A few weeks ago a couple protesters threw tomato soup at a Van Gogh, now two more winners threw some mashed potatoes at a Monet. This is in protest to climate change. Apparently, some folks believe that protesting can fix climate. It can’t. When I was 3 I really really wanted a flying skateboard, but I understood that I couldn’t protest for a thing that hadn’t yet been invented. These jerk offs should spend their days running on a hamster wheel rigged up to a generator. At least then they will be contributing to the grid. I’d suggest engineering school, but they likely don’t have the iq. The culture of protesting and activism surrounding the topic of climate change is counterproductive and reductive. It ignores and minimizes the work that people on the front of energy technology, transportation, architecture, and landscape architecture actually do. This winter when Europeans freeze because of energy shortages, I hope these 2 dingle berries learn that they can’t cry for warmth. They’ll have to use their minimal wits to stay warm. Hopefully not by reproducing.
Protesting rarely fixes anything, but it does draw attention to the subject. If we all kept our heads in the sand about climate change than we'd be screwed even faster than we're going to be. Engineers and scientists have been working on it for decades but they can't change public opinion on their own.
Oct 24, 22 12:12 pm ·
·
x-jla
Mashed potatoes are what most people are doing. The perception that you can mandate or advocate for something that requires a replacement technology is ridiculous. Meanwhile, there are actual things that people can do to mitigate problems. Like use that mashed potato energy to plant a garden, plant some trees, insulate your home. There are so many things that an individual can do to help short of rocket science. And, positive actions have a far greater awareness effect than negative actions. The demand the we must stop using oil is a foolish one. If we stop using oil we will collapse the entire society. Oil and natural gas need to exist until they can be replaced. Solar cannot replace them. Electric cars cannot either. There isn’t enough lithium on the planet for the batteries required. And how do you think that lithium gets mined? And at what environmental cost? The complexity of the climate issue becomes reduced to meaningless gobbly gooop when the “activist” types take it on. It’s obnoxious and it’s going to cause way more harm than good, because now politicians are pandering to these loud and reductionist arguments.
Oct 24, 22 12:54 pm ·
·
x-jla
And all of this is not to suggest that we should surrender current green energy technology. We should push existing green technology hard, and utilize it where it makes sense to. It cannot yet replace gas though, and putting restrictions on farming, oil, gas, etc is going to cause more harm than good.
Oct 24, 22 12:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
Have you payed attention to the farmers in the Netherlands? These dummies are hell bent on destroying the best and most sustainable agriculture on the planet to pander to some tantrum for unattainable perfection. Like what do they think, people will stop eating if we curb agricultural production? The case of the coyotes is a great example of unintentional consequences when we make policies based on reductionist ideas for complex systems. Coyotes where once only in the western states. When settlers began to eradicate wolves in the 1800’s they didn’t understand that coyotes breed more and expand territory when their pack is in decline. It’s an evolutionary response. The result is now 150 years later they are in all 50 states. Climate activists often overlook unintentional consequences because they reduce complex systems into sound bites that get picked up by dumb politicians and turned into policy.
You'll have to do better than that. Provide actual sources.
Oct 24, 22 1:40 pm ·
·
x-jla
That’s an example of a government making a policy based on an activist level of understanding…and creating dire consequences.
Oct 24, 22 1:48 pm ·
·
Wood Guy
"Climate activists often overlook unintentional consequences because they reduce complex systems into sound bites that get picked up by dumb politicians and turned into policy."
As opposed to the super-balanced, nuanced analysis you are undertaking?
And your title is, "Mashed Potato's," not "Mashed Potatoes," so I was asking, Mashed Potato's what? As in, what do they own, since the punctuation is possessive?
Back to your intended topic--asking individuals to solve the climate crisis individually while protecting oil and gas profits because change would be hard is why we are in trouble. (We're a month late for a hard frost here in Maine...)
Ironically, the O&G industry is doing just fine & could probably shoulder the burden somewhere in their billions of profits...not sure what difficulties they claim, but they seem to be squeezing profits year after year irrespective of world events (2020 being the lone oddball), regulations, or inflation.
Oct 24, 22 3:47 pm ·
·
x-jla
I have no worries at all about the OandG industry. They will just inflate prices and reap even more profits with lower production.
Not at all. I say you're trolling poorly because you're not interested in a discussion but instead just want to create drama and gain fleeting attention.
Chad, what’s your argument? I don’t understand what about the post you disagree with, and why you feel compelled to play in this sandbox if it irritates you?
