tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post2657451440975251555..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Human engineering to combat climate change?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-57345757611021085942012-03-31T21:52:25.345+02:002012-03-31T21:52:25.345+02:00Thomas,
How did you calculate the reduction in e...Thomas,<br /><br /><br />How did you calculate the reduction in emissions by a reduction of 10% in body size ?<br />I am somewhat confused. For instance water consumption per person in Germany is about 1000 liters per day. Most of that is used up by industry, and not for food<br /><br /><br />to be honest, I found those estimates very doubtful. But even with your numbers, reducing the average body size by 10% worldwide, which I think it s quite a lot, emissions would be reduced by 1.2 giga tines of carbon dioxide. Current emissions are now 30 gigatons. This means a reduction of 5%. <br />I think there are better ways to reduce emissionseduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47621295659660006412012-03-31T01:50:29.361+02:002012-03-31T01:50:29.361+02:00Hi Eduardo.
I calculated a variety of changes in...Hi Eduardo. <br /><br />I calculated a variety of changes in food, water and resource needs by comparing a 20% taller and ~73% heavier average American. The 73% greater weight is based on the fact that weight generally increases as the cube of the increase in height. The taller person would also have a 44% increase in surface area. <br /><br />Some resource needs would increase as a function of surface area or body weight. For example, bigger buildings have more surface area in proportion to height squared and therefore lose heat in proportion to this factor. Food and water needs tend to be proportional to body mass and thus increase by 73%. Of course, the figures are based on the assumption that both tall and short populations follow the same activities and lifestyle. You can find a more detailed explanation in the paper Secular Growth and Its Harmful Ramifications, Medical Hypotheses 2002 58: 93-112. I think you can access it on the internet or PubMed. I also describe my estimates in my book: Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling.<br /><br />Based on the above, I calculated that we would increase CO2 emissions by 3 billion tons a year in the US alone. Garbage generation would be 80 million tons per year. A 10% smaller person would save 1.2 billion tons of CO2 and food intake would be reduced by 50 million tons per year. Dannenberg calculated that a 10 lb heavier American would result in the need for an additional 350 million gallons of airline fuel per year.<br /><br />Freddy's observation that the shorter longevity of a taller person would conserve resources is true. However, according to my calculations, the increased longevity of the smaller person would still result in a substantial savings. However, a diet that makes us smaller and healthier could be a conservation measure since the enormous investment in nurturing and educating a new borne would provide a productive individual for a longer time. So the question of individual values arises: do we want a short, less productive life or a longer productive life? Personally, at 80 years of age, I still feel that I have a lot more to learn and to contribute to society. It takes a long time to acquire knowledge and skills in today's modern world. I don't think we are here just to procreate and die.<br /><br />For a complete list of our work over the years, see my website: www.humanbodysize.comthomas t samarashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11494824884649436462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-60311997796533152032012-03-29T19:23:57.249+02:002012-03-29T19:23:57.249+02:00In addition to eduardo #53:
Thomas, you claim tha...In addition to eduardo #53:<br /><br />Thomas, you claim that smaller people are getting older than tall people. Wouldn't it be better if people die earlier with respect to emissions?<br /><br />Could you calculate first what eduardo asked and compare then which emissions are in contrast reduced when (tall) people die earlier?<br /><br />A possible result could be that tall people dying earlier saves more emissions than small people living longer.Freddy Schenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631385467667126610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40117538966345279032012-03-29T10:30:41.062+02:002012-03-29T10:30:41.062+02:00@ 52
