On 13 Jul, 08:06, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:
> As things stand, all biofuels currently in use are problematic in one
> way or another. Either they don't save on CO2, contribute to
> starvation, destroy the environment, use too much energy to produce,
> or can never be  in sufficient quantity to satisfy the considerable
> energy appetite or motorists.
Right, so again I ask: If all current bio-fuel production methods are
so terrible, then is this a good enough reason to stop development of
the new production techniques? You are effectively deriding all bio-
fuels because the prototype production systems, or systems which
aren't terribly scalable were put to use. I propose that it isn't a
good enough reason to stop development of newer production techniques.
I am in favour of bio-fuels. I drove to Manchester today to visit
family. On the way I got to see those marvellous wind turbines on the
Pennines *not spinning*. I think that wind turbines are a useless idea
for electricity generation, but I don't think that all methods of
electricity generation are useless. Until you understand that, you
can't possibly understand the mess of an idea you have about bio-
fuels.
> Suggest you try to learn something about the subject itself before
> posting.
Well guess what. I have. I've even had the cheek to study it at
university. Still doesn't change the fact your rhetoric,
sensationalism and appeals to emotion do nothing but weaken your own
argument.
> Again you display your ignorance of the subject. Care to quote a
> source which supports your claims?
What? That rearing boars and goats in wooded areas is possible? It's
well known. Wild boars even live in such places all of their own
accord. Farming livestock is a very good way to convert nitrate into
protein. See, I can't do that, but goats can. Think of them as little
mobile protein factories. If you are suggesting that I need to supply
evidence that you don't know much about the subject, then sure. Just
see your previous reply where you said "Farming livestock is woefully
inefficient and wasteful compared to arable". You can put goats and
sheep on hills and moors where you can't farm arable products. You can
farm pigs & boars in woods and forests. I'm not quite sure what
evidence you'd like though.
>> So, now we've theoretically allocated all open fields to arable
>> farming, what do we actually grow? I generally don't like cereals, so
>> a fair proportion of those fields will have to be nothing but
>> vegetables. But I'm not so keen on potatoes in large amounts, so that
>> leaves us with making sure that there's lots of leafy green things and
>> other root veg. But, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't be able to
>> consistently consume enough veg each day to meet my energy
>> requirements (I have nothing against vegetarian food at all, in fact
>> one of my favourite snap palaces when I was a student in Manchester
>> was a vegetarian cafe. My worry comes from the fundamental physics of
>> energy in - energy out.). So what do I do Doug? That's one of the
>> reasons I like to eat meat. It tastes good (which is the main point)
>> and it supplies me with nutrients and crucially energy. I'm not too
>> keen of beef that much, it's OK, but it's not a patch on pork. Where
>> can I farm pork... Oh yes, pretty much anywhere. Forests would be
>> ideal.
>
> Also you know nothing about nutrition.
OK Doug, show me in my reply where I say that a vegetarian diet
couldn't supply me with enough nutrients. You won't, because I didn't.
What I did say though, was that I was doubtful that a vegetarian diets
could provide me with all my energy needs. So, stop moving the
goalposts, to paraphrase yourself.
> The nutrients found in meat are also in many plants and energy is supplied by sugars and
> carbohydrates.
Wow, that sentence shows me that you must be a certified genius on the
subject. But I'd still prefer it if you actually made an effort to
comprehend what I'd typed before you moved the goalposts.
> Using animals to convert human food, such as grain and
> beans, to meat is a very inefficient process
I'm not suggesting we feed them on "human food" as you so poorly put
it. Anyway, as I've already said several times, livestock can be
farmed in areas where arable farming wouldn't be viable, and they
convert nitrate to protein very efficiently.
> and they don't live on grass alone.
Neither do humans Doug, neither do humans.
> You obnviously don't understand anything at all about this subject,
> hence your empty assertions.
What empty assertions? You've come on here, acting the blowhard as
usual, trying to dictate to people what they should be doing but when
your ideas have been held up to scrutiny, they fall apart. It is you,
more often than not, who spouts the empty assertions. But please, let
me know which of my assertions are empty. In return, I'll continue to
point yours out.
>>> We already have the technology to reduce hypemobility and its
>>> attendant pollution, its called the internet,
>
>> OK, that's great. Not quite sure you've thought that through properly
>> though.
>
> Why not?
How can I go on holiday through the internet?
>>> but people like you still chose to give in to your wander lust
>
>> You can't fight nature Doug!
>
> Actually you can.
No you can't Doug!
> In civilised societies we fight the urge to kill others, to name just one.
Ah, this is a good example of one of your empty assertions. It isn't
human nature to kill, Doug. If it were, the human race would have died
out many moons ago. It is human nature to defend one's self, whether
that ends in the death of another is a related, but different matter.
For a small percentage of the population, the desire to maim and kill
is present, you my commonly know them as psychopaths. This is a
deviant trait in society. Before you say it, let me assure you that
this is not a "semantic dodge" or whatever other ill though-out empty
assertion you were ready to use.
>> Not dependant. Just "car using".
>
> Nope, dependent, unless you can honestly claim that you can properly
> support your present lifestyle without using a car.
Yet another example of you trotting out your empty assertions. Your
argument does not follow. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The method
of transport is irrelevant. You may have well have asked me if my
present lifestyle could continue if we didn't have bicycles or shoes.
And my answer would be yes, of course it could. It would probably be
more difficult, but I could quite easily continue my present lifestyle
without using a car (or shoes for that matter). You seem to forget
that humans have travelled all around the globe for centuries before
cars. But actually, in this post:
<1166690176.099293.262930@
79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> you did seem to
try to convince us that people didn't travel very far before cars &
planes.
So what have learnt then Doug? Well, I for sure have learnt (or
rather, had the idea reinforced) that when you start to bluster and
accuse people of such things as "semantics", "empty assertions"
"moving goalposts" and such, it's more than likely that it is *you*
supplying those.