Oct 24, 22 5:09 pm ·
·
x-jla
“Back to your intended topic--asking individuals to solve the climate crisis individually while protecting oil and gas profits because change would be hard is why we are in trouble.“. Woodguy, I am not asking individuals to solve anything. I am simply noting that climate activism is not only unproductive, it’s often counterproductive. Sri Lanka is an easy example. The government ban fertilizer in an attempt to help soil health. It causes famine. People will resort to bush meat. Farms will become overgrown. Herbicides will be needed to clear land once the ban is lifted. CA mandates that by 2030 new gas vehicles will be banned. Have you seen lithium leach fields in SA? Can we mine enough for millions of Californians? Even Elon musk says it’s ridiculous. This is the result of activism creating reductionist points, that lead to “reductionist public awareness” and then get exploited by politicians to gain votes. Complex issues like climate and energy are better left alone for the markets to change. We didn’t need legislation to limits wagon wheels, bear grease, typewriters , or any number of other out dated technologies. If we should have faith in one thing, it’s technological advancement. It’s the only consistent thing in our history.
"It (green energy) cannot yet replace gas though, and putting restrictions on farming, oil, gas, etc is going to cause more harm than good."
I asked you to provide sources for the bolded part of your statement. You haven't. You've made statements about Sri Lanka that you claim support your statement. Unfortunately you're shown that your not reputable.
If you're going to have a discussion (aka play in the sandbox) you need to be able to support your statements with facts / sources.
x-jla - the chemical fertilizer ban in Sri Lanka didn't cause starvation.
What did do is hurt the profit margin of tea exports. It also caused confusion amongst the subsistence farmers. This reduced crop production and caused FEARS of food insecurity. This was because the Sri Lanka government didn't explain any of the chemical fertilizer ban to it's people. Just one day people couldn't get any chemical fertilizer.
In addition, the majority of the issues that Sri Lanka is having is because Covid-19 sent droves of overseas workers home to Sri Lanka. Money sent home by Sri Lankans working abroad normally totals about $6 billion per year, well above the $1.2 billion that comes from tea, the country's largest cash crop. It's not the ban on chemical fertilizers.
You have to actually read the articles x-jla and not just look at the headlines. It also helps if you read multiple articles and not just the one at the top of your internet search. This includes articles that don't agree with your preconceived ideas.
Oct 24, 22 5:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
Chad, I don’t need to provide anything to you. In past debates I’ve turned out right and you’ve turned out to be wrong about 95% of the time. Covid lockdowns being ineffective, vaccines not stopping transmission, blm embezzling money, Biden being senile, hunter’s laptop, Russia Gate, etc etc etc….You need to start showing me sources as you are the one who’s turned out to be the spreader of misinformation
I like how x-jla keeps saying that he's been right 95% of the time yet when pressed all he does is just change his argument and say 'that's what I meant'. The guy is either lying to himself or pathological liar.
As for the one source he's posted - that's one source out of what, 45 I can find online. Even that source says it's not fertilizer ban by itself. It the influx of people, an oil shortage, and the governments lack of communication about the ban. You have to read the articles x-jla, not just the headlines.
You know what is more entertaining, watching you get spun up about nothing. I can almost set a watch to your faux outrage. The sound and fury signifying Jordan Peterson.
I don’t think I’ve ever had jack fruit now that I think about it.
Oct 24, 22 1:56 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
We’ll, I’m putting away all the kids toys from the backyard in anticipation of winter. It’s unreasonably warm (over 20c) for end of October too. What we all talking about again? I got distracted by something.
i think it's reasonable to question whether performances of public vandalism have any useful purpose with respect to widely recognized and wickedly difficult problems. in the end it only leads sympathizers to nod in agreement while giving reasons for the indifferent to resent the cause.
Mashed Potato’s
A few weeks ago a couple protesters threw tomato soup at a Van Gogh, now two more winners threw some mashed potatoes at a Monet. This is in protest to climate change. Apparently, some folks believe that protesting can fix climate. It can’t. When I was 3 I really really wanted a flying skateboard, but I understood that I couldn’t protest for a thing that hadn’t yet been invented. These jerk offs should spend their days running on a hamster wheel rigged up to a generator. At least then they will be contributing to the grid. I’d suggest engineering school, but they likely don’t have the iq. The culture of protesting and activism surrounding the topic of climate change is counterproductive and reductive. It ignores and minimizes the work that people on the front of energy technology, transportation, architecture, and landscape architecture actually do. This winter when Europeans freeze because of energy shortages, I hope these 2 dingle berries learn that they can’t cry for warmth. They’ll have to use their minimal wits to stay warm. Hopefully not by reproducing.