could you estimate the savings in emissions ...@ 52<br /><br />could you estimate the savings in emissions if humans were on average 5 cm smaller ? could you explain how you have quantified it ?eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62092238597874916462012-03-29T01:53:54.218+02:002012-03-29T01:53:54.218+02:00The criticisms of Liao's paper reflect knee-je...The criticisms of Liao's paper reflect knee-jerk reactions to new ideas. First of all, we have already implemented size control actions through a food system that subjects the population to excess protein, calories, and various chemicals and toxins. We eat animals that have been fed genetically-modified foods, hormones and antibiotics. In contrast, for most of human existence, we ate simple, basic foods and we didn't have them everyday. Sometimes we went without eating for days. Professors Popkin, Colin Campbell, Cameron, Burkitt and Rollo have noted that our emphasis on meat, processed foods and calories have led to faster aging and increased chronic diseases in middle and older ages.<br /><br />The problem is that we are blinded by our prejudice favoring taller and bigger people. This favoritism is a threat to human survival because 6 to 9 billion bigger humans consume so many more resources along with polluting the environment. A world population of bigger people need more metals, minerals, plastics, energy, water, food, and farmland. And these needs are quite large as described in the book: Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling-Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications, Nova Science, NY, 2007.<br /><br />For readers with an open mind, there's plenty of research showing that shorter, lighter people have a number of physical advantages (faster reaction times, faster acceleration, stronger pound for pound, and greater endurance). Some of the greatest achievers of all time have been quite small: Mozart, Picasso, Michelangelo, Einstein, Alexander the Great, Alexander Pope, John Keats, Andrew Carnegie, Onassis, David Murdoch, Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Churchill, President Madison, Maradona, Scott Hamilton, and Tara Lipinski.<br /><br />I have studied the ramifications of increasing body size for about 37 years and published over 40 papers and books on the benefits of smaller humans. If the subject interests you, go to website: www.humanbodysize.com and http://smallerhumans.blogspot.com/ Why smaller humans are in our futurethomas t samarashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11494824884649436462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75523039065888255902012-03-15T17:48:11.902+01:002012-03-15T17:48:11.902+01:00Eduardo
It does not matter if the authors get the...Eduardo<br /><br />It does not matter if the authors get the science right. They make the case that current policies do not work. They say: if it is really the end of the world then let us discuss all available options. This is what philosophers can do, and again it is futile to call for a closure to philosophy departments. From the perspective of someone who believes the apocalyptic message, it might be: shut down science and engineering departments because they have created the mess we are in (read: carbon dependent industrial societies).<br /><br />The philosopher Pascal famously said 'All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone'. If we were able to do that we would have a lower carbon footprint, no doubt. But how would we feed ourselves? Pondering these questions makes one realize that all of these options where people are restrained from movement, work, travel, are off the table when considering practical political steps to deal with climate change.<br /><br />I said in another post, explaining the Kaya identity, that depopulating the Earth, stopping eating and commuting, and stopping using energy would not be options. LSR try to show that medical interventions could somehow deal with energy consumption. Looking at realistic effect this would be tinkering at the margins. They do not give numbers but in my estimate it would be equivalent to changing light bulbs and build more efficient cars and power plants.<br /><br />The reactions so far (not only on this blog) show that it will not be an option for policy making. Things might be different if one tiny pill would solve the problem of climate change.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85968827375129734972012-03-15T17:30:25.177+01:002012-03-15T17:30:25.177+01:00Greg Mankiw proposed a height tax.
http://www.vox...Greg Mankiw proposed a height tax.<br /><br />http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3651richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40411948539650298092012-03-15T17:19:33.353+01:002012-03-15T17:19:33.353+01:00Just read the Guardian interview Reiner linked abo...Just read the Guardian interview Reiner linked above. Here a quote from one of the authors, Sandberg:<br /><br />"Sandberg: People are unused to ethical analysis. In philosophy we take ideas and test them to destruction. This means that we often bring up concepts or lines of thought we do not personally believe in and then argue them as strongly as possible to see where they go and what we can learn. This is very different from everyday life where most people who state an idea or belief also believe in it - and it makes people misunderstand this kind of thinking. To make matters worse most people debating it will not read the paper and see how we discuss the ethical problems or why even we think it is a preposterous idea... they will just think some eggheads blithely promote eugenics."<br /><br />"Of course, to many people even a hint that our biology might be subject to political considerations is horrific. Yet they do not seem to worry much about the political decisions that are constantly being made about our reproduction (laws against reproductive cloning are political decisons about the desired form of human reproduction), nutrition or health. We are living in an era of biopolitics. It is better to make the issues explicit and discuss them than assume they will go away if we ignore them."<br /><br />(And Liao adds that the paper is completely useless for those who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change and, consequently, would never consider geo-engineering as an option.)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-53136046550950849722012-03-15T16:05:15.944+01:002012-03-15T16:05:15.944+01:00Richard,
