Search results

Yes, we certainly can! There's a whole statistical analysis of it here: Labor and the retreat of Greens preferences – Pollytics

Something very interesting I've noticed in the past few months is that old Democrat voters, members, and parliamentarians are joining the Greens in droves. It looks like the Greens have finally broken past the "extremist" reputation and are now attracting economically and socially progressive...

Basically: As oil becomes scarcer, its cost rises. As the cost of oil rises, previously non-viable technologies suddenly become economically viable. As these technologies become viable, less pressure is placed on oil (less demand), thus the price of oil will not rise as fast, and consumption of...

ibbi, go read up on equilibrium systems, of which supply and demand is one.

Yes! Score one for common sense.

Fuck you're a frustrating Neb. You have no understanding of economics and for somebody who has studied chemistry you make a lot of mistakes talking about (talk about holes in knowledge)

As for fertiliser... you don't need oil or gas to produce ammonia (used in fertiliser for its accessible nitrogen content) - just use the chlor-alkali process. You don't even need ammonia to provide the nitrogen in fertiliser. Try recycling animal and human waste (urea) or the Birkeland–Eyde...

What a lack of faith you have in human ingenuity. I also question your chemistry. Why does medicine need oil? Most drugs have precursors which come from nature, not oil. Also, methane (CH4) isn't an oil, it's a gas. Just because something has a hydrocarbon backbone doesn't mean it requires...

Exactly. It's an equilibrium process. Further, oil will never really run out (OK, maybe in a few hundred or thousand years). As it becomes more expensive, it will be used less, meaning those uses for which it is harder to find replacements (e.g. plastics) will have greater access to it.

Ah, I see - because I have better things to do with my time than reading yet another paranoid rant about the existence of government I must be a fool.

tl;dr Libertarian and anarchist rants are a dime a dozen on the Internet.

The only possible way for humanity to end is some larger astrophysical phenomenon (vacuum metastability event, nearby star going supernova, aggressive aliens, etc) and even that's unlikely.

I don't think they mean much anymore due to the ambiguity of preference flows.

Hell no. 2007 required a definite change of party.

New Zealand announces it is building NBN similar to Australia's NZ's conservative coalition government plants to build a fibre to the home network at 100Mbps speeds covering at least 75% of households by 2020. The rollout and funding methods looks set to be similar to Australia's. For...

I don't think his ideological stance has changed one iota. Id est: he's been shit all along. One need only look at how long he's been pushing internet censorship for to see that.

Charity isn't universal.

I didn't know YouTube even let you upload videos longer than 10 minutes. I'll watch them eventually. I have to admit I'm very curious to hear the perspective of a strong libertarian who is also a strong environmentalist.

The free market (in its purest form) isn't too dissimilar to social Darwinism. Unless you have some basic safety nets (welfare structures), it WILL create inequality. That's how the market works. The market doesn't redistribute wealth to those most in need, it redistributes it to those most able...

Yeah, OK, I'm cool with the notion it'll solve SOME problems, and in fact I just had this conversation with Graney. But it's no cure-all tonic.