Mashed potato's what?
Protesting rarely fixes anything, but it does draw attention to the subject. If we all kept our heads in the sand about climate change than we'd be screwed even faster than we're going to be. Engineers and scientists have been working on it for decades but they can't change public opinion on their own.
Mashed potatoes are what most people are doing. The perception that you can mandate or advocate for something that requires a replacement technology is ridiculous. Meanwhile, there are actual things that people can do to mitigate problems. Like use that mashed potato energy to plant a garden, plant some trees, insulate your home. There are so many things that an individual can do to help short of rocket science. And, positive actions have a far greater awareness effect than negative actions. The demand the we must stop using oil is a foolish one. If we stop using oil we will collapse the entire society. Oil and natural gas need to exist until they can be replaced. Solar cannot replace them. Electric cars cannot either. There isn’t enough lithium on the planet for the batteries required. And how do you think that lithium gets mined? And at what environmental cost? The complexity of the climate issue becomes reduced to meaningless gobbly gooop when the “activist” types take it on. It’s obnoxious and it’s going to cause way more harm than good, because now politicians are pandering to these loud and reductionist arguments.
And all of this is not to suggest that we should surrender current green energy technology. We should push existing green technology hard, and utilize it where it makes sense to. It cannot yet replace gas though, and putting restrictions on farming, oil, gas, etc is going to cause more harm than good.
Have you payed attention to the farmers in the Netherlands? These dummies are hell bent on destroying the best and most sustainable agriculture on the planet to pander to some tantrum for unattainable perfection. Like what do they think, people will stop eating if we curb agricultural production? The case of the coyotes is a great example of unintentional consequences when we make policies based on reductionist ideas for complex systems. Coyotes where once only in the western states. When settlers began to eradicate wolves in the 1800’s they didn’t understand that coyotes breed more and expand territory when their pack is in decline. It’s an evolutionary response. The result is now 150 years later they are in all 50 states. Climate activists often overlook unintentional consequences because they reduce complex systems into sound bites that get picked up by dumb politicians and turned into policy.
x-jla wrote:
"It cannot yet replace gas though, and putting restrictions on farming, oil, gas, etc is going to cause more harm than good."
You have any sources to back up the bolded part of that last sentence x-jla?
Sri Lanka
You'll have to do better than that. Provide actual sources.
That’s an example of a government making a policy based on an activist level of understanding…and creating dire consequences.
"Climate activists often overlook unintentional consequences because they reduce complex systems into sound bites that get picked up by dumb politicians and turned into policy."
As opposed to the super-balanced, nuanced analysis you are undertaking?
And your title is, "Mashed Potato's," not "Mashed Potatoes," so I was asking, Mashed Potato's what? As in, what do they own, since the punctuation is possessive?
Back to your intended topic--asking individuals to solve the climate crisis individually while protecting oil and gas profits because change would be hard is why we are in trouble. (We're a month late for a hard frost here in Maine...)
Ironically, the O&G industry is doing just fine & could probably shoulder the burden somewhere in their billions of profits...not sure what difficulties they claim, but they seem to be squeezing profits year after year irrespective of world events (2020 being the lone oddball), regulations, or inflation.
I have no worries at all about the OandG industry. They will just inflate prices and reap even more profits with lower production.
x-jla -
I thought you had firm to run? Maybe your time would be better spent doing that than attempting bad trolling.
Just a suggestion.
It’s trolling just because you disagree? Quote a narcissistic view of the universe.
*Quite
Not at all. I say you're trolling poorly because you're not interested in a discussion but instead just want to create drama and gain fleeting attention.
I am interested in a discussion.
You are interested in arguing.
Argument is more productive than agreement.
Spoken like a troll.
I thought you had a firm to run x-jla?
I can walk and chew gum
I've seen your work x-jla. You can't.
Chad, what’s your argument? I don’t understand what about the post you disagree with, and why you feel compelled to play in this sandbox if it irritates you?
