- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1546 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
649 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 19304
Doesn't everyone use thumbs up in that sort of case, anyway?
The IATA marshalling hand signal for brake release looks exactly like you're doing a heil hitler if you're not fast enough.
|>>|| No. 19305
Also, among scuba divers, the OK signal has been a sign for things being, well, ok since time immemorial.
It also means "agreed" or "understood" in diving, like, when you gesture to your diving partner that you want to get ready to surface.
Obviously communication under water is limited unless you are using a full face mask with integrated two-way radio, so hand gestures need to be clear and unequivocal because of the obvious dangers that can arise from miscommunication when you're under 50 feet of water. Changing things up just because the OK signal has now maybe, maybe not been claimed by white supremacists could be dangerous, because it's just something that is so ingrained in scuba divers. It's something you learn in your very first lesson.
|>>|| No. 19312
Everyone knows that scuba divers are just moist racists. Aquatic pursuits are a classic alt-right dog-whistle, because of the connotations of the transatlantic slave trade and the historical legacy of segregation depriving African-Americans of the opportunity to swim. Scuba divers spend thousands of pounds on equipment and travel around the world to go to the one place that they know black people can't follow them - under the water. Every scuba tank is like a burning cross. It's despicable.
|>>|| No. 19314
> to go to the one place that they know black people can't follow them - under the water.
Not for a lack of trying, it seems.
(although the lad in the picture could also be a Pacific Islander. Not entirely clear.)
|>>|| No. 19357
I guess you're not allowed to wear black shirts. There was a big fuss about the Proud Boys wearing Fred Perry about a year ago too.
|>>|| No. 19358
>There was a big fuss about the Proud Boys wearing Fred Perry about a year ago too.
Nothing will top Are Andy and his penchant for Lacoste.
|>>|| No. 19362
Weather looks pretty decent too. Could do with making the long weekend even longer.
|>>|| No. 19364
How much work do they really believe they will disrupt on the Friday before a bank holiday? Do we even have a government left to protest?
Release the hounds I say.
|>>|| No. 19366
It's only just occurred to me that these "strikes" are only made possible by the fact you can't sack a schoolkid. They don't even need to be unionised. The worst they're going to get is a detention.
There's a million things I'd go on strike about tomorrow if it were that easy.
|>>|| No. 19373
>It's only just occurred to me that these "strikes" are only made possible by the fact you can't sack a schoolkid. They don't even need to be unionised. The worst they're going to get is a detention.
I've a feeling that the post-Millennial generation which is now about to leave school will be far worse than Millennials.
|>>|| No. 19376
How are they going to fully appreciate gainful employment if they are raised to think that playing hookey off your daily responsibilities is without consequences.
|>>|| No. 19378
It's called "skiving", you bloody great ponce. And what do you think will happen to them? That they'll undergo mass unemployment on account having too many protests to go to? If anything I'd say they're well prepped for a world of insecure employment with no guarantee of how many hours they'll be working.
|>>|| No. 19379
How are they going to fully appreciate gainful employment if they are climate refugees fighting over food dripping in glyphosate?
|>>|| No. 19381
> if they are climate refugees fighting over food dripping in glyphosate?
That seems quite bearable as long as you've got a steady job.
|>>|| No. 19383
It's often a good idea to make your career choices line up with what's in demand on the job market, especially in the future. So yeah. Lifeguard is a reasonable occupation. And boats will probably be big business too in the future.
|>>|| No. 19384
Maybe something like biochemist to try and synthesise oxygen would be good too. Oh wait these are fucking stupid options how about you support the government cutting down on fossil fuels or something instead of just teaching kids how to live in Fallout 4?
|>>|| No. 19385
Scuba diver, to go and salvage things from coastal houses if the sea rises.
|>>|| No. 19386
>how about you support the government cutting down on fossil fuels or something instead of just teaching kids how to live in Fallout 4?
|>>|| No. 19387
Realism. Ok. Either get in line with the hippies or wait around complaining about the inconvenience and lending more power to the inevitable ecofascists that'll arise from the Brexit parties blaming all the pollution and rising water on minorities while the country retreats slowly to the uplands.
|>>|| No. 19388
That sounds like a reasonable idea but asking a 14 year old picking their GCSEs to consider what the next World Wide Web or fracking is going to be is actually quite a tall order.
