Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do we have access to unlimited resources or not? Alternately are we collectively becoming wealthier on a per capita basis although that has problems in how you define wealth and how much you care about inequality in wealth distribution.
If we do not have unlimited resources or if we are in a situation where the per capita wealth is declining then it seems perfectly logical that statements such as "I want ..." might need to be curbed either by your own frugality in use of your available resources or by society in limiting the ability to have high consumption.
Do the math-- take all the wealth in the world and divide it evenly among all people...Everyone will be poor. As W Churchill said- "Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty." There realy is no need for discussion here. We have the empirical evidience of history--ALL socialistic societies have always gone broke. Look up the data on all those European countries The Left seems to idolize. They are not going to last much longer. "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."-M. Thatcher
This isn't 12th century England where the rich (the govt) got rich at the expense of the masses. Here nobody has to give up money unless they want to, and the rich are those providing something the masses are willing to pay for....The whole "inequality of wealth" crap is a specious argument utilized by The Left to rouse the naive rabble.
As far as nartural resources go, except for petroleum, there is NO natural resource in danger of depletion over the next two centuries-- unless we insist on PV & wind power and EVs for all-- those metals like Cu, Ni, Co and Li will run out quickly. There just ain't enough of them to satisfy that need. (The references are posted here in several places, or look it up.)
There realy is no need for discussion here. We have the empirical evidience of history--ALL socialistic societies have always gone broke.
As far as nartural resources go, except for petroleum, there is NO natural resource in danger of depletion over the next two centuries-- unless we insist on PV & wind power and EVs for all-- those metals like Cu, Ni, Co and Li will run out quickly. There just ain't enough of them to satisfy that need. (The references are posted here in several places, or look it up.)
Oddly enough all societies that allow unlimited inequality have either come to a violent end, stagnated into a small ruling caste and a much larger impoverished majority, or been able to use expansion as a safety valve. The real solution is to strike a balance - neither extreme is acceptable!
I probably wouldn't have even posted that paragraph above if I wasn't also posting about the fact that your last paragraph strikes me as odd. You accept petroleum as a natural resource in danger of depletion. To me the fact that petroleum is such a useful chemical resource and concentrated, transportable energy medium means that even if everything else is fine but petroleum is in danger of depletion we need to examine the idea that we do not have infinite resources.
Oddly enough all societies that allow unlimited inequality have either come to a violent end, stagnated into a small ruling caste and a much larger impoverished majority, or been able to use expansion as a safety valve. The real solution is to strike a balance - neither extreme is acceptable!
The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution should be a guide as to what happens in societies that profess to total equality. In the real world, of course, China in fact has a very small ruling caste and a deeply impoverished minority. One wonders why the top hasn't blown there, and why they are only suffering minor demonstrations, however trumpeted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Physics Guy
I probably wouldn't have even posted that paragraph above if I wasn't also posting about the fact that your last paragraph strikes me as odd. You accept petroleum as a natural resource in danger of depletion. To me the fact that petroleum is such a useful chemical resource and concentrated, transportable energy medium means that even if everything else is fine but petroleum is in danger of depletion we need to examine the idea that we do not have infinite resources.
Nickel and lithium are far more limited than petroleum. This Atlantic Magazine article, What If We Never Run Out of Oil?, is intriguing. I last read it when it came out in 2013, but I recall it positing that there was an almost unlimited untapped supply. One quote from that article: "“When will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted?” the MIT economist Morris Adelman has written. “The best one-word answer: never.” While this view is admittedly extreme, the article explores other, more moderate possibilities. Just as there was no central planning to mitigate the loss of whale oil in the 1800's, none is needed now.
It's difficult to assess the real reserves of fossil fuel becaue that info is a secret with strategic importance. ...We must keep in mnd that NG can be used as a fuel any place gasoline & Diesel fuel is used. The conversion is a cheap and easy one, so, in essence we have many centures worth of fossil fuel available to us...
...That raises the ethical/moral question of "To how many future generations do we owe anything?"---Did Columbus owe anything to us 21st Century people? Would anything they did back then in terms of conservation impact us today, given the miraculous changes in technology and life style that has occurred in the intervening five centuries?....Savng coal now so there will still be some left in the year 2522 would be pretty foolish if they finally figure out cold fusion in 2322.
...and I still think it would be smarter to develop technology to turn biomass & plastic into ch4 & h2 for use as a fuel, making more sense than forcing Unreliable Energy schemes & EVs on us.
Here we are in this messed up, mucked up world, full of wants that we don't need, and needs that we don't want.
What are you willing to give up?
Me, I very rarely buy anything new, and have taken to upcycling, re-using for totally different purposes, and making do with what others throw away.
As an example; I had a treadmill, that is now a work bench top, and a rack for metal. (A want that I didn't need. into some things, that I do.)
I also don't drive much, but when I do, it's often at the request of others. (Needs that I don't want.)
"Studies show that hazardous lawn chemicals are drifting into our homes where they contaminate indoor air and surfaces, exposing children to levels ten times higher than pre-application levels. Of 40 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 26 are linked with cancer or carcinogenicity, 12 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 32 with liver or kidney damage, 24 with neurotoxicity, and 24 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system.
Of those same 40 lawn pesticides, 21 are detected in groundwater, 24 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 39 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 33 are toxic to bees, 18 are toxic to mammals, and 28 are toxic to birds. With numbers like this, the only logical question becomes: is this really necessary."