“Back to your intended topic--asking individuals to solve the climate crisis individually while protecting oil and gas profits because change would be hard is why we are in trouble.“. Woodguy, I am not asking individuals to solve anything. I am simply noting that climate activism is not only unproductive, it’s often counterproductive. Sri Lanka is an easy example. The government ban fertilizer in an attempt to help soil health. It causes famine. People will resort to bush meat. Farms will become overgrown. Herbicides will be needed to clear land once the ban is lifted. CA mandates that by 2030 new gas vehicles will be banned. Have you seen lithium leach fields in SA? Can we mine enough for millions of Californians? Even Elon musk says it’s ridiculous. This is the result of activism creating reductionist points, that lead to “reductionist public awareness” and then get exploited by politicians to gain votes. Complex issues like climate and energy are better left alone for the markets to change. We didn’t need legislation to limits wagon wheels, bear grease, typewriters , or any number of other out dated technologies. If we should have faith in one thing, it’s technological advancement. It’s the only consistent thing in our history.
x-jla - my question was quite clear.
When you posted:
"It (green energy) cannot yet replace gas though, and putting restrictions on farming, oil, gas, etc is going to cause more harm than good."
I asked you to provide sources for the bolded part of your statement. You haven't. You've made statements about Sri Lanka that you claim support your statement. Unfortunately you're shown that your not reputable.
If you're going to have a discussion (aka play in the sandbox) you need to be able to support your statements with facts / sources.
x-jla - the chemical fertilizer ban in Sri Lanka didn't cause starvation.
What did do is hurt the profit margin of tea exports. It also caused confusion amongst the subsistence farmers. This reduced crop production and caused FEARS of food insecurity. This was because the Sri Lanka government didn't explain any of the chemical fertilizer ban to it's people. Just one day people couldn't get any chemical fertilizer.
In addition, the majority of the issues that Sri Lanka is having is because Covid-19 sent droves of overseas workers home to Sri Lanka. Money sent home by Sri Lankans working abroad normally totals about $6 billion per year, well above the $1.2 billion that comes from tea, the country's largest cash crop. It's not the ban on chemical fertilizers.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/the-long-game/2022/07/19/is-organic-farming-to-blame-for-sri-lanka-00046505
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/20/sri-lanka-fertiliser-ban-president-rajapaksa-farmers-harvests-collapse
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/world/asia/sri-lanka-organic-farming-fertilizer.html
You have to actually read the articles x-jla and not just look at the headlines. It also helps if you read multiple articles and not just the one at the top of your internet search. This includes articles that don't agree with your preconceived ideas.
Chad, I don’t need to provide anything to you. In past debates I’ve turned out right and you’ve turned out to be wrong about 95% of the time. Covid lockdowns being ineffective, vaccines not stopping transmission, blm embezzling money, Biden being senile, hunter’s laptop, Russia Gate, etc etc etc….You need to start showing me sources as you are the one who’s turned out to be the spreader of misinformation
My sources are the obvious fact that technology has not yet rendered oil and gas obsolete. This is from the source called living in the real world.
You are cherry picking on the Sri Lanka story. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/fertiliser-ban-decimates-sri-lankan-crops-government-popularity-ebbs-2022-03-03/
You've never seen the right side of an issue.
I like how x-jla keeps saying that he's been right 95% of the time yet when pressed all he does is just change his argument and say 'that's what I meant'. The guy is either lying to himself or pathological liar.
As for the one source he's posted - that's one source out of what, 45 I can find online. Even that source says it's not fertilizer ban by itself. It the influx of people, an oil shortage, and the governments lack of communication about the ban. You have to read the articles x-jla, not just the headlines.
Cherry picking the parts as you did could be considered a form of lying.
How bout the farmers in the Netherlands? Is that a good policy? Stifle the most sustainable and advanced agriculture on earth in the name of woke?
You'll have to be more specific about what you're referring to in the Netherlands.
I fancy the video of the bloak who glued himself to the road and then threw the glue bottle down the sewer drain right next to him.
Some people just like glue??
You know what is more entertaining, watching you get spun up about nothing. I can almost set a watch to your faux outrage. The sound and fury signifying Jordan Peterson.
I'm just waiting for city planning to bet back to me before I start a master plan.
Well, I'm going to throw seitan and shredded jack fruit at your proposal.
Well it is almost time for lunch . . .
I don’t think I’ve ever had jack fruit now that I think about it.
We’ll, I’m putting away all the kids toys from the backyard in anticipation of winter. It’s unreasonably warm (over 20c) for end of October too. What we all talking about again? I got distracted by something.
Here we go again.
Yeah. I think x-jla is having some type of mental crisis again.
i think it's reasonable to question whether performances of public vandalism have any useful purpose with respect to widely recognized and wickedly difficult problems. in the end it only leads sympathizers to nod in agreement while giving reasons for the indifferent to resent the cause.
I would have to agree. It dose gain attention though. That could be worth quite a bit. Still a jerk move though.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.