How would you solve it?

[Boerseun]

There was this interesting program on the radio today, where people had to phone in and lay any sort of complaint. And after laying their complaint, they had to propose a solution. It's gotta be a real-world, workable, affordable solution.

So I thought, why not try the same thing here? Everybody's forever complaining about Global Warming or pollution or energy issues - in this thread, you must lay a complaint or state an issue, and then propose a possible solution. Provided, of course, that the issue is scientifically relevant. In other words, no complaints about the Hare Krishnas or Jehova's witnesses or the guy who crashed into your car the other day!

[Boerseun]

Just to start it off...

 

Global warming, pollution, etc. Y'all know the issues behind this, so I'm not going to rehash it. However...

 

My solution:

I think if we get away, somehow, from the American approach to life, living in excess, having three cars when one would do perfectly well, would be a big benefit.

Apart from that - with the energy crisis looming over the horizon, why exactly can't we selectively light streets? Say, for instance, having every second or third streetlight be switched off?

In Cape Town, South Africa, 60% of all electricity consumption goes into street lighting. We can free up up to 30% op Cape Town's total power demand if we did something like this - thereby lowering the amount of coal that needs to go into the boilers.

Look at any city's skyline at night. Bright lights all over the show, and empty streets. Those lights are burning to nobody's benefit.

 

Thoughts? Or solutions to new issues?

[zadojla]

I think if we get away, somehow, from the American approach to life, living in excess, having three cars when one would do perfectly well, would be a big benefit.

Does it matter if we have three cars if we only drive one at a time?

[Boerseun]

Does it matter if we have three cars if we only drive one at a time?

I would certainly think so - it takes an enormous amount of resources to build cars, and if you can only drive one at a time, why have three?

[Queso]

i can only play one guitar at a time, but i have many.

they all have distinct tones, they all play differently, they all hold sentimental value.

i think you can use this to explain why you would ahve more than one car.

[zadojla]

I would certainly think so - it takes an enormous amount of resources to build cars, and if you can only drive one at a time, why have three?

So I can drive to work (there is no public transportation). So my wife is not trapped at home while I'm away. A car in reserve (one-time purchase opportunity) for when my daughter leaves for college next year.

Generally, only one car is in use at a time, so I'm using them up 1/3 as fast as one car. Between my wife and me, we drive a total of almost 40,000 miles per year.

If I still lived in New York City, I wouldn't own any cars. I'd just rent one for vacations.

[zadojla]

i can only play one guitar at a time, but i have many.

they all have distinct tones, they all play differently, they all hold sentimental value.

i think you can use this to explain why you would ahve more than one car.

That's a little different than cars, but it's certainly the same as why I own over 20 chess sets. Each one pleases me in some way.

[zadojla]

In Cape Town, South Africa, 60% of all electricity consumption goes into street lighting.

I lived in New York City during the energy crisis in the 70's. NYC was also in severe financial difficulty at the time. All highways in NYC were lit for their entire length.

As a cost saving measure, the highway lights were turned off. Serious and fatal accidents skyrocketed. They finally conpromised by turning the lights on at interchanges only.

[zadojla]

A major problem in metropolitan areas is violent crime. This is a major impetus for gun control in the United States. I propose instead that all adult citizens be required to carry sidearms for protection.

[Queso]

A major problem in metropolitan areas is violent crime. This is a major impetus for gun control in the United States. I propose instead that all adult citizens be required to carry sidearms for protection.

 

i think this would just give more people an excuse to kill..

:hyper:

[Boerseun]

Okaaaayyy.... so maybe my car example wasn't the best idea. Let's not get sidetracked by that.

And if the streetlighting example sucked, so be it. I just used my second posting on this thread as an example of what my idea in the first posting was.

So - fire away, complain, and give possible solutions! :hyper:

[nkt]

i think this would just give more people an excuse to kill..

:hyper:

It never happens like that though. Over half the states in the US now have concealed carry, yet the crime rate has continued to drop as these laws have been brought in. Every time, just before, those opposed to it have wailed and nashed teeth about the blood on the streets. Every time, they have quietly moved on to the next state proposing the same thing, never looking back at the positive results, wailing and nashing just the same each time.

 

Look at the states with high crime rates, and they have restrictive laws, while those with liberal gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.

 

It is almost impossible to prove cause and effect, though.

 

Besides, bad people don't need an excuse to kill or maim people. At least armed victims give them an excuse to *not* go out mugging and killing!

Say, for instance, having every second or third streetlight be switched off?

As for the street lighting idea... Turning off half or more of the lights would be terrible. It is bad enough in the UK, where recently I was walking along a row of terraced houses which was long and steep, and had only one street light visible on my side, and two on the other. It was dangerous and dark. It was far below what you would consider "safe". The main road we turned off had great lighting. Easy to see cars and people, and avoid both if need be. Turning into the other road, the darkness was near complete, but your eyes take ten minutes to adapt.

 

Street lights are designed to give a safe minimum level of light. Having it patchy and dotted at random means your eyes will not adjust, and people will still go out without torches to find a way. Further, the eye responds far more slowly at night to changes and movement, so walking and running become far more dangerous. You will also find far fewer rapes occur under lit street lights than unlit ones. Carrying a torch is both unweidly and shows your position from miles away.

