Ableton Forum

myrnova wrote:

Nice!

Lets add this to the picture....

Nigeria ships over 40 percent of its oil directly to the USA. The bulk of this comes from the densely populated Niger delta, a region dependent on fishing and farming, much like Louisiana’s Mississippi delta. At once oil rich and impoverished, billions of dollars in crude are siphoned out of the Niger delta every year. With scarcely any social services or paid employment, the region has one doctor for every 150,000 residents. But, oil extraction has caused pollution and disease. Burning natural gas, a waste product of oil production, has contributed to a rise in repiratory illness. Although “flaring” natural gas was officially banned in 1984, Shell burned hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas in 2010. On top of wasting a precious resource, “flaring” causes acid rain, which has destroyed rooftops and deprived the delta’s inhabitants of drinkable rainwater. Confronted with the pollution of their streams and creeks, fishermen have been forced further and further out to sea. Many formerly self-sufficient farming communitites now import food because the toxic flares have destroyed their crops and rendered the surrounding farmland barren.

The Niger delta is home to the world’s biggest flaring operation. It is here, according to the Guardian Weekly in mid 2006, that Shell produced “more carbon emissions than everyone else in sub-Saharan Africa put together”.

Quote from: “Stop Signs — Cars and Capitalism on the road to economic, social and ecological decay.”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y74XX0

Machinesworking wrote:

LoopStationZebra wrote:The Third World exists because Free Market Capitalism hasn't arrived there yet.

The third world exists because first world nations need something to inflate their economies with.

I so nearly bit here too, but he's clearly trolling.

Actually he's not. LSZ believes that a true free market capitalism would not create a third world necessarily.
I wasn't contradicting him really, just pointing out that capitalism as we know it has plenty of use for third world economies.

myrnova wrote: So: better change technology (clean hydrogen)...

Well considering even Jack Nicholson had a hydrogen car in the 70s then, yeah it does seem that the only thing stopping it from replacing oil is political will, seeing as the entire world economy depends on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

BTW - I'm not quite as pessimistic about China - I think the Chinese are actually very resourceful and already have massive pollution problems so they are actually investing quite heavily in green/sustainable energy...

myrnova wrote: So: better change technology (clean hydrogen)...

"There is no such thing as a green car. The basic point is this: A model of trasportation that relies on individuals hopping into two, four or eight thousand pound metal boxes to get from one place to another is utterly unsustainable."

It all comes down to physics (thermo dynamics to be more specific), ie, the natural law that we haven't yet managed to move beyond (except in our imaginations). So, once again, from the book....http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y74XX0

"Hydrogen fuel cells. Replacing the oil U.S cars, trucks and buses currently use would require 230,000 tones of hydrogen per day. To generate that amount of hydrogen by splitting water molecules, the U.S. would have to nearly double its electricity genearting capacity. If the energy used to electrolyze water is coal-based, then hydrogen fuel cells create more greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum based gasoline."

By all means, bring in solar and wind now if you like, but you'll be battling the limitations of human innovation and the laws of physics. The car has to go. You can choose to become informed now and make reasonable and radical decisions or the choice will be forced upon you or your children in ways that your mind could never have imagined.

Forge. wrote: BTW - I'm not quite as pessimistic about China - I think the Chinese are actually very resourceful and already have massive pollution problems so they are actually investing quite heavily in green/sustainable energy...

I have heard people talk of China in this way. They currently have a massive 'smog' problem (I see it reported in papers from Australia from time to time) and Mr Anderson did get his Chinese peak emmisions data from the Chinese themselves. Add to this the following info from Mr Anderson's blog;

"It may be apocryphal, but I have heard from several reputable sources that China is in the process of constructing 150 new international airports. This perhaps sounds implausible, but China’s population is approximately 22 times the UK’s, and the UK has around 25 international airports. Proportionately, China would need 550 international airports to match the per capita equivalent of the UK. Suddenly their construction rate seems less implausible. Either way, flying to Shanghai sends a very clear market signal: expand your airport. And that is exactly what they’re doing right now, so they’re reading our repeated signal loud and clear."

http://kevinanderson.info/blog/hypocrit ... y-example/

Malthus used to lose sleep about this stuff in 18th Century England when there was less than 10% of the world population we have today. He would be simultaneously gratified and possibly catatonic with shock at the reality of it now.

