Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you were the one making the argument that tomahawk violence pre-colonial America was morally superior to paper resolutions of conflicts.
No, I was saying that violence exists with or without paper, and thinking that Europeans were justified in eradicating 99% of native Americans because Europeans had piece of paper is probably the dumbest argument anyone ever made on the issue, so good work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ukraine isn't WW3, it's a civil war the USA purchased with foreign aid in 2014.
I guess you have no response to my arguments, and now have just moved the goalpost from "violence" to "WW3" for some greatly delusional reason.
Your knowledge of native Americans obviously comes from racist cartoons and racist movies, and you ignore all the violence happening in the world right now let alone 400 years ago in Europe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
WW3 is fought today with subversive means like sanctions, illegal immigration, crypto, tariffs, joint resolutions, economic alliances, and propaganda.
You have actual war being fought in Ukraine, you forgot.
Now again, your original argument was "eradicating them was justified because they fought each other".
And now you are trying to change that to "People dont fight as much today", which is false, you have wars and crimes all over the world. In USA alone, 300,000 people get murdered every 10 years.
So again, your argument is self defeating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
USA is mostly destroying barbarians in the Middle East that refuse to sign and abide by papers. See Hamas.
Your original argument was "if they fight each other, they should all be eradicated". So by your logic USA and Hamas should be eradicated because they fight each other.
And piece of paper still makes no moral difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Paper beat your rock, sorry.
No, you just cant make proper arguments and think that Europe who gave us 2 world wars and killed 100 million people in them is "civilized" and "justified" in killing 99% of native Americans because native Americans "kill each other".
Its a self contradicting argument, because the ones you view as "justified because they prevent killings" have killed the most people in history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's actually extremely rare nowadays. People view war as a spectator sport. Too many signed papers.
Europe and USA fought wars all over the world, and still do, and they have many crimes in the countries too. So no, its not "rare violence".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes paper > tomahawk
You are for the third time ignoring the fact that Europe also resolved and still resolves its conflicts with violence.
So since your premise is "those who do violence should be eradicated", the only logical conclusion is that you think everyone should be eradicated.
So unless you have some actual argument, I think we are done here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
a piece of paper was used to resolve the conflict.
I dont see what moral difference does piece of paper make. Maybe you think if you write something on paper, it becomes true?
Absolutely yes
So you think its justified to eradicate 99% of Europeans. Well, I guess everyone has a right to opinion, no matter how stupid or insane it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You have to admit, the idea of resolving resource and property disputes with a piece of paper was far more advanced than settling the disputes with a tomahawk to the head.
So do all those wars fought in Europe make it justified to eradicate 99% of Europeans?
Its a yes or no question, so take your time.
It's objectively a good thing western civilization put an end to the barbarism of the native tribes.
Can you explain to me how is it a good thing to eradicate 99% of the population because some group in it attacked the other group?
Go ahead.
Also, doesnt that apply to all countries on Earth, because each country has criminals in it who steal property?
The piece of paper makes no difference if people still attack each other, so common now, explain to us your "justification".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Great. No response from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The native peoples of this continent (and it’s not the only one) had intertribal battles over land and resources.
Really?
So did every country on Earth.
Now, please try to use logic which doesnt justify every invasion in history.
There is also evidence that the native peoples of recent history took land from even earlier inhabitants in much more distant history.
Really?
So did every country on Earth.
Now, please try to use logic which doesnt justify every invasion in history.
You could have just said how you think that all invasions are justified. It would have saved us some time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
"If you have a shotgun, you can rob people who dont have a shotgun." - cristo71
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nvm, it's Japan.
If we are going to trust my profile description, then I also have post doctoral.
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nothing new
Yeah, we already knew Trump was corrupt.
Now go hunt slugs for your chickens, it would be more productive.
Well, I am pretty, sure that your brain somehow thinks that thats a good response to what I wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would be a horrible idea to only let Natives live in the USA.
Yeah, if I was living in USA, I probably wouldnt wanna go back to Italy.
Created:
Posted in:
"Not only is Trump the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, he’s also the first major-party presidential nominee to be convicted of a crime in the midst of a campaign for the White House. And if he defeats President Joe Biden in November, he will be the first sitting president in history to be a convicted felon."
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
his fake jury and his fake fascist judge
Yeah, everything is fake except Trump.
Who wears the diaper that cannot be seen?
Donald Trump! Donald Trump!