Well, given how many times we (humans) h...Richard,<br /><br />Well, given how many times we (humans) have thought we were targeting one problem, only to create a new (think Thalidomide and now this: http://lifestyle.aol.co.uk/2012/01/22/anti-miscarriage-drug-could-cause-cancer-in-daughters-of-women-w/) I wouldn't be surprised if Sudocrem (nappy rash cream) turns out to affect your libido in later life.... <br /><br /><br />Here is Tesco’s:<br /><br />Make a Low-Carbon Meal<br /><br />Our call to action for Climate Week 2012 is to eat a low carbon meal and be part of the solution to climate change. Here are some of our tips on what to eat to ensure your meal is more environmentally friendly:<br /><br />LESS – eat less meat and dairy<br />Meat and dairy have high carbon footprints. Why not make one of your meals a vegetarian or vegan one?<br /><br />LOCAL – eat local, seasonal ingredients<br />Choose ingredients that haven’t come from half way around the world. Eat a meal with fresh British produce that hasn’t been kept in cold storage for months.<br /><br />LEFTOVERS – eat food that would otherwise be thrown away<br /><br />....and here is one of the recipes: <br />http://www.tescorealfood.com/recipes/chow-mein.html?sssdmh=edc3.533762&utm_campaign=nl201203fw&utm_source=rf1&utm_medium=email&utm_content=http://www.tescorealfood.com/recipes/chow-mein.html<br /><br />Now, as it happens I really like Caribbean food (probably for sentimental reasons) but I think we all see what is wrong here :o)Hannahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7844463350869387852012-03-15T14:55:38.190+01:002012-03-15T14:55:38.190+01:00@Hannah
Do the baby essentials include shrink horm...@Hannah<br />Do the baby essentials include shrink hormones? It's climate week after all.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-78164328513814941622012-03-15T13:57:32.610+01:002012-03-15T13:57:32.610+01:00O/T but “brave new world” related. I received this...O/T but “brave new world” related. I received this from Tesco (British supermarket). I presume their advertising like Amazon’s is “tailor made” to suit each individual customer....made me laugh quite a lot.....for the record I only remember ever having bought “Tuborg” (Danish beer) online from them.....:o) <br />“Hello Hannah, you'll find great deals on baby essentials this week and better than half price Champagne too. Take part in Climate Week by making a low carbon recipe and finally, don't forget Mothers' Day on Sunday!”Hannahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7933956623823281712012-03-15T13:23:14.414+01:002012-03-15T13:23:14.414+01:00@Edu
Do you think there is any merit in suggestin...@Edu<br /><br />Do you think there is any merit in suggesting a department of human down-scaling?<br /><br />Sorry to the readers but this is just too absurd to leave alone.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11393287569324018642012-03-15T12:55:23.207+01:002012-03-15T12:55:23.207+01:00@ Werner
"Peter Gleick, Stephen Schneider, N...@ Werner<br /><br />"Peter Gleick, Stephen Schneider, Naomi Klein - masters of war?"<br /><br />Masters of climate war maybe ... a "war" of words and opinions. <br /><br />No guns and knifes around so far - fortunately.<br /><br />Far-fetched what you try to construct here and completely missing the point I'm talking about.<br /><br />Sort of an "Gleickian" attempt to compromise opinions you dislike?<br /><br />V. LenzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8552103164445462472012-03-15T12:50:25.330+01:002012-03-15T12:50:25.330+01:00Eduardo,
thanks for asking. Excellent example for...Eduardo,<br /><br />thanks for asking. Excellent example for discussion (page 8 bottom , by the way).<br /><br />Question 1: yes. <br />(Or, to be more correct, they consider this possibility and put it up for discussion.)<br /><br />Question 2: Yes, as an exercise.<br /><br />Why? In my eyes, this suggestion is completely absurd (like all the others, by the way). I cannot imagine that they really MEAN it literally. Instead, it is a philosophical exercise in ethics (intended as such or not - it can be used for that). Philosophers are allowed to make impossible comparisons, because it helps us to think more thoroughly.<br /><br />So, here the exercise:<br /><br />The authors remind us that hormone treatment to prevent rapid growth is already in practice:<br /> <br />"Hormone treatments are used for growth reduction in excessively tall children(Bramswig et al. 1988; Grüters et al. 1989). Currently, somatostatin (an inhibitor of<br />growth hormone) is being studied as a safer alternative (Hindmarsh et al. 1995)."