5 ms·
> If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body. Am I missing something here?
by milliams 1y ago
> If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.
Am I missing something here?
- jml7c5 1y agoIt's an excessively brief way of saying that the nutrients we consume ultimately come from the sun. It caught me off guard for a moment, too.
- echoangle 1y agoThen basically every form of energy humanity uses except nuclear is from the sun. Oil is also plant- and animal-based if you go back far enough.
- zahlman 1y agoNot to mention, the point of using "solar energy" as we normally conceive of it is to avoid CO2 emissions, but humans exhale CO2.
- Liftyee 1y agoThough all the carbon we eat eventually traces back to plants which absorbed equal CO2 from the atmosphere... so it's technically carbon neutral.
- svara 1y agoIt's just carbon neutral, not "technically" carbon neutral. The reason we even care about CO2 emissions is that industrial emissions reconnect carbon reservoirs that were disconnected from the atmosphere for millions of years, i.e. underground oil, gas and coal deposits, back to the atmosphere. Not that CO2 in itself is harmful in any way.
- zahlman 1y agoThe fact that we have ~8 billion people now vs ~1 billion in 1800 does make a difference to the equation, in terms of our own respiration and not just our deliberate use of fossil fuels. Admittedly it's minor, and I don't know what's happened to other biomass in that time. But still. The point is: having people eat more so that they could pedal a stationary bike hooked up to an electric generator, would not give "clean" power at the margin.
- hollerith 1y agoNo, you are not getting what people are trying to tell you: growing the food for the extra 7 billion completely cancels out the co2 emitted from the 7 billion pairs of lungs. We know that because the C in that emitted CO2 all comes from food eaten by the person at some point in the person's life.
- Skunkleton 1y agoI think you might be missing the point too. Yes, the carbon in the food we eat is where the carbon in our breath comes from. But the carbon that we used to get the ingredients in that food didn't certainly come from the atmosphere (e.g. half of the nitrogen used in agriculture comes from fossil fuels). You can't be a perfectly optimal salad eating machine. One of your fellow humans will ruin the equation the moment they buy produce from the modern supply chain.
- hollerith 1y agoNo, all the carbon in food plants comes from CO2 from the atmosphere. (Ditto nitrogen by the way: the natural gas used in making nitrogen fertilizers is a source of hydrogen and possibly reaction energy, but not a significant source of N.)
- Skunkleton 1y ago> No, all the carbon in food plants comes from CO2 from the atmosphere. Yes, this is what I said. > the natural gas used in making fertilizer is a source of hydrogen and energy, but not a significant source of N. There is no nitrogen at all in natural gas. Plants cannot use atmospheric nitrogen on their own. They depend on either bacteria or humans to create some usable form of nitrogen. Any carbon captured in a plant that depended on a fossil fuel source of nitrogen cannot be considered carbon neutral, unless you draw a useless system boundary.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- layer8 1y agoThis lessens my motivation of losing weight, because the actual weight loss comes largely from the carbon we breathe out.
- genewitch 1y agoIts actually because oxygen is harmful to us, our bodies attach bits of itself to the oxygen to get it out of us. If you breathe hard from exertion, ypur just exhaling more bits of yourself.
- bitmasher9 1y agoWhere did the uranium come from? My assumption is it’s supernova ejection, so it comes from a different star.
- layer8 1y agoGeothermal energy and tidal power don’t come from the sun either. Hydroelectricity is half sun (evaporation) half Earth’s gravity. (Well, one could argue that without the sun we wouldn’t have liquid oceans.)
- dredmorbius 1y agoIronically, much if not most food we eat is dependent on fossil-fuel energy, largely through nitrogen fertiliser (natural-gas based), but also pesticides, mechanised agriculture, and the distribution network's transport, cold-chain, and retail elements. That's not a defence of fossil fuels so much as noting that Berry's arguments here sits a little loosely with reality.
- bitmasher9 1y agoDid you miss the part where he farms with a horse as a beast of burden?
- dredmorbius 1y agoMost of use don't.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y agoHis lifestyle - activism included - is a fantasy of pastoral individualism which is only possible because science and technology keep the lights on for everyone around him. He still doesn't use a computer, and his wife still uses a typewriter to transcribe his rustic hand-hewn longhand. But after that the words are typed into a computer by another assistant. Would a return to small-scale farms and communities be a good thing? Of course. But he's blaming "lazy city folks" when the real culprits are corporate raiders and would-be plantation owners. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/2/20862854/wendell-berry-climate-change-port-royal-michael-pollan https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/2/20862854/wendell...
- DangitBobby 1y agoThe dubious position that being forced to participate in society invalidates his activism is addressed in response to reader letters, and so are consumers who consider themselves blameless cogs of the capitalist machine. Have you seen the web comic that goes something like: > A: I wish to improve society somewhat. > B: And yet you participate in society. Curious.