I was going to have a second bit where I dunked on biofuels and talked about how some industries don't take off, but I looked it up and apparently they've actually made a big impact, but I guess no one talks about them anymore because of how commonplace they are. Or maybe they do and I don't listen.
|>>|| No. 19389
Climate nutters just want something to get on their high horse about. If biofuels are doing well, then there's less to whinge about, so best not talk about them.
|>>|| No. 19391
>a 14 year old picking their GCSEs
Tesco's is always a plan B if you get that bit wrong.
|>>|| No. 19392
Replacing our current fossil fuel use with biofuels would require two earths. Biofuel smoke is carcinogenic because of the carbonyl - we're not sure, but it's probably worse for human health than fossil diesel. Increasing use of biofuels is likely to worsen climate change due to changes in land use and insolation.
|>>|| No. 19393
The only way to satisfy our civilisation's energy needs without burning fossil fuels is really nuclear hydrogen fusion. We won't have that as an available energy source in the near future, but all the renewable energy resources will not be enough to provide electrical energy for the majority of the eight to ten billion people tat will live on this planet in just a few decades. So it's not likely that all of mankind will stop using fossil fuels before they are exhausted.
What we really need and haven't had in centuries is a natural culling event among our human population. After the various waves of the Black Death, Europe's population was reduced to about 40 percent of pre-plague numbers. It gave the natural resources like forests and agricultural land a chance to recover, and also led to a sharp increase in general prosperity among the survivors, mostly due to inheriting plenty of land and money from family members who had died.
We need a catastrophic event that will wipe out 60 percent of the global population indiscriminately. The preferred scenario would then probably be an incurable pandemic disease. Nuclear war is not a good option towards that goal, as a nuclear war on a large enough scale to wipe out four billion lives would (by way of a global nuclear winter) threaten the long-term survival of almost everyone who would survive the initial attacks.
|>>|| No. 19395
Firstly- He's not wrong, lad.
In animal populations, humans intervene when we see one species outgrowing the sustainability of its habitat. We either cull or sterilise a number of the population to stop them going past that point, for their own good. It's either that or they go extinct right?
We have never applied that process to our own population, but it's arguable that we should have started to do so around four billion people ago. We face exactly the same dilemma.
Secondly- The Sahara desert is fucking huge and there's nowt there. Why can't we just turn the cunt into one big solar panel. Has anyone ever done the maths on how much surface are we need to replace fossil fuels with the sun, or wind farms, or what have you? Because I feel like it's completely possible, we're just not looking large enough. We're looking at putting the odd few windmills on a hill where the council can get planning permission through, when we should be looking at literally replacing Ireland with wind farms.
|>>|| No. 19396
>>19395 If you cover the Sahara with solar cells, that's a lot of reflective sand replaced with effectively matt black. You're going to dump quite a lot (four times the generated electricity) of heat into the are, which could be interesting.
Dunno if the solar concentrators (mirror farms, occasional big towers) would be a better plan if you're going to mega-scale?
Of course, when Big Oil stops sitting on those 100% efficiency solar cell designs, it won't be an issue any more. The bastards.
|>>|| No. 19397
>has anyone ever done the maths on how much surface are we need to replace fossil fuels with the sun, or wind farms, or what have you?
Yes, obviously many, many people have thought about this.
>We're looking at putting the odd few windmills on a hill where the council can get planning permission through, when we should be looking at literally replacing Ireland with wind farms.
Yes, something like that.
|>>|| No. 19399
One of the biggest scientific and humanitarian successes of the Industrial Age was without a doubt the progress made in medicine. People in developed countries now have childhood survival rates and life expectancies that were unthinkable just 200 or 300 years ago, when the majority of people simply didn't grow very old, at least not in a healthy state. If historic accounts are to be believed, you simply did not see many old people. And "old" meaning, over about 55 to 65.
It's also why the human population in pre-Industrial times remained relatively costant for several hundred years. Out of four to six children that a married couple usually had in those days, statistically just a little over two children made it into reproductive age and adulthood. So basically just enough people grew old enough to replace their parents, who usually died much earlier than today's average UK life expectancy.
The flip side is that this has let the global human population grow beyond sustainable levels. The only way that we can feed 7.5 billion people today is that agricultural technology has largely kept up with population growth. But even that will reach its limits.
The estimate nowadays is that the human population will not grow much beyond 10 billion, because that's about the maximum number of inhabitants that we can feed and provide for with our current technology. But in terms of the use and depletion of natural resources, it's already a highly unsustainable number.
|>>|| No. 19400
Rather than a mass human cull, maybe we could just buy less shit?
|>>|| No. 19401
>The only way that we can feed 7.5 billion people today is that agricultural technology has largely kept up with population growth
We throw away or otherwise waste about a third of all the edible food we grow, so presumably could feed the ten billion without increasing production.