Honestly, I really don't want to sound like a miserable bastard, but I will anyway... I feel like I've been paying a lot of attention to these weird creatures called humans and what they're up to for a long time now and I have almost no faith whatsoever that we can pull ourselves out of this.

The only actual realistic thing that we WILL do if things carry on as they have been is try and find clean energy sources that will enable us to carry on doign what we already do in a less damaging way. If we get most of our electricity cleanly then electic cars etc could be far less damaging way than they are currently. We'll probably kill half or 3/4 of the rest of the planet in the process before we actually manage to make all energy on the planet green, but we'll find some way of clinging on for a while.

Just look at the carry on in our own politics. The last election was the most green votes ever, and yet it seems the "masses" wanted to vote in the climate change denying LNP because they didn't like Julia Gillard's voice and never forgave her taking over from Kevin. Maybe they have held that wolf from the gate for the moment, but the point is the environment and climate change was not high on the list of priorities.

Otherwise, in all likelihood we will carry on doing exactly what we are doing now without making anything like enough changes until we all die out, and even as the last of us are dying there will be some corrupt president appointing monsanto or oil guys to high places and telling us we're actually dying for some other vague reason that has nothing to do with oil or the poisons they are putting in the food and water.

I'm sorry to be such a bummer, and you can cycle as much as you like, but honestly you are in such a minority that there is zero to no hope whatsoever of your method actually REALLY solving this problem. The vast, vast majority of other humans on this planet will not do what you are doing.

The only other hope is that there is a massive solar flare or EMP attack that sends us back to the stone age.

Global warming is a myth perpetuated by Funken to give his crippled life meaning. It's a fact.

Trains, trams, electric cars, hydrogen cars all sound nice, but they still use energy.

Cars account for about 15% of CO2 emissions. Power generation and heating about 40%

While we're still generating electricity with fossil fuels, you're largely just moving the problem from one sector to another. And there's enough problems coming up with the power as it is. This is area we need to focus on, before transport options become viable. Except for just reducing the transport we do.

At the moment, trains and trams are only efficient if people use them a lot. In a town of 20000, they could be driving round empty most of the time.

Meanwhile Europe is less than 5 years from civil war.

Jack McOck wrote:Meanwhile Europe is less than 5 years from civil war.

That is a dead cert.

It's a fact. 103% of all political commentators agree. Those who don't don't count.

That's TWO don'ts.

is it civil war? I think with the latest NSA revelations the people are realising they have actually become the enemy.

WW3 is more likely going to be a class war.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-2 ... rists.html

You're discounting the correlation between poverty and nationalism. If 'Dolphy taught us anything, it's that people are naturally far more tribal when times are hard, and times are going to get a lot worse than they are now. The protests in Greece and Italy's current opposition to the EU both suggest that this war will be one of centralists vs decentralists, with Libertarians, MRAs, and Nazis on one side, and modern day Communists, Socialists, Feminists, Liberals and Conservatives on the other. Merkel's 4th Reich will be put to the test and it ain't gonna be pretty. As a rule, empires don't like to fragment.

Meanwhile, I'm going to start separating my glass bottles from my PET bottles because obviously this is gonna fix the world.

*Correction—screw that, your class war is actually exactly what I'm talking about. David Cameron, Barrack Obama and Funken are all on the same side—freedom-sucking motherfuckers who are trying in vain to intellectualise their poisonous web of lies and general cognitive dissonance.

well I don't know... I'm not so sure people are so easily duped now - this is why the powers that be are shitting themselves and spying on everybody.

And members among their ranks are deserting because they don't like what they are seeing.

I read an article the other day about an Iraq veteran's suicide, talking about his note, and he was talking about how there was something like 22 suicides on average a day, far more than the soldiers killed in action. A big load of them have had to deal with the shock of realising that they weren't the good guys going to spread democracy and freedom, they were just a gigantic protection racket and made to do hideous things, not for their country, but for the billionaire bully boys who'd hijacked their government. How many billions did Cheney personally make through Haliburton there?

If anything in Europe I'd think people are MORE clued in to this.

I don't think soldiers are blind to this shit. I think if there was really a civil war there would be a lot who wouldn't be cool about killing their own people. I'd like to hope so at least.

Unfortunately the bastards have drones now, and god knows what else.

And meanwhile every few seconds the text on my page freezes for a minute, which must be to catch up while the NSA scanners pick up on it and in 5 years when it kicks off I'll be one of the first to be shipped to an internment camp or shot for writing this.