To add: if pen and paper aren’t your thing you can create computer art with free programs like Blender. Or you can use something like FreeCAD to design objects that are easier bring into the real world via 3D printing or other machines available at most makerspaces (though those are materials and makerspaces will cost something).
Somehow I can tell you really enjoy writing this.
Look, I’m not making any claims on nutrition vs caloric intake. I’m using calories available per person as an analog for the amount of resources an individual consumes today vs in the past. A calorie is literally a unit of energy, so we literally have more food energy available to us today than previous generations. That’s the argument.
As a society have normalized increased resource utilization. This has happened largely with a decrease in the cost of these resources until recently. There is no reason to believe the trend of increasing resource utilization and decreasing resource cost would hold over time. Our generation got unlucky that finite resources finally started to show up in resource costs. It was like a game of musical chairs and the music stopped around the mid 2000s and generations that had not established wealth at that point were left without a chair.
Housing: square foot per person doubled 1970-today. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/housing1.png
Food: Eating food not made at home increased 66% from the 70s to today. (restaurant labor = resources, you are paying for someone’s livlyhood) https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/28125/106446-chart-image-file.png Caloric intake from 1950 to today has increased by 25%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?country=~USA
Cars are incredibly resource intensive and long commutes didn’t exist or were very uncommon before cars. We have become accustomed to these resources intensive habits and built our infrastructure around them. This moved the bar of normal resource utilization.
I think this illustrates the trend I’m talking about. People today use more resources than they used to in lots of ways, we’ve become accustomed to this way of life because previous generations have normalized it.
Unpopular take: This can be summed up as ‘use less resources’ and it has more to do with previous generations over consumption becoming normalized.
NH and Maine are definitely not blue states. NY and California are blue states, NH is probably red and Maine purple.
“Technically has come so far”
Technology1800-present: spin thing to jiggle elections
Exception: Photovoltaics
What language?
How do you watch YouTube on mobile without ads? Do you just watch on mobile browser instead of using YT app? Is there some alternative front end app that includes adblock?
Neat! For those OOTL, what is this card for and what makes it legendary? That is not addressed in the article at all.
China soaked up all the soft power the US had with programs like USAID. This administration has done reputational damage that took about a century to build, and will likely take as long to rebuild.
I think the ‘point’ of the ship of thesius is often missed. Grouping things together to be one entity is thought process done in our brains for ease of understanding, but it doesn’t exist in the real world.
I think the ship of thesius thought experiment is there to show that there are times where things can’t be distinctly grouped. When things don’t fit nicely into groups we shouldn’t force them, but abandon the that grouping as it isn’t applicable to the situation.
From a climate perspective that’s just how the math works out, nothing to do with identity. People born before 1970 (commonly called the Boomers) will avoid the main consequences of climate change due to the delay between action and result and the median life expectency.
Same amount that we do on earth!
Enlightened us please.
How do you handle disputes?
Now, bring this concept into a potential conflict between the US and China. China has ~200x the ship building capacity as the US.
In WWII it’s generally agreed that the NAZIs had better, more sophisticated weapons. The US and Soviets just built more which ended up being a winning strategy.
In both the Ukrainian and Iran theatres, mass produced cheaper drones have proven an effective strategy against sophisticated anti-air defenses.
My point is that in real conflicts it seems manufacturing quantity is more important than technological superiority. Today, the US boasts of its weapons superiority, but China’s manufacturing capacity far exceeds the US. If it really came to (non nuke flinging) war between the two, it seems China has the advantage.
Is this an ad for door dash?