To grab by the pussy, who feels the need?
Donald Trump! Donald Trump!
Who can never be found guilty of any deed?
Donald Trump! Donald Trump!
Who fucked Stormy and spilled his seed?
Donald Trump! Donald Trump!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
after the way he was treated
Yeah, he got blamed for everything he did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
No, Greyparrot hates Trump.
He even said so after making 10,000 posts to defend Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@FLRW
Humans were "designed" so they depend on many things: food, water, air, sunlight...ect.
However, humans produced robots that work on sunlight alone(on solar panels).
So you could say humans will probably design beings far superior than humans, both in terms of food requirement, intelligence...ect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well, you dont have to believe. Its like faith.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
# of km/licence holder/year: 20k
Thats, again, for cars. The source which you are using is talking about cars alone. Not trucks or transport vans.
I was saying Incorrect when you said one can do neither
I said both claims can be false. Thats what it means when I say one can do "neither of those".
People may sell some of their stock so they personally can buy a car.
Yeah, "may".
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do they have free elections in Russia?
Created:
Posted in:
I have done some calculations about how much I pay for chicken food vs how much I earn from selling eggs, and it seems that I have about 50% profit. I earn double the amount I pay for food.
I dont have free range chickens, because free range chickens lay eggs all over the place which causes eggs to be lost. Also, free range chickens are lost to predators.
My chickens are in fenced area, and predators cannot get to them.
Now, what do I feed them with?
Some bought chicken feed, some corn and wheat.
However, I reduced those by feeding chickens natural food.
After rain, I collect slugs and feed it to chickens. They love slugs.
I also feed chickens with raspberries and strawberries which happen to grow for free on my land. Now, I was thinking to sell raspberries to buy chicken food, but I figured my chickens deserve some raspberries.
I also plant peas, which I sell to buy chicken food. Its much more cost effective than growing corn.
But what really reduced the cost of food is grass and weeds.
I let grass on my land grow tall. Eventually, it produces seeds. So I collect seeds and feed it to chickens.
I also mow grass and weeds and give it to chickens. Its easy work. It takes about 3 minutes to mow enough grass for 20 chickens when you use scythe.
The hardest work is picking grass seeds by hand, because you have to pull them from grass. But you can, instead, mow grass together with seeds, which is much faster but chickens are a bit less interested in grass seeds when they are still attached to grass.
So yeah, I guess its because of this that my profit rate is 50%.
Chickens gain calcium from grass and weeds like dandelion and stinging nettle, they gain protein from grass seeds and from slugs and earthworms.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Lets say there are 2 people; Person A and Person B. They both drive 80 km a day. Person A owns 1 vehicle; Person B owns 2. Person A is getting all their driving done with their 1 vehicle; Person B splits it up. I don't believe there is too much correlation between how much driving in total you perform vs the number of cars you own; but I believe there is a strong negative correlation between how much driving per vehicle vs the number of cars you own (assuming you own at least 1 car).
It makes your original claim about how much average car drives false, since your claim was about per car, not per person.
My family has 5 people with licenses and 3 cars. A lot of families may be my family's size and only have 1 or 2 cars (or 0).
Sorry, but I prefer to trust sources rather than personal examples which may not apply generally.
Supply and demand adjusted for inflation (the stock market rises faster than the inflation rate on average).
Again, no one will sell all the stock market to help people buy cars.
Incorrect
If you are saying that its impossible to preach what you dont practice and not change your speech, then what are you accusing me of?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But it's impossible to drive multiple cars at once
Thats why they probably dont do it at once.
, and I don't know if your 2nd claim is correct.
There are 230 million driving licenses in USA, and 270 million vehicles.
Inflation
Yeah, so expect more inflation in the future.
Well do you drive or take public transit?
Sure, I dont drive, but I do use public transport from time to time.
So is everybody else! Practice what you preach or change your speech!
One can do neither, so that is a false or.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
if that's really what you believe, then never go to DART again; you are using too much energy
But I am greedy.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There aren't even 270 million people in the US with driver's licenses. Some things you read on the internet are just wrong
Some people own multiple vehicles, not all vehicles require driving license.
leading to the price being about the same.
Prices have consistently increased over time. The supply doesnt always follow the demand. If cost of production for raw materials is same, their price will likely stay same or increase over time.
It's like your computer (which has an electric battery).
Its nothing like my computer. Car battery is over 1000 times bigger than a computer battery, and battery for trucks and airplanes even bigger.