 

In the victim disarmarment capital of the world, the UK, many pubs would be very unhappy if you took a heavy maglite in with you, let alone a proper self-defence tool. For a start, they would trip the metal detectors!

 

All in all, a disaster waiting to happen.

 

However, working to make solar cells energy-neutral or better, then using them to power the hundreds of lights out there would be great. We have traffic lights that use LEDS now, and remote telephone boxes are often powered by solar cells to reduce the curent they draw across the phone lines.

 

If we get good enough at solar panels, we might even be able to get the hydrogen economy off the ground. But without massive amounts of almost free electric, that just isn't going to help.

[UncleAl]

Civilization knows what it is doing. There is nothing wrong with America that applying the Constitution would not fix - though one would do best to again start with the Declaration if Independence as a guide to clean up before proceeding. Toss the 19th Amendment to make society viable. Add Jefferson's caveat about ownership vs. voting rights: If you are not bought into the system you have no right to demand authority or boons.

 

Centrally administered morality, charity, and comfort are not government venues. Folks only make good choices when bad choices punch them in their gut. The solution to all the world's problems begins wilth killing all the do-gooders.

[Fishteacher73]

It never happens like that though. Over half the states in the US now have concealed carry, yet the crime rate has continued to drop as these laws have been brought in. Every time, just before, those opposed to it have wailed and nashed teeth about the blood on the streets. Every time, they have quietly moved on to the next state proposing the same thing, never looking back at the positive results, wailing and nashing just the same each time.

 

Look at the states with high crime rates, and they have restrictive laws, while those with liberal gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.

 

It is almost impossible to prove cause and effect, though.

 

Besides, bad people don't need an excuse to kill or maim people. At least armed victims give them an excuse to *not* go out mugging and killing!

 

Texas has concealed carrier laws and Dallas now has the highest crime rate in the nation (As of the released 2004 numbers). Armed people don't reduce crime, just as more cops do not reduce crime. Just yesterday in my hometown about a mile from my house, there was a DAYLIGHT armed robbery of a GUN STORE (with the armed clerk there) and about 50 weapons were stolen including about a dozen assault rifles. The conept of arms proliferation as a solution is absurd.

[nkt]

Texas has concealed carrier laws and Dallas now has the highest crime rate in the nation (As of the released 2004 numbers). Armed people don't reduce crime, just as more cops do not reduce crime. Just yesterday in my hometown about a mile from my house, there was a DAYLIGHT armed robbery of a GUN STORE (with the armed clerk there) and about 50 weapons were stolen including about a dozen assault rifles. The conept of arms proliferation as a solution is absurd.

No offence, but Texas is a special case. The more I hear about it the more like another planet it seems.

 

Did the clerk survive? What the heck else has been going on there? The Tx crime rate used to be quite a lot lower than places like D.C., Chicago and New York.

 

It might have something to do with the rapid rate at which Texas fries its innocent prisoners. Or the way it has fries with everything.

 

Assuming you are correct on the murder rate, Tx is now the most murderous, most execution happy and most obese place in the USA!

[Boerseun]

What makes humans such a special case, is that we've started using energy extrasomatically. It has been calculated that an average American uses the same energy per day as was consumed by +-200 slaves in ancient Egypt in one day. That's inclusive of your car, if you can imagine a couple of slaves "pushing" you to work, the lights burning in your house, etc. I will search my sources for a reference to this, but I think http://www.dieoff.org also makes mention of this calculation.

 

It is clear that we can't sustain 6 billion (and counting) people each consuming that amount of energy. But that is what the World's leaders would have us believe. We should bring the Third World up to the same standards as the West - so that we can turn them into good examples of homo economicus and sell stuff to them.

 

Bollocks.

 

If we had 6 billion people, each consuming 200 Egyptian slaves worth of energy per day, we'd need to be able to sustain 1200,000,000,000 Egyptian slaves. I can't see Third World people using much more resources than Egyptian slaves, so we can probably interchange them in the analogy. Can we support 1.2 trillion people? No.

 

Which brings me to another question: Can wealth exist without poverty? Can the West really be so affluent without the Third World to be measured against? Should we, in all honesty and consideration for the Earth's finite resources, keep on trying to get the Third World up to First World standards? Or should we maybe taper down on greed and avarice and envy and ridiculous wealth in the West? Shouldn't we be promoting a more sedate lifestyle in the West?

[nkt]

Which brings me to another question: Can wealth exist without poverty? Can the West really be so affluent without the Third World to be measured against? Should we, in all honesty and consideration for the Earth's finite resources, keep on trying to get the Third World up to First World standards? Or should we maybe taper down on greed and avarice and envy and ridiculous wealth in the West? Shouldn't we be promoting a more sedate lifestyle in the West?

I think the spiralling UK crime rate can answer that question. Anywhere the state pays people to breed and be lazy, you are going to get a large number of lazy people fairly quickly - and that is exactly what the welfare state does.

 

Of course, these bored people all have DVD players, wide screen TV, broadband, food (Plenty of food!) and enough money to go out drinking any time they choose. But they still want... no, demand! a better television, and they will steal yours if it isn't forthcoming.

 

And, doing nothing all day, they form gangs and roam the streets, mugging and sometimes killing for fun.

 

Lovely, isn't it?

 

So no, we should scale back. We should try to stop people being brain-washed into "Buy, buy, buy!". But this is what makes the world go around now. Envy, sloth and avarice are the sins du jour. :Alien: