4 ms·

Why is always the solution to to go somewhere else and screw up? Go to the moon and harvest. Go to Mars and live there as we ruined mother earth. Mine the deep

Why is always the solution to to go somewhere else and screw up? Go to the moon and harvest. Go to Mars and live there as we ruined mother earth. Mine the deep sea floor. Why not try to recycle better instead. It's not as sexy, but how about if we could mine the old landfills and mine all the trash we collect? Why not make more efficient cars than build the silly humongous SUVs and trucks? Less metal use means less mining.

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
What kind of vehicles - if not trucks - should be used to move items from the old landfills to a recycling/processing plant?
- onion2k 4y ago
  I find it incredibly annoying that I have to have my own garbage truck. It literally takes up my whole driveway.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  1. GP meant how individuals get SUVs and trucks to drive themselves around, not to carry freight. 2. More train use instead of trucks is generally a good idea; not sure about landfills though, since you would have to disassemble the train line to them after they're cleared. Might still be worth it though.
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
Why don't you solve the problem on the supply side?
- golemotron 4y ago
  That's taken care of already. World population is going to peak sometime this century and there's nothing on the horizon that will bring humanity back to replacement rate fertility. The environment will be fine, and energy demand will decline along with population.
icare_1er 4y ago
That's called civilization. I know this is controversial right now but this is pretty much the process by which we left the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
codyb 4y ago
Aren't people doing pretty much all of these? I like what I call the opposite of "death by a thousand cuts" approach, which I like to call "healing by a thousand bandaids".
saiya-jin 4y ago
Good ideas, but not good enough. Recycling almost doesn't work at current technology levels and costs. Unless you come with proper nanobots that would pick all those tiny thin pieces/layers of heavy metals and bad substances in all electronics for example. This kind of naivety is pretty dangerous from my point of view. Good intentions, but completely unrealistic in expecting to actually fix an ultra massive and complex problem, makes people reject scientific discussion and dig deeper for better understanding and just say things that makes them feel good and move on. Ie why not make more efficient cars - gee I wonder why nobody thought about that. I guess EU is regulating cars to hell killing whole product lines just for the heck of it. And its not enough, very far from it. We need to attack problem from all possible sides, and mining in places which can't be technically more polluted and can't harm anything alive is probably the most ecological thing apart from killing whole mankind or forcing it all back to the caves. And we should do more, much more. Like keep educating people, starting from schools, its not a rocket science. Subsidize and tax. Also, Mars is about humankind survival, it has been discussed here ad nausea. Who doesn't understand we need to diversify our location or mankind will 100% eventually die is again... dangerously naive.

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago

What kind of vehicles - if not trucks - should be used to move items from the old landfills to a recycling/processing plant?

onion2k 4y ago
I find it incredibly annoying that I have to have my own garbage truck. It literally takes up my whole driveway.
einpoklum 4y ago
1. GP meant how individuals get SUVs and trucks to drive themselves around, not to carry freight. 2. More train use instead of trucks is generally a good idea; not sure about landfills though, since you would have to disassemble the train line to them after they're cleared. Might still be worth it though.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

Why don't you solve the problem on the supply side?

golemotron 4y ago
That's taken care of already. World population is going to peak sometime this century and there's nothing on the horizon that will bring humanity back to replacement rate fertility. The environment will be fine, and energy demand will decline along with population.

icare_1er 4y ago

That's called civilization. I know this is controversial right now but this is pretty much the process by which we left the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

codyb 4y ago

Aren't people doing pretty much all of these? I like what I call the opposite of "death by a thousand cuts" approach, which I like to call "healing by a thousand bandaids".

saiya-jin 4y ago

Good ideas, but not good enough. Recycling almost doesn't work at current technology levels and costs. Unless you come with proper nanobots that would pick all those tiny thin pieces/layers of heavy metals and bad substances in all electronics for example. This kind of naivety is pretty dangerous from my point of view. Good intentions, but completely unrealistic in expecting to actually fix an ultra massive and complex problem, makes people reject scientific discussion and dig deeper for better understanding and just say things that makes them feel good and move on. Ie why not make more efficient cars - gee I wonder why nobody thought about that. I guess EU is regulating cars to hell killing whole product lines just for the heck of it. And its not enough, very far from it. We need to attack problem from all possible sides, and mining in places which can't be technically more polluted and can't harm anything alive is probably the most ecological thing apart from killing whole mankind or forcing it all back to the caves. And we should do more, much more. Like keep educating people, starting from schools, its not a rocket science. Subsidize and tax. Also, Mars is about humankind survival, it has been discussed here ad nausea. Who doesn't understand we need to diversify our location or mankind will 100% eventually die is again... dangerously naive.