NEXT

[fncyths]

Interesting Geoffrey...

Now let's slip into some Devoa and chill for a sec:

[mizzar]

2 moderators Edit: A bit of overreacting, but theme is very personal to me, if not ok, please delete.

2 Geoffrey B. Small:
With great respect to you, may i ask you about some figures?
You are definitely have more insight and understanding of ecology and sustainability.

Fibre production (for one kg):
Energy (megaJoules): Poly-97 MJ, Cotton-60 MJ
Oil or gas: Poly-1,5 kg, Cotton-0
Fertilisers: Poly-0, Cotton-457g
Pesticides: Poly-0, Cotton-16g
Water: Poly-17 litres, Cotton-22,200 litres
Carbon dioxide emissions: Poly-2.3kg, Cotton-3.0kg

Please don't go to nuclear victims, because you are now talking with one of them. I'm Ukranian born, in 1986, and if you know history you know about secrecy in the first months after Chernobil explosion, me and my parents (as almost all population of Kiev) were forbidden to leave, to run from radioactive dust etc, so please don't go that way.

May i ask what phone you are using?
Because i use only secondhand\thrift store technic
From my pc, to my phone , from tv, to even cattle.
95% of my clothes are thrift store findings.
And i thought Faust quote in my signature would translate to some
understanding of my position on those questions.

Here, some image for you too

[Patroklus]

we are consuming the earth's critical natural resources (that all of us need for basic survival) at no less than 150 percent of the planet's capacity to sustain and replenish them. I am talking about uncontaminated air, potable water, agricultural topsoil and edible marine biology (fish, plankton and algaes) first and foremost.

Two and a half billion people are starving right now, because they have no food. 1 billion don't have drinkable water. 2 billion don't have toilets and are furthering the drinking water shortages. I'm not even going to get into all the oil, gas, nuclear and carbon victim numbers, issues and damages... And whether you know it or not, fashion is one of the major causes of their suffering because it ties up a ton of these resources just to "feed your need" to have something new.

[citation needed]

Just ask any scientist who currently is not being paid by the lobbies.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

[zamb]

after having a really difficult day and needing to be up at 7 am in the morning, i really need to flesh out my thoughts clearer before i go any further into this discussion

Q,
I don't think you fully understood Geoffreys post, not saying I agree with absolutely everything he said, but he indeed made some valid points. I also don't think he is saying we should do away with electricity.......I think what he means is that some of us have become such slaves to technology, that if you took away many aspects of it we could not function, and this doesn't have to be the case.......

I experienced this before in an a way that was so simple it was absurd, not so long ago i went into a certain sports shoe store to buy a sneakers for my nephew......after choosing the sneakers and going to the cashier I was told that I could not purchase the sneakers because the "system" was down. I politely suggested to do the sale manually and went ahead to calculate the cost, so the cashier could do the sale in Cash and sort it out later when the "system" was back up. I was told that this could not be done as she could not figure out how much the item would finally cost with the taxes, and that they were not allowed to do this.
Lets assume that there was six or seven other clients like me in 30 minutes spending $100 each, so because we have becomes slaves to technology with no manual workaround/ alternative, the shoe lost about $700 because no one could calculate , by using their brain without a calculator/ computer the cost of goods to be sold.........


Here is also a rally interesting read by a German Woman who wrote to Hitler , the are many things in this I am not in agreement with, but in a way I think she makes some points fitting to this discussion.

[mortalveneer]

[citation desperately needed]



http://berkeleyearth.org/

BEST was funded in part by the Koch bros.

[Patroklus]

Okay?

[mortalveneer]

Okay?

KBros' political activities are largely seen as lobbying, so I was confused how the Berkeley Earth project was a counterexample to "just ask any scientist who isn't paid by lobbies". Maybe it wasn't and I just misread your intent.