Yes only people take personal affront if you suggest being less consumerist, whereas suggesting a mass cull often doesn't phase them.
|>>|| No. 19402
The vast majority of people live on less than one pound at day. They already buy only the strict necessary for raw subsistence. By the way, mass culling is [CENSORED]
|>>|| No. 19403
That hasn't been true for decades. There is no "first world" and "third world" any more - most people are in the global middle-class. That's a great success, but it's also a major environmental threat; as that big red blob keeps moving to the right of the graph, a lot of people are going to start eating meat with every meal, buying cars and taking foreign holidays. It's incumbent on those of us who are already on the right of the graph to curb our consumption now, otherwise we'll just be dismissed as hypocrites when China and India catch up with Europe and North America.
|>>|| No. 19404
>We throw away or otherwise waste about a third of all the edible food we grow, so presumably could feed the ten billion without increasing production.
If we were able to distribute food efficiently so that nobody would have to starve, we would probably already be doing it now. But efficiency as such probably isn't the biggest problem, and it's more a free markets and business thing. On a global scale, it's still cheaper to mass produce food and either destroy your overproduction or let it perish than it would be to ship it to those who have nothing to eat.
Charities like FareShare are a step in the right direction in that they collect a day's fresh vegetables and bread and give it to the poor, but that's only in Britain, and it doesn't go to people who without this charity wouldn't have anything to eat at all, but to those who struggle to afford good proper food at normal UK shop prices. It does not solve the starvation problems in the poorest regions of the world.
You are either going to have to mandate by international law that the food production surplus must go to people in poor countries, or you are going to have to accept that around 20 percent of global food production will always go to waste and not reach those who really need it. And then try to feed the global population with a food distribution system that only runs at 80 percent efficiency.
|>>|| No. 19405
I don't agree with your conflation of what we're "able" to do and what's "cheaper".
Places like Detroit and Cuba show that it's entirely possible to grow food locally to feed people for next to nothing, even in urban areas. The less we import, the more chances farmers in distant places have to grow their own food to subsist on instead of being stuck growing cash crops for other people.
|>>|| No. 19406
Growing locally is going to get you gluts of things as they come into season, and that's a good way to increase dumping. I wouldn't even call it waste, particularly. To get enough tomatoes, say, for a 6 month season, the peak months are going to be an excess, unless you're proposing every locality has its own processing facility, or a load of logistics that nobody's going to want to pay for to get the excess to a more central processor.
Having started growing things at home recently, and being surrounded by proper farms, has given me an appreciation of the effort that goes into delivering food to gobs. Also the absurdly short growing season this far north, and how decoupled we are from its effects. Hay, grain stores, cold stores full of fruit, butter, cheese - all variously tortuous ways of storing sunlight for winter time.
|>>|| No. 19408
>Places like Detroit and Cuba show that it's entirely possible to grow food locally to feed people for next to nothing, even in urban areas
Cuba is not a good example, as it has heavily depended on foreign food imports in the past because its poorly equipped and inefficient agricultural sector was unable to feed all their citizens. And the foods they exported, at least after the revolution, tended to be of mediocre quality as well. Cuba used to supply half the Communist Bloc with oranges, for example, but they were juice oranges, not table oranges. The difference as such is marginal, and in terms of taste, fully ripe juice oranges are actually superior to table oranges. But juice oranges usually look a bit unappealing, they tend to have green or dark spots and pockmarks on their outer skin, and they are usually noticeably smaller than table oranges. Not a problem if you turn them into juice, but for a long time, they were passed off as table oranges in countries like the German Democratic Republic or Czechoslovakia, and people used to form long queues in front of state owned grocery shops because even then they were a rare commodity.
Not sure how I got from efficient food distribution to Cuban juice oranges, but oh well.
|>>|| No. 19409
And I don't think Detroit's a particularly convincing argument that local people can grow (enough) food for next to nothing.
It's a fine thing that people are growing green stuff in cities, and that they're doing it for free, but the tedious gruntwork of growing grains and bulk plants is neither free nor sane on a small scale. People moved into cities away from agricultural labour because it's fucking hard work, especially if manual labour's involved, rather than running expensive machines over big fields.
Go back to manual farming, and I suspect there would be riots about food prices, and a lot less obesity. Possibly rationing. Good times!
|>>|| No. 19410
>It's incumbent on those of us who are already on the right of the graph to curb our consumption now
Fuck that. There's a myriad of solutions we can devise to boost productivity and, under GMO or vitro meat, even have a more environmentally friendly agricultural system. With the sheer amount of money involved our greed shall propel us toward a brighter future.
If you want to live on a loaf of bread a day then go back to Sparta.
This isn't how famine works and flooding domestic/international markets with surplus would do more than good. You can't stop a warlord blocking aid convoys with potatoes (unless you threw them at him) and you can't sort out the local farm economy by dumping food.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]