Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

...you're describing parts of what happens when a planet becomes more arid.

No, I am describing a shift in the earth's water. The planet doesn't need to lose water for this to happen. More water will evaporate, leading to more global rain, but the temperature increase will be disproportionately on areas without plants or water, and the rainfall increase will be disproportionately in areas where it's more likely to rain.

The deserts have been growing for a century now while the global temperature and precipitation has been increasing. I'd say we know this happens.

PS: that green shift in the Sahara desert you were talking about seems to be due to a shift in the planet's tilt. A shift in the planet's equator and pressure system. This is not just temperature that caused this.

[Bumber]

...because market forces are increasing prices.

What if the government's actions are responsible for increasing prices? That could lead to a