Probably around 80 million, give or take

I disagree.

Technology is the only option besides euthanasia or actually killing people in a regular basis - and I doubt very much we’d like any of the latter options. Cosmic radiation is solvable and I never said it’s Mars we need.

Apart from that: The planet is and will be habitable for quite some time - but we’re going back to square one and the question will be: Euthanasia or outright killing those that have no say.

How about we just kill off those 80 billion kilos of biomass then?

I disagree.

1. Technology is the only option besides euthanasia or actually killing people in a regular basis - and I doubt very much we’d like any of the latter options.

2. Technology doesn’t have to progress at any rate - we already have the technology to build self sufficient stations. It’s just very expensive.

3. Being limited to the solar system isn’t an issue, because the issue is fundamentally that the planet can’t sustain this many people without a lot of help. Meaning, a few 100k is enough to use the technology on planet earth as well.

Well, yes - unless we actually get out in space before 2050, which could make a big difference

It is in Sweden, Finland, California, Italy and now Germany. (Although in a different form, called HVO, which is Diesel from garbage (even plastic) and needs roughly 1,5 kWh per Liter)

The “waste” is irrelevant, if it’s made from power that could not have been used anyway, because it was made in a remote part of the world. We’re still a long, long way away from a global power grid. That power would have to be converted anyway - and we do have all the infrastructure ready to go for that liquid stuff.

If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction.

And that’s where your argument falls flat, because we are not talking about the past, we’re talking about the future and making it a better one. EVs are a part of that future, but not “the only” thing in that future.

You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.

You missed the point completely.

In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.

No - they wouldn’t, for the simple fact, that zero co2 stays zero co2. They can be on par with a small battery, but everything above 60 kWh needs more than 15 tonnes of co2 to be even produced, making the rucksack impossible to get rid off. A current Golf needs around 9t of Co2 to be produced, a current ID.3 needs 14t

So if both cars are “fueld” with energy that has zero co2 emissions, the ID.3 keeps it’s 5 tonnes deficit.

Even then: ICE cars with synthetic, co2 neutral fuel are even better, than new EVs. And then there’s the argument, that a hunk of aluminium with pistons is “cheaper” (in terms of ecological impact) than lithium. Because the EV also needs aluminium, the production of aluminium is going to go down the route of co2 neutral anyway. So a mix of both things and especially EVs with smaller batteries makes a lot more sense…(which has also been proven with various studies, but who gives two flying things about that these days)

Social media as a business model? Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, sorry - I disagree on every level with your take.

I am also convinced that at least the LLMs will soon destroy themselves, due to the simple fact that “garbage in, garbage out”.

This is going to be a serious issue in the future - either society changes and these things are going to be accepted or these kind of generating ai models have to be banned. But that’s still not going to be a “security” against it…

I also think we have to come up with digital watermarks that are easy to use…

Doesn’t change the fact, that Hungary or at least the politicians have to actually disprove the suggestions, Orban wants a dictatorship - because pretty much all he talks about is exactly that in one form or the other.

Summoning the Ambassador and calling the accusations “lies” doesn’t do shit in terms of disproving it.

Maybe in the U.S., but not in Europe. We got the Nutri-Score, we got the animal wellfare labeling and we have open source databanks where you scan the barcode and get all the information about a product so you can actually make a decision.

And you are arguing that customers become mindless drones that don’t need to think about any consequences when they consume. Which is exactly why we have fucked up the climate.

Coming back to the purification plant, that’s the same thing if everyone would go shit in the Neighbors garden and flushing down anything down the toilet. We don’t do that, because we know it would fuck up the purification plant, clogg the toilet and turn the garden in to a literal dump.

Choosing what you buy is also the same thing as choosing what to eat. Sure, if you don’t know any better you may just eat junk food all day long. But the consequences are going to haunt you very much.

Is there really no alternative in shampoo & disposable coffee cups?

There is - but i personally think it’s up to customers to not just grab what’s on the shelf and do at least some basic research, because PFAS generally have to be marked on the bottle. Disposable coffee cups are just stupid all together.

This could have been done years ago but if industry can’t self regulate then bans it is.

I get the sentiment, but why not regulate stuff, before just banning it? And while we’re at it, how about educating the customer?

You do realize, many of those “forever chemicals” have no alternative? PFOA for example is essential for modern production, because there is no other material known to withstand the temperatures and pressures needed in the production processes? So the alternative is either not to use them at all, with ALL the consequences - or we have use a proper way to dispose them.

Purification Plants are the same argument analogy.

Comments from @wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works are terrible in every single way and no one can change that! Good stuff, the fact that Paris classifies everything above 1,6 tonnes as an SUV, so that put’s even a measly Peugeot e-308 in that cateogry. But it’s a compact BEV! Still weighs 1759 Kg.