For example if same things is being moved by person or by any machine (car...) same distance. Which will release more CO2? Human (by breathing) or
machine (by fuel burning)?
[Edited on 21-2-2018 by RawWork]Vomaturge - 21-2-2018 at 11:40
I seem to recall that a car engine converts about 15% of the fuels' chemical/thermal energy to mechanical, and that human muscle is 10-20% efficient.
Both are powered by the oxidation of organic compounds, so the amount of CO2 is probably comparable. However, carbohydrates and similar already have
oxygen in their structure; hydrocarbons not so much. You need a bit more carbon per joule of output for this reason with carbohydrates.
The biggest difference, however, is what else requires that energy. Do we need to move a human body (usually 50-150 kg) plus a load of 20-50 kg, or do
we need to move the same load, plus a human operator, plus a car that weighs 10 or more times as much?
On the other hand, a human can't be turned on or off. We eat and breathe wether we are moving a load or not, and the full power we can produce for an
extended time is only a few times bigger than our resting energy consumption. It takes a lot of people (or a very long time) to move tonne-size loads
any significant distance. The whole time, they are oxidizing carbon to keep themselves running, as well as to perform external work.
I would suspect that for small jobs the body makes less CO2, but for big ones the machine is more efficient.
That doesn't take into account the greater cost per calorie of food compared to fuel, the health benefits of moderate exercise, the environmental
impacts of waste products besides CO2 and H2O,
etc.AJKOER - 28-3-2018 at 04:13
"What releases more CO2: body or machine?"
Lets assume the answer is people, then some possible radical solutions would be population control or rapid depopulation of the earth!
If the answer is machine, then perhaps less machines per person. Less of, or no, cars, planes, space heaters,....implying a return to rural country
living. I believe this was already attempted once upon a time in Cambodia where depopulation (mass killings) was also imposed!
Strange how both extreme answers imply the same course of action. XeonTheMGPony - 28-3-2018 at 04:18
Mass killings where idiology based, nothing to do with the betterment of the environment for Cambodia
Machine dwarfs a humans co2 output, nature of how they work, much less wastes produced by just moving it by good ol muscle power, as if we keep track
of all energy streams we must factor in the co2 of the production of the fuels, and oil for the car as well as fuel burned for the work, then a big
section of that energy is used simply to keep the engine running when not moving.
Cars have poor metabolism ramping!DrP - 28-3-2018 at 05:01
Depends on how the machine is powered. Use a battery operated car that is solar charged and the answer is different. I assume it would also depend on
the task..... too many variables - the question, as written, is very naïve. RawWork - 28-3-2018 at 05:21
Practically, for survival and work purposes. Prehistorically or generally, like what is better now and since humans appeared and for future. For long
term exploitation of natural resources like stone, soil, wood, water, plants (food). Like living every year. Is it smart to start using machines ASAP?
Or only use them when when they become available, cheap, have to (must) be used. Considering global warming and general enjoyment or suffering, like
what is easier for a person?
I mean many people live in some bad or inefficient way, not because they chose it, but because they are stuck. Poor, not smart enough, not creative,
not productive, not lucky... Even today, there are locations, nations, people where technology is not used, and result is unneccessary suffering.
Consider:
- broom vs vacuum cleaner
- walking vs driving
- carrying water vs water flowing through pipes
- using animals as helpers vs using machines as helpers
Personally and subjectively: What will bring more enjoyment, hapiness, peace in lifes?
Generally and objectively and scientifically: What will degrade earth as a whole faster? What will do more damage to plants, animals, and humans
long-term?
Should technology be employed ASAP or only if it has to? I feel uncertainty. I am not asking for personal subjective opinion. But for scientific
calculation. Considering global warming, future, planet, health...
What is more good, what is more bad?
Although one can work against another wish. Like it's more comfortable that everyone has his own car because more freedom and space, but worse for
planet...
[Edited on 28-3-2018 by RawWork]woelen - 28-3-2018 at 05:41
Technology already is employed in the better part of the world. In some cases this works out beneficial for the environment, in other cases its net
effect is negative. It depends on the type of technology used and the type of task to be performed.
There is no silver bullet answer to this question.