I think you have lost this exchange by saying the US population should use the energy levels of North Korea
No, I am pretty, sure that USA has lost this exchange.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
His term simply...expired, and he is still the President of Ukraine.
Yeah, kinda hard to hold elections when you have millions on battlefield, and when 20% of your territory is in Russia.
Lol
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, Socialism means consume less now so everyone has more later. Capitalism is the other way around.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Are they closet sadists?
Yes.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wouldnt you say that the right is a set of beliefs, as opposed to having one standard?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Right now, battery cost is a huge issue; but that's why cheaper batteries inevitably will be produced. The computer you are typing on used to be a lot worse and a lot more expensive. But technology makes leaps.
Battery cost is indeed a huge issue, but the idea that cheaper batteries will be produced is nonsense. Things become more expensive in capitalism over time as resources are depleted. However, they can become cheaper if technology makes cost of production lower. But that wont happen in case of batteries, as raw materials needed to make them are expensive.
But what's your solution? You don't want oil, coal, or nuclear. We need energy in this society.
As I said, North Korea already solved it with plan economy. Apparently, not letting your population waste fuel comes with its advantages.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
average car uses 394 kwh/month. 100 million cars is 39.4 tw/month for the nation. Per year, that is 472.8 terrawatts/year. It's not a radical increase.
There are over 270 million vehicles in USA, so 100 million cars is not the only factor. Small electric car maybe uses 394 kwh/month. But trucks, vans, tractors and any larger vehicle uses much more. So you would probably have to multiply your number by 10.
Industry is already mostly electric
27% of the fuel in USA is used by industry.
I don't know where you got these numbers
Average electric car costs 30k to 50k. Multiply that by 100 million and thats 3,000,000,000,000, which is 3 trillions. However, there are 260 million vehicles in USA, and the ones such as trucks would be much more expensive. So it would amount to at least 6 to 12 trillions under current prices, assuming that price doesnt go up due do demand.
Planes do use a lot of fuel, but they are incredibly rare compared to cars; so much so that for every 100 liters of gasoline the collective of cars uses, the collective of planes uses only 16. The collective of ships (which you mention) uses about 8 on this scale.
Yes, but average car uses 5 liters of fuel per day, multiplied by 100 million is 500 million liters of fuel per day. So planes which use 16 per 100 would still use a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think literally every Jewish person living in Israel should move to the US to escape bombings from Hamas!
Its a simple solution which works for everyone. Palestinians get their land back and Israeli stop being invaders.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So capitalism is Borg and we cannot resist.
Created:
Posted in:
Early humans probably survived by hunting birds and land animals, and by fishing. This is because hunter-gatherer society was mostly about hunting, as there is not much to gather in winter and spring, but there are always some animals around to hunt.
Here is the list of primitive tools used for hunting:
1. A rock
This might sound silly, but there is a possibility that humans at some point threw rocks at smaller animals and birds in order to hunt them.
2. Throwing stick
Much like a rock, just its a stick which was thrown at birds and animals to hunt them.
3. Throwing stick with rock tied to end of it
So a combination of a rock and a stick to make greater impact. The idea is that stick is easier to throw while rock attached to it could make significant impact.
4. Bola
Bola is usually 3 rocks tied to 3 ropes, and all ropes are connected. Its meant to be thrown at target so it either stuns it on impact either ropes wrap around it and trap the target.
5. Spear
Now, everyone knows about spears. They were effective for hunting in groups. When many people throw spears at target, it basically guarantees a hit.
6. Bow and arrow
This tool was very effective at hunting birds, so it quickly became popular.
7. Fishing rod
This made it possible to harvest fish from rivers.
8. Fishing spear
Now, I cant really imagine that fishing spear had some great success, but some sources say it was used.
9. Hand axe, tomahawk
Basically, it worked similar to throwing stick with a rock, its just that axe made greater impact.
10. Sling shot
This tool was used to hunt birds. It was simple enough and easy to carry.
11. Sling
This tool was probably used to hunt at some point.
Other tools were mostly similar to these, just under different names.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
if you run the numbers, the hundreds of rabbits you would need to raise and slaughter to equal 1 cow (about 300) is a shit ton of labor.
Yes, but cow isnt practical if you are on your own.
Cow requires bull and lots of food.
Besides, as a meat source, cow doesnt work for 1 person.
