mojo_raisin

Conservatives are simply fascists with masks on.

Why is an ever growing population considered unquestionably good?

If we make more food so we can make more people, it will accelerate the destruction of the planet. No amount of electric cars and vegan diets can do anything but slow down the destruction by a small degree. We can't just wipe out natural environments to mine and farm for the niceties of modern human life and expect the web of life to continue to support us and we cannot survive without this web of life.

I think our species (in aggregate) is no more intelligent than bacteria on a petri dish, we're dumb animals with cell phones. An actual intelligent species would be smart enough to avoid outgrowing it's environment leading to it's own demise. Population is one of the greatest filters.

I'd consider from the other direction. If I constantly farted all day, and I had the option of concentrating 99% of those farts into once daily solid waste deposit, I'd be quite excited about the potential of my future social life.

Look up "megasites", these are large settlements not called cities as they lack signs of being dominated by a subset of themselves. One I've heard of is called "Nebelivka" but I believe there are at least a few others known and probably others either not yet found or misunderstood as cities.

I mean, they're on FB, so ya, they probably thought something like that, if their thoughts even went beyond the words themselves.

It's like imagining what a lizard thinks about you, it's easy and fun to project your intelligence on it, this is what you're doing here. You're projecting your intelligence and logic on others apparently without that capacity. Those FB people didn't think about what their words meant any more than a lizard wonders about your nature.

Humans existed for well over 200,000 years without government. There is strong evidence of massive settlements that existed for extended periods without any sign of being ruled, just people living and cooperating.

In fact, it's the formation of governments that could enforce exploitative economic systems that started the ecological collapse of this planet in the first place. Humans without government live in balance with the rest of the world.

The idea that humans, to survive and thrive, require the formation of an entity (government/state) that allows the subset of the population in control of the it to exploit the subset not in control of it is a dangerous fallacy.

I think it's safe to assume his nuts got so damaged he needed a ballectomy -- Erdogan has not had balls for over a decade.

Choosing to be a stay at home mom is fine and not bondage, that's not what tradwife is. A tradwife chooses to be subservient to her husband and teaches her children that men are superior. Calling it a kink involving kids is letting it off lightly.

Enchirito or I'm voting Trump

Check out Pulsar

https://pulsar-edit.dev/

It's basically the continuation of Atom. It's got rough edges though regarding plugins but it's good enough to allow me to avoid VSCode.

I did what this guy did, works really well.

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

The only carbon sequestration that makes any sense is small-scale, on-site or local (so you can avoid transport) biochar production via retort.

--> Biochar if you're not familiar is similar to charcoal, it's a form of "carbon black" that is elemental (isn't going to decompose or oxidize and contribute to climate change) and when added to soil helps plants (by acting as a sponge for water, nutrients, bacteria) while sequestering carbon for millennia in the soil.

For example, a landscaping company that burns it's waste to fuel a biochar retort and then using the resulting biochar to amend the soil used in the landscaping operations. (Think in cycles)

--> A biochar retort is form of furnace or fire pit that uses the flammable gasses produced by pyrolizing organic materials to fuel itself.

--> Pyrolysis is decomposition of organic material with high heat and no oxygen. It produces gases like methane which are burned in the retort producing particulates, CO2 and water (and that carbon does go back into the cycle) and leaves behind large amounts of elemental carbon black that is not going to contribute to climate change.

Sequestration by millions of backyard gardeners and little landscaping companies doing a little is better than trying to do it on a large scale because the large scale requires (as you note) resources. Hundreds of engineers and architects and workers driving to work for years so they can design and build a large device made of metal (that had to be mined, smelted, and shipped) and likely has an accompanying parking lot and office building would take years to break even sequestering as much carbon as it took to design and build it.

Sequestration as I describe here doesn't require much. For example, I make biochar using coffee cans in my fire pit .

Q: But won't burning some of the waste in the retort to heat the biochar contribute to climate change?

A: Any carbon in landscaping wastes, unless sequestered, is going to decompose into carbon dioxide (e.g. composting). Burning doesn't add any extra carbon, it's just that burning is a faster reaction than composting (but both burning and composting are part of the short term carbon cycle, biochar is not) . But because this burning is done to fuel pyrolysis it's part of an efficient process.

The real danger from burning the waste is particulate pollution, but that could be controlled with common scrubbers tech.