[liberty_of_style]

Mizzar
I'm agree with you that we deserve good quality fabrics. I don't mind hi tech fabrics. I'm a fan of cashmere and merino. Well tailored suit made by hand. Hand made shoes etc. The most lovely thing in my wardrobe is a jacket made of 100% cashmere which I purchased at second hand. It is hand made. Every corner of it stitched by hand. Copper buttons. It is very solid! I wouldn't change it to anything from Rick, Poell etc. In this case We don't need to get back to 18th to live in. That time you could die from a simple cold. We really need modern medicine.

BUT.

I don't want to spend $500 for jeans if their netto cost is $50. I feel how some companies play on buyers feelings. It is disgusting to pay $100 today if you can pay $20 tomorrow on discount. Some people want to change their notebook/phone/car for only one reason - it is new line. For me it's bullshit!
I guess I'm the one of those people who use simple button cellphone. I don't need an iPhone. I want to call and sms'ing, that's all. Check emails? via laptop at my work. take photos? My digital camera does it much better. I just want to say that here in past Soviet countries an Iphone becomes an idol or status. People use 2% of it's functions.

"The best present is a book" Do you remember this phrase? Aha!

Geoffrey
I can understand what you are talking about. Yes we have been corrupted by modern tech to some extent. Most of us become "slaves" to "helpful items". Modern youth can't imagine their life without social networks. Look around and you will see young girl/boy/woman/man taping their devices. And what? Internet status is more important for them than real life. For me it's a problem. This is not weapon of mass communication - this is addict! Can you remember the last time you took a pen to write a letter? Real letter. On paper. I guess in your school time.

If you ask me about future? I will tell you what is it for me.
I want to live in such place where everybody knows each other in the face. By name. Where you go out and meet friends. Whether you need medical help or get food, you know exactly who those doctor and seller. You know his family. You can meet him and ask what's new, does he need any help and he can do the same.
Where you don't need special app to know what building it is.

And this is not utopia. We can do it. Really!
Yesterday I ask my wife - "just imagine, tomorrow all Internet will down! What will we do then, all of us?" She said, "well, the first week it will be scared, but then people get used".

get used is all of us can do.....

[YoungM]

So many people in this thread sound like a combination of my grandmother, a right wing conspiracy theorist, and a left wing conspiracy theorist. There's so much here for me to complain about, I'm sure I won't have the energy to get to everything. But for a start -

Geoffrey, though I'm sure you'll simply claim this is the work of "paid scientists" it's far from a sure thing that population growth will continue at the rates you hysterically point at - a great number of demographers argue that trends point towards population growth leveling out at something like 9 billion. Evidence for this can be seen in falling population rates in developed nations around the world. Here is the article google brought me to fastest on the topic -

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-population-growth

Furthermore, the reason people are starving is not because of lack of food - there is certainly enough food and water. The issue is one of distribution. Other resources, like energy, only matter if we want to continue living the way we do (which you seem dedicated to decrying) - perhaps we won't be able to continue, but it seems much more likely, given human history, that we'll simply find a way to deal with the amount of resources we have.

The most obnoxious thing about your screed however is that, while I'm sure you believe you're helping out a lot by designing sack suits with nuclear symbols on them and selling them for $3k, the fact is, you're doing nothing. Absolutely nothing. Even if you're actually involved in activism, which I sort of doubt, you're still accomplishing nothing. What's your plan? Seriously? Merz was right to call you a luddite - Ned Ludd was pushing back against real problems with industrialization, but he missed something vital (something that Marx actually recognized) - without industrialization, the basic state of almost all of population is poverty. Sure, energy production carries with it a good deal of risk, but there are tradeoffs, something your silly complaints about nuclear energy never seem to mention. I understand the risk - I understand the costs. But what are the alternatives? You certainly don't have any.

Both you and Liberty of Style make the absolutely ridiculous point that modern people are suited for living in the modern world, and, were all infrastructure to fall apart, would be generally fucked. Duh? Again, what would you recommend? Sure, everyone could learn how to farm, and build shelters, and hunt, but at what cost? You guys both live in some sort of fantasy world - the bounties of the modern world (and there are a great many - if you don't believe that, feel free to become amish) come at cost, and one of those costs is specialization.

Liberty of Style, the fact that you find any sort of meaningful difference between checking your email on your phone and on your laptop at work is laughable - way to stick it to modernity buddy.