I quit with the stupid game of "my lawn" years ago. I like different patches of different kinds of grass and patches of clover, it make it more interesting.
Last edited by BarefootDiabetic; 11-29-2022 at 08:17 AM..
I always preferred to go barefoot and there is nothing at all wrong with my feet despite internet misinformation that says I should never take my shoes off again the very day of my diagnosis of diabetes ! It takes decades for neuropathy to set in., and stuffing your feet in shoes reduces circulation.
The majority of sneakers are predominately fabricated from plastic and/or plastic-like materials. All these petroleum-derived plastics (polyester, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) produce alarming numbers of carbon dioxide.
I own one pair of sneakers and one pair of flip flops. Both are years old but not worn down because I only wear them when I have to.
"Studies show that hazardous lawn chemicals are drifting into our homes where they contaminate indoor air and surfaces, exposing children to levels ten times higher than pre-application levels. Of 40 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 26 are linked with cancer or carcinogenicity, 12 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 32 with liver or kidney damage, 24 with neurotoxicity, and 24 with disruption of the endocrine (hormonal) system.
Of those same 40 lawn pesticides, 21 are detected in groundwater, 24 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 39 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 33 are toxic to bees, 18 are toxic to mammals, and 28 are toxic to birds. With numbers like this, the only logical question becomes: is this really necessary."
I quit with the stupid game of "my lawn" years ago. I like different patches of different kinds of grass and patches of clover, it make it more interesting.
I'll start to worry about chemicals in the house when life expectancy numbers start to fall.
OK-- I'll concede-- these chemicals ARE bad for us...Now the question becomes "How bad?"...Answer-- not bad enough to pick out the changes in the data from random noise in the data.
The recent, well publicized law suit where a CA groundskeeper was apparently bathing in Round-Up and wound up with Lymphoma is a good example of pseudo-science in the court room. The rate of lymphoma in those never exposed to glyphosate is about 3 per 100,000--- the same rate as shown in studies of glyphosate exposure when averaged out....I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know why, but the plaintiff was allowed to present the studies that showed the lymphoma rate was higher than 3/100,000, but the defense was NOT alowed to present the studies that showed it was less than that....????
Ag chemicals are not licensed for use unless they present data showing any risk they pose are below some arbitrary risk. Most of the studies done use ridiculously large exposure concentrations and even then show little risk.
Re- diabetic feet-- The problem is that diabtic neuropathy affects the smaller, distal nerves first, so you may get a small injury and not notice it. Then, because the small, distal arterioles are also affected first, your ability to fend off infection and heal the cuts are also delayed-- allowing for more advanced infection before treatment is started....Just visually check your feet every day to see if you got a cut, a thorn, an abrasion that you didn't feel.
Re- diabetic feet-- The problem is that diabtic neuropathy affects the smaller, distal nerves first, so you may get a small injury and not notice it. Then, because the small, distal arterioles are also affected first, your ability to fend off infection and heal the cuts are also delayed-- allowing for more advanced infection before treatment is started....Just visually check your feet every day to see if you got a cut, a thorn, an abrasion that you didn't feel.
I do check. This diagnosis got me paranoid.
The very worst thing I could do is keep my feet in petri dishes the damp, dark, hot, anaerobic environment inside a shoe (a perfect breeding ground for bacteria) ! Then if get a rub blister it gets infused with all kinds of anaerobes.
But I don't have any neuropathy thank goodness.
"Thirty seven percent of the population reported evidence of neuropathy; tight-fitting shoes can worsen the symptoms of neuropathy by putting pressure on the nerves and potentially causing wounds and ulcers due to a lack of sensation from friction and pressure."
Sometimes people say I am going to get athletes foot from going barefoot. No, only people who wear shoes all the time can get athletes foot fungus.
So I ask them why doesn't everyone get "athletes hand"? A hand and foot are the exact same thing besides the shape. Cause maybe just maybe because everyone goes bare handed and it can't grow !
Sometimes people say I am going to get athletes foot from going barefoot. No, only people who wear shoes all the time can get athletes foot fungus.
Wrong! Of course you can pick up the athlete's foot fungus while going barefoot! Just depends on where you're doing it: public swimming pools, gym or school locker/shower rooms, other warm humid environments where other people who already have the fungus are also walking barefoot. Even your own bathroom at home if someone who lives there brought it home from somewhere else. You can also pick the fungus up from soil that tends to stay wet enough. The fungus is pretty ubiquitous. Oh, BTW, you can get fungal infections on your hands too. Ever heard of ringworm or nail fungi? Both can occur on hands as well as feet or other places on the body. It is less common partially because your hands tend to stay drier and exposed to air most of the time.
Last edited by Parnassia; 11-29-2022 at 03:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course you can pick up the athlete's foot fungus while going barefoot! Just depends on where you're doing it: public swimming pools, gym or school locker/shower rooms, other warm humid environments where other people who already have the fungus are also walking barefoot. Even your own bathroom at home if someone who lives there brought it home from somewhere else. You can also pick the fungus up from soil that tends to stay wet enough. The fungus is pretty ubiquitous. Oh, BTW, you can get fungal infections on your hands too. Ever heard of ringworm or nail fungi? Both can occur on hands as well as feet or other places on the body. It is less common partially because your hands tend to stay drier and exposed to air most of the time.