One thing, however, I know for sure. Without (advancing) technology we will not make it in the long run. Technology needs to be used, but equally
important, it needs to be improved. Technology alone, however, is not sufficient, I also think that a change of mind is needed. E.g. we can go to have
fun at a location 1000 km away by plane, but we also can take it more easy by car, or by train. Or we do not go to that location at all and take our
fun at a place, closer to home. Now we think "big, bigger, biggest" and that has to change as well.RawWork - 28-3-2018 at 05:46
Hmm...if we could reduce global warming and inhabit other planets, then maybe there would be nothing to complain. Let's focus on that in another
topic.Bert - 28-3-2018 at 05:53
If you want to do one immediately effective thing to improve lives of a largely unmechanized population, one not adopting first world type "modern"
methods of work, lifestyle and transport due to poverty, ignorance, cultural inertia- And at the same time reduce CO2 and particulate pollution?
No matter where they are, they cook and heat water, usually using wood, straw, animal dung or similar bio materials. Open burned, inneficiently
(excess CO2 for work performed) and with lots of smoke (particulate pollution, heath risk). A large % of 3rd world women will eventually go blind
and/or suffer respiratory disease from leaning over open fires or primitive hearths to cook for a family.
Hmm...if we could reduce global warming and inhabit other planets, then maybe there would be nothing to complain. Let's focus on that in another
topic.
So, if you are eating too much and that is causing a resource problem, the answer is not a diet, but just find more resources to support a pattern of
excessive intake?
"Swarming and mass migration are spectacular and sometimes devastating features of the biology of various animal species. These phenomena are
typically associated with actual or anticipated depletion of food resources after an increase in population density, ..."
"We show that protein and salt satiation reduced cannibalism..."
"Additionally, experimentally reducing the motility or mobility of crickets substantially increased their risk of being cannibalized by other band
members..."
"Migratory band formation and subsequent mass movement, therefore, are manifestations of specific tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of group
living. Bands afford antipredator benefits to individual group members. Group movement then mitigates the resulting costs of intraspecific
competition, namely local depletion of nutritional resources and the associated increased risk of cannibalism."
[Edited on 29-3-2018 by AJKOER]RawWork - 29-3-2018 at 07:10
Come on, if i am eating excessively, I will sooner or later feel suffering, disease will warn me, as Herbert M Shelton said that main cause of all
diseases is bad quality and quantity and way of eating - food. More specifically he explained that cause of excess quantity intake is bad quality.
Normal/raw/whole/natural food can't lead to overeating and other behaviours and diseases. But even there is relative definition of what is good and
what is bad. I mean toxic mushrooms are natural too, but more deadly than cola or alcohol or cannabis. He also calculated and explained how cereals
are worst normal food, followed by animal food, explaining why vegetarians and vegans doesn't have to mean they are healthy. Because they use cereals
and processing. Read book Orthotrophy. There he explained how it is inefficient to grow grains. Fruit is more efficient. Considering minerals and energy... To not convert
this to topic health, let's just say we're trying to enjoy more, and suffer less.
Going to other planets is solution if you're asking me. If there's more space, why not use it? Because of lack of knowledge and technology? If nuclear
fusion existed it would solve energy problem fully, and let us go to whatever space or planet, and produce our food (i am perfectionist and like
repeated exact things like same temperature, pressure, gas concentration, minerals, ph...would not grow it naturally ever), even water in worst case.
After all that's all you need. Fun, health, optimal life parameter which can be set up using technology. Light, temperature, pressure, voltage,
gases...all can be controlled today. Yes, we have to isolate ourselves from those new planets somewhat because they are out of ordinary. But Earth is
not perfect either. Global warming, winters, volcanoes, nuclear wars, terrorists, diseases that are easy to spread and impossible/difficult to stop.
How much days are perfect on this planet. If there's 365 days in a year, how much percent is ideal? Let's be honest: very little. If we didn't use
technology, more would die and suffer.
After all it's all about enjoyment or suffering. Or if you like to think life and death. Let's be honest, you don't care more about anything else than
about that? Nothing has higher priority. Killing living beings doesn't have to mean suffering. Sometimes it is recommended to kill them as much as
faster as possible. Consider for food, or to prevent them from killing you, like mosquitoes or some larger dangerous. It's natural and moral and
encouraged by religions. Some may restrict partially, but no religion forbids it.
And what are you trying to say with those citates?
Edit:
I forgot to say that I am aware that even only on our planet there is space, even on the ground. Plus underground, and building our islands... It will
last longer than my life surely.
Edit 2:
I promised I will make 3 videos before spring begins, that is a month ago. Am I liar? Did I lie? No! I did not mean calendar spring, but weather
spring, outside, natural, real. I hoped it will be spring, but it's winter. Snow just can't melt. Although temperatures are sometimes higher. So here
I am updating my promises: gonna make video when real spring begins, in middle of May.