<br /><br />Some examples that come to my mind:<br /><br />Messi came to Barcelona because they paid there for his hormone treatment (to make him grow, I have to admit -:);<br /><br />Hormone treatment is used to prevent jet-lag (Melatonin); <br /><br />it is used to enable conception or to prevent it;<br /><br />and it is used to cure many other diseases like depression etc.<br /><br />two examples for pre-implementation-diagnostics (PID) (better to think with, for me):<br /><br />In India, PID is used to select boys who are preferred over girls.<br /><br />In England (and Germany? not sure) it is used for diagnosing genetic disease under certain restrictions. <br /><br />In short, "we aren't born, we are made", to quote a study by Sarah Franklin. When we talk about humans, we cannot simply refer to a natural state that can inform us how to decide. Instead, we have to find other criteria. Why don't we like the selection of sex, but accept to avoid certain genetic dispositions? Why do we allow to make people grow in one case, but not to keep them short in another?<br /><br />Putting the problem into an absurd correlation, to climate change, the dilemma becomes even more obvious. We discuss behavioral solutions, market solutions, geo-engineering - so why not human engineering? Why accept human engineering concerning population growth (conception), sex of the babies, treatment of moods etc, but not in respect to climate?<br /><br />Because it doesn't make any sense. Nobody said this in our thread up to now. Instead, we blamed the environmentalists, Stephen Schneider, the postmoderns, cultural studies, fascists and so on. Challenged by an absurd question, we learned about ourselves and our helplessness to say why we don't like the idea.<br /><br />I guess this is my argument: each and every case needs its own committee, which decides along pragmatic reasons. We cannot rely only on our instincts (hey, don't touch humans - because we already do); we cannot rely only on historical experiences (is eugenics/ fascism really an argument against genetic testing?); we cannot rely on political reasons (how to differ from the tea-party, who are also against human engineering?), and so on.<br /><br />We have to find out how to decide in a pragmatic way in questions of humanity, human beings and anthropogenic climate change without relying on overcome stereotypes. We permanently rely on stereotypes in these questions - "fascism! eugenics! agenda! postmodern! oil industry!" and so on - and we have difficulties to make a difference between complete nonsense and sense. I am afraid that the level of absurdity like in this article is not an exception, we only don't realize it. <br /><br />(We even cannot agree on what anthropogenic climate change means, by the way, but we pretend to discuss common topics how to deal with the problem).<br /><br />It is an exercise how to deal with post-normal situations, to put it into the language of klimazwiebel. <br /><br />Okay, maybe you can accept this. If not, feel free to consder the suggestions by Liao et al as what they are: nonsense.<br /><br />That's a long answer, sorry.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-30619076863466198802012-03-15T12:29:45.648+01:002012-03-15T12:29:45.648+01:00@Richard
We live in different worlds and a lot is...@Richard<br /><br />We live in different worlds and a lot is open to (multiple)interpretations that are relative to something or other, or so I have been told, or not. That should cover my a*s.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-39850141032027334062012-03-15T12:12:59.994+01:002012-03-15T12:12:59.994+01:00@Dennis
No, it is not. It sunny and unseasonally w...@Dennis<br />No, it is not. It sunny and unseasonally warm outside.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31865833831455060312012-03-15T12:12:01.565+01:002012-03-15T12:12:01.565+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-52764713928671616122012-03-15T12:07:41.572+01:002012-03-15T12:07:41.572+01:00Flying without my SAP again. A world of one child...Flying without my SAP again. A world of one child families of dwarf altruistic vegans. Now there's a vision. But it is cool outside.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-67392607806570196032012-03-15T11:46:32.814+01:002012-03-15T11:46:32.814+01:00Let's take it to the extreme (I forgot my SAP)...Let's take it to the extreme (I forgot my SAP). What happens if we use our MAP (Meat Aversion Patch)? Market conditions would see the price of meat drop in order to entice people to throw away thier MAPs. With lower prices, meat would become the choice food of the poor, and millions would suffer high cholesterol as a result of global warming. <br /><br />Please, it is no more out to lunch than some of the other reasoning in the mother of all debates.Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-30160774185506973542012-03-15T11:12:26.921+01:002012-03-15T11:12:26.921+01:00Werner,
