could be done for example by landscaping companies that put their waste through a retort (which could be anything from a stove made of mud bricks, to a mobile trailer that does on-site pyrolysis and use the resulting biochar to fertilize their customer’s plants. Farms could put their waste through it, innoculate the biochar with animal waste, and use it as fertilizer.

I make biochar from my backyard waste in my firepit using a can like this guy.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9boXHuzMFsA
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChVxPpnPT-I

Any other method of carbon capture I’ve ever heard about makes no sense. Having hundreds of engineers and workers drive to work for years to engineer and build giant metal and plastic factory/machines with parking lots that require staff that has to drive and park there, etc is nonsense. And even if they work, what would they do with the carbon? Biochar provides a cycle that is accessible to everyone, can be done on-site, uses no fancy technology, nothing is patented, and doesn’t require all this nonsense.

Biochar (created in a retort) is how you sustainably sequester carbon for the long-term using trees (and similar biomass).

Nate is amazing, he and some of his guests are exactly who I learned this from.

To some degree, fission also, though it has a few other problems like safety and security concerns around nuclear materials, locations of fuels and whether they are in friendly nations, other things the fuels can be used for and all the politics that goes with that, etc.

But we need more than just energy. At some point, regardless of our energy, we are going to destroy Earth’s ecosystems using up other resources, using this energy to mine unsustainably, etc. More energy just means we kill ourselves faster. We should not be looking for more or cleaner energy with which to kill ourselves with, we should be looking to continuity of our species and that requires living sustainably within the bounds of our environment.

I never understand this line of thought. The amounts of energy we use is never ever going to go down. It just isn’t.

If we don’t develop practical nuclear fusion before our fossil inheritance effectively runs out we sure will. It will also go down following ecological collapse caused by using all that energy. Infinite energy doesn’t make up for a collapsed ecosystem.

Nope, been thinking about what it would take to make one though.

So only the lucky unfit sperm destined to produce one who wears a red cap will be able to successfully fertilize the egg?

It’s time to return to human curated directories.

Seriously: I don’t think the cost benefit is there to intentionally make a maneuver like this.

You might be right

They can’t let short-term greed get in the way of long-term greed!

lol

So are you saying that they suffered from a filesystem bug that caused deletion failure? I’d imagine they use standard filesystems on their backend, I haven’t heard about any bugs like this.

If you ask me, what’s more likely, that a company known for shitty behavior lies about deleting files so they can continue to use that information to profit, – OR – that they are experiencing a filesystem bug on their backend, I’ll choose the former.

But clearly the data is not overwritten and this was intentional. How do I know? Because that would amount to a massive amount of data, if it was de to a bug in Apple software or underlying filesystems, it would be detected in monitoring systems “Hey, we’re using 10x the data we should be, maybe we should look into it”.

The mistake was in the flag code that was supposed to fool us.

Nothing sinister, we just don’t delete what we say we delete. Instead we keep it in your profile to feed the algorithms and set the “deleted” flag to make you think it’s gone.

They lost dream job status for me when I realized I was facilitating some evil shit. Like “oh! great job in genomics! I can help cure cancer!” Then realize it’s “oh, help China build population scale genomic sequencing, wonder what they’re gonna do with that?”

And “oh, edge computing, sounds cool”, then realizing “oh, edge computing is mostly useful for facial recognition, wonder what people will use that for?”

These are great ideas and should be implemented, but at best the push the issue of population down the road. These are temporary band-aids to a worsening problem.

A species that grows beyond it’s bounds and kills itself is not intelligent, it’s merely a clever tool user. Let’s prove our real intelligence by being the first species on our planet conscious of the physical bounds, with understanding we have the capacity to to go beyond them to our own demise, and wisdom to actively choose sustainability. Let’s be smarter than bacteria on a Petri dish.

The goal of our species shouldn’t be to fit as many humans as possible on the planet and make everyone sacrifice for it.

But I want to clarify, I’m not in favor of authoritarian limits on reproduction (I’m an anarchist). I suspect, looking at the timing of the human population explosion on the scale of thousands of years, that exploitative economic systems and the ability to cheat the natural energy balance by using prehistoric sunlight energy (fossil fuels) are the drivers of this explosion and if we can eliminate or control those things the population would naturally contract.

https://www.carlsbaddesal.com/

Every time we’ve run into issues, we’ve innovated our way out of it.

Is that right?

We’re currently wiping out the Amazon, causing the 6th great extinction, unsustainably using fossil fuels. Billions of people are dependent on very complex supply chains that require massive polluting and ocean life harming ships to get them to you. You can’t even talk about your favorite camping spot without it getting overrun and damaging the ecosystem. Many people can’t afford to see their favorite artists because with a massive population and popular artists that supply and demand is way out of whack. Same with Disneyland etc. We don’t have enough housing, and if we build more we’re going to wipe out even more ecosystems and use even more resources.

Las Vegas? Those solar panels and air conditioners are produced using fossil fuels. Also, the desert is not wasteland, just because desert species may not be your favorite doesn’t mean it’s ok to wipe them out to build more housing tracts.

There are so many aspects of overpopulation, producing enough food, water, and housing are just the tiny tip of the iceberg. These things I brought up are what came to my mind in 2 minutes before I had my coffee.

By saying technology is the way past our problems is to set up a race condition between technological advancements that are not guaranteed (and most likely to exacerbate the rich vs poor gap) and civilization ending destruction that is.

True, especially with some of the recent advancements, but of course politicians doing anything smart is where the impossiblity lies.

There are 2 million people that live here and many don’t have anything to do with gambling. Your comment is like calling Hawaii a bunch of surfers.

I’m sure people will hate me for saying this, but we should be phasing out unsustainable cities like Las Vegas, not giving them incentives to build up even more.

I live in Vegas (an am partly excited about the train because, well it’s a train and it will make it easier to visit family) and fully agree. This place is uninhabitable for 3 months out of the year without technological assistance (air conditioning). But I think this applies to many places both too hot and too cold. Even Southern California has no water without massive exploitation of the Colorado River. Our population is simply too much for the planet.

Mazda has very nice interiors and didn’t go the touchscreen route.