People don't change. The less intelligent elderly around us have always pointed towards some sort of rot among the next generations, and they've always been wrong - in fact, things have gotten better. Sure, youth may overuse social media, but they wouldn't die were it taken away, any more than anyone would die if air conditioning disappeared from the world. Technology is a tool, and it will be used by people, in the ways people use tools. The fact is, human existence is mind-blowingly complicated, and all of these issues will have to be worked out slowly and difficultly. So, get off your high horses, and fuck you Geoffrey.

[elephantstone]

I understand the risk - I understand the costs. But what are the alternatives? You certainly don't have any.

Well said YoungM, couldn't agree more...

[Patroklus]

KBros' political activities are largely seen as lobbying, so I was confused how the Berkeley Earth project was a counterexample to "just ask any scientist who isn't paid by lobbies". Maybe it wasn't and I just misread your intent.

There's two things you need to consider; that the Koch brothers don't personally select every organization that their foundations and lobbyist groups send money to, and that their own donors page claims that these grants were unrestricted. Some desk dude at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation decided that BEST was likely to deliver results that ran counter to claims by proponents of anthropological global warming.

Their data set and methodology is available for you to view on their website, and it looks sound. Furthermore, BEST itself doesn't necessarily confirm of deny claims about global warming, and isn't complete, but it does contradict claims made by hardline AGW proponents and detractors.

Woah, hold on a sec, one thing is saying technology can be used for sustainability, but it is something completely different to defend nuclear energy by simply stating (no arguments attached) that there are no alternatives, and that the trade-off justifies the risk. These are really heavy claims, and in fact the very core of all the debates about nuclear energy, so let's just keep them as that for the beginning.

Nuclear and geothermal are preferable to oil and coal power and I would welcome the switch to the former from the latter. Clean energy sources aren't capable of supplying current demand and aren't likely to be able to, ever. Ultimately commercially viable fusion plants will be the way forward.

[Patroklus]

Do you have a problem with sandcastles?

how can you say which energy source is preferable without calling upon a study which shows why and discusses the variety of aspects that contrast the status quo with possible developmental plans for the future?

Because that was a statement of opinion.

The problem with wind, solar, and hydro is that they're nondispatchable - their output can't be scaled to meet demand, so for a grid reliant on these sources to be able to meet peak demand would require a sprawling and economically inefficient infrastructure. Additionally, solar is extremely expensive and none of these power plants can be built and utilized in every place in the world in the way that most types of dispatchable plants can be built nearly anywhere.

but which of them are to be developed further because of the inadequacy of the existing ones.

Fusion uses relatively cheap and very plentiful fuel, its byproducts have low radioactivity and short half lives, and the accident potential is very low because the reaction will cease if the reactor itself is damaged. Non-commercially viable (meaning energy output is lower than input) plants already exist and commercially viable ones are likely to exist in our lifetimes, although there's plenty of extremely optimistic and pessimistic people who will tell you something different. It's certainly promising.

[Patroklus]

Everyone mentions Chernobyl but forgets that radioactive waste gave us the Ninja Turtles. THANK YOU OPPENHEIMER

[mortalveneer]

Shouldn't all this go in one of the political discussions threads, and we can get back to talking about what the NEXT techniques/trends/travesties in fashion might be, however sinful and heedless that may or may not be?

[Faust]

To bring this back to what's NEXT.

I TRULY HOPE WHAT'S NEXT IS PEOPLE BUYING LESS AND SPENDING MORE PER ITEM.

Let me explain. Our consumption habits are very new in historical terms. Up until 50 years ago or so, a coat DID cost you a month's salary. But it was also a coat that lasted you years. And this is how it should be. You want to kill H&M? You are worried about sustainability? Change people's consumption habits. Re-educate them about quality. Teach them to value care and excellence that goes into the making of good objects. When this mentality shift happens, many of these problems will go away.

I am beginning to hear murmurs that this is starting to happen. I truly hope this takes off. We have gorged ourselves on fast fashion enough - it's time we start vomiting it all out.