I would have two questions. Feel free to...Werner, <br /><br />I would have two questions. Feel free to answer them<br /><br />- When I read page 9, bottom half of the manuscript, I interpret that the authors are putting forward the idea of administering children a hormone to inhibit their growth. Am I right in my interpretation?<br /><br />- do you think that this idea is worth of serious discussion ?eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43703174546911251802012-03-15T10:51:36.241+01:002012-03-15T10:51:36.241+01:00@ Dennis Bray
Yes, great one-liner, and a great ...@ Dennis Bray <br /><br />Yes, great one-liner, and a great illustration of the quality of debate I just described! Just shout out loud: postmodern! ha! and you will have a lot of friends. <br /><br />And I have to admit, Dennis, it works, at least as as long as they haven't invented yet this patch that creates an aversion against stupidity! <br /><br />Ha - great one-liner, too, eh? <br /><br />(And a wonderful example of the quality of climate debate!)Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-12321133953786361242012-03-15T10:43:53.355+01:002012-03-15T10:43:53.355+01:00V Lenzer,
just read the full lyrics of Mr. Zimmer...V Lenzer,<br /><br />just read the full lyrics of Mr. Zimmermann, especially the last verse:<br />http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/masters-war<br /><br />Peter Gleick, Stephen Schneider, Naomi Klein - masters of war?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1102806518684216422012-03-15T10:32:58.953+01:002012-03-15T10:32:58.953+01:00@ Werner
"Is this a call for violence agains...@ Werner<br /><br />"Is this a call for violence against Peter Gleick and the likes?"<br /><br />You must be joking.<br /><br />It's exactly the opposite and you know it well.<br /><br />I wrote about misled idealism and people loosing their heads when they are living and thinking in a constant and irrational stage of fear.<br /><br />A question well worth to be discussed if you have a look on what's going on in the so called climate war.<br /><br />Stiring up the fears for a "good cause" is a relevant part of the problem.<br /><br />Replacing the rhetorics you refer to: how to cool down the overheating once its destructive effects are already showing?<br /><br />V. LenzerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-32284259295936270512012-03-15T10:29:47.038+01:002012-03-15T10:29:47.038+01:00Now if they could only engineer a patch that would...Now if they could only engineer a patch that would create an aversion to stupidity ... (and maybe post modern discourse)Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-41820412532581557452012-03-15T10:27:40.056+01:002012-03-15T10:27:40.056+01:00@ Eduardo,
you write:
"Philosophers should ...@ Eduardo,<br /><br />you write:<br /><br />"Philosophers should write about philosophy, including philosophy of science, if they wish."<br /><br />And consequently physicists should write about physics, including the physics of climate, it they wish?<br /><br />This kind of argument doesn't make much sense. Talk about disciplinary borders makes the charm of the blogosphere. <br /><br />I personally fully understand the position that the paper of Liao et al can be read as cynical, dangerous or even fascist. Or even stupid, as you point out correctly. Either you simply ignore it, to act politically against it, or else the challenge is to exactly point out why. I was interested in the why.<br /><br />On second sight, I decided to read it indeed as a philosophical paper which poses a philosophical question: how do we decide, on the basis of which reasons?<br /><br />The arguments we get here on this thread are not very convincing. Instead, we see the process of group building (we against the postmodern fascist environmentalists etc...), including more or less open insults, wishes for censorship or even death wishes. Not really arguments, right? In the end, we see ourselves, but still don't know much about how we decide. <br /><br />Or is this the way we decide? Not with arguments and based on reason, but through the mechanism of symbolic group building and finally power - I decide what is right or wrong, because my friends have more power than yours...<br /><br />Furthermore, we argue as if we were still living in the 20th century. We don't. Human engineering is not fully grasped with the arguments used here. We are maybe already in the midst of it. We are also in the midst of Geo-engineering already. We should acknowledge this and find out, which kind of human engineering and geo-engineering we want and consider ethically correct. The question whether we want to have it at all or not does not exist anymore (independently of what we think about climate change, by the way).<br /><br />Philosophers like Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sloterdijk, Rorty, Latour and many more discussed this question; there are also cultural scientists like Franklin, Rose, Rabinow, Haraway, Jasanoff and so on who discuss this in medicine, biology, health and so on. And "climate" deserves this discussion, too, urgently. For the sake of reason and better decisions.<br /><br />This is how I read this article. But I understand that it is maybe better to discuss this at another occasion.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.com