If you slaughter a cow, most of the meat will spoil before you get to eat it, and cow only gives birth once a year.
It would take serious labor to have 10 cows, and lots of land. One cow can eat up to an acre, so 10 cows would mean 10 acres.
Its not nearly as simple as it is with rabbits.
If rabbit kills a rabbit, then you dont need to slaughter.
As for chickens, chickens cant survive on grass. You pretty much have to have lots of corn for them, otherwise they wont lay as much eggs.
They dont have valid food source that is free, unless you let them be free range, but that causes lots of problems since chickens can be attacked by many land predators but also by air predators.
But if you raise them for meat, then you have no eggs from them, but thats really not practical on a small scale as one chicken does not breed as fast as rabbits do.
Modern production makes use of incubators, because natural way is too inferior.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So who will win?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Will Socialism win?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Capitalism fails, because it teaches people to be greedy, and then as a result you have a greedy government. So yeah, Capitalism is a path to Socialism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, capitalism is like those people who waste all money buying themselves things and then hope some miracle will save them once they run out of money. Thats why socialism is unavoidable in democracy. Government is the miracle which greedy people want to make use of, and there is plenty of greedy people in capitalism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, Socialism drives prices up, and capitalism is a race to deplete resources through greed.
There is no perfect way, since if things are cheaper, then they will be depleted quickly, and if things are expensive, then life standards are low.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Some sources say it takes 2000 to 7000 workers to construct a nuclear power plant.
Even assuming minimum number and minimum wage in 10 years, it adds up to big number.
2000 x 800,000 = 1,600,000,000
Plus the costs of materials.
So yeah, I can see it going easily as high as 10 billion under current prices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@RaymondSheen
You two are Bible grandmasters.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
On average, stock prices go up 10% per year; inflation is like 1-3%.
Inflation for common items is 3%. Price of uranium sometimes increases by 90%.
Now, I may have exaggerated with 100 trillion expense, but here is my latest view.
Electric car buying: 6 trillion to 12 trillion dollars currently for 200 million cars, could double in 10 years, which means it could cost up to 24 trillion by the time nuclear power plants begin producing.
Electric car, current consumption and industry electricity use.
USA uses about 4000 terrawatts of energy.
Having all cars as electric cars would add another 4000 terrawatts to consumption, which means 10 trillion dollars would need to be payed for power plants currently, however, if people wait, the price of powerplant could go up.
Industry converted to electric would add another 1000 terrawats. Current total, you would need 500 large nuclear power plants of 1 gigawatt each, each costing 10 billions, to power current USA consumption, which is 4000 terrawats, so 5 trillions under current prices. Electric cars would add another 4000 terrawats, so you would need another 500. Industry converted to electric would add another 1000 terrawats, so you would need another 100.
So over 1000 nuclear power plants for these alone, would cost 10 billion each, which is over 10 trillion total. But expenses dont stop there.
Maintaining nuclear power plants is where the new problem rises. Nuclear power plant employs at least 500 workers, which means it spends 50,000,000 per year on wages alone, which is about 2 billions in 40 years per plant. For 1000 plants, that would cost 2 trillions during 40 years. This is just for wages, assuming same prices of goods as they are now. However, with inflation, this would likely be far greater after 40 years.
But then there is the cost of uranium which could add another 300 billion over 40 years, assuming prices of uranium dont go up due to high demand.
Converting planes to electric: This is right now probably even impossible with huge planes, but big airplanes would require huge batteries which would cost a lot to make. They would also add a lot to electricity consumption. Air planes in USA probably use over 100 billion liters of fuel. This likely means electric planes would add over 1000 terrawats to consumption, which would require 100 more power plants.
Converting ships to electric: Ships would also require large batteries like planes, and they use lots of fuel too, so likewise would use lots of electricity too.
Converting trucks to electric: Trucks require bigger batteries than cars do, and trucks would consume more electricity. Trucks would likely add around 1000 terrawats to electricity consumption, so another 100 nuclear plants would have to be built for them.
Converting industry to electric: Lots of money would need to be payed to replace machines powered by fuel with machines powered by electricity.
Converting military planes, tanks and transport and other vehicles to electric: USA has thousands of military planes, military trucks, transporters, tanks, battle vehicles...ect. All these would have to be adjusted to work on battery power. US military spends lots of fuel: 16,000,000,000 liters of fuel per year. But if tanks and airplanes were converted to be powered by batteries, they would not only require much more expensive batteries than the ones in cars, but they would use more electricity. With over 30,000 vehicles and planes, and price of battery being at least ten times that of a car, about 80,000, it could cost 2,400,000,000 dollars and with other parts being replaced and with cost of replacement and workforce, it could cost up to 50 billions.
It will also be necessary to invest in battery research, as current batteries arent good enough to power tanks or military aircraft.
Further, US military uses about 5% of total US fuel, but it would likely use more than 5% of total electric energy if it went full electric, which would be about 500 terrawats, so 50 more nuclear power plants would be required for military alone.
Resource shortage is another problem. If there is shortage of any raw material needed for batteries or power plants, their price will go up. But with 100 times increased demand for batteries in case of cars, and with expensive batteries needed for planes and ships, it is very likely demand would drive the price up.
Factories for batteries would also have to be built, as increase in demand by 100 times means much more battery factories have to be payed for than what we have now. Those factories would also use electicity, adding to expense and would add to demand as well.
So between 1400 to 2000 nuclear power plants of 1 gigawatt would have to be built to power a completely electric USA.
With 10 billion per power plant, that costs 14,000,000,000,000 or 14 trillions. Add to that the wages for workers at power plants, thats additional 2,5 trillions.
Buying 200 million electric cars would likely cost over 20 trillion in 10 years.
So thats 36 trillion in total.
Now, the price to convert military vehicles and aircraft to electrical, and the price to convert commercial planes to electrical, is a bit unknown, because I dont know if they have to take them apart and build them from start or not.
However, there is one more problem, especially in USA. The population doesnt want electric cars. So anyone investing 14 trillions to build 1400 nuclear power plants would have no guarantee that there will be buyers for his electricity, as there is no guarantee that all or even majority of people will switch to electric cars. So in case someone invests 14 trillions and people dont switch to electric after 10 years, he would be at the huge loss with no market for electricity he produces. This would stop people from investing in nuclear power plants.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are investors and venture capitalists that are willing to invest in the company
They dont have 100 trillion.
But the stock market rises,
So does the price of a power plant.
and it wouldn't cost $100 Trillion.1 nuclear power plant costs $4 billion to build. It would take 300 power plants to offset coal and fossil fuels. This costs $1.2 trillion.
1 nuclear power plant of 1 gigawatt costs 10 billions. You would need about 100 of them, so thats 1 trillion.
But thats under current consumption of electricity.
If all cars become electric and all military goes electric, that consumption rises 100 times, which is 100 trillions. And this is when not counting all the money used to replace fuel cars, fuel jets, fuel trucks, fuel tanks...ect.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
The future is Fusion Power. A prototype of a fusion reactor (DEMO) is expected to be built by 2040.
Well, lets hope that works, because a global war for oil in 2050 isnt something I desperately want to experience.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
GDP is the average annual salary * the number of salaries in a country
No.
Gross Domestic Product is a sum of sold goods which were made in a country.
Average salary in the US is 3000, which when multiplied by 200 million employed and by 12, equals to about 8 trillions.
Depends on how you define, "near".
They cant afford to give you their income so that you can build nuclear power plants.
I think companies with excess cash and stocks might agree to sell a portion of them to get their hands on nuclear energy stock.
It would not amount to 100 trillions, as you said that stock market is 45 trillion in total.
Not to China; but to whoever wants to buy the stocks (usually, private Americans).
No one in USA has 45 trillions to pay for all the stocks so that everyone else can invest in some nuclear power plants. USA doesnt even have 100 trillion dollars in economy in total, but you need 100 trillion now to build those nuclear power plants by 2035
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The US GDP is about $25 trillion/year.
GDP is a sum of products sold in total in a country. People are not going to give up food and basic items to build nuclear power plants, nor they can afford to, as most people are living near poverty. Thus, total GDP is irrelevant to money available for nuclear power plants.
The stock market is $45 trillion last time I checked and stocks go up 10% a year on average. This is about $500 trillion.
This is irrelevant, as prices go up as well. So the price will be far more than 100 trillion by 2050.
It is unreasonable to expect that prices will stay same by 2050.
But you are talking about stock market, so what is it exactly that you are suggesting?
Do you really think everyone will sell their stocks to buy nuclear power plants?
And to who would they sell them to if everyone is selling? To China?
Well, unless your plan is to sell all stocks to China, I dont see what is it that you are suggesting will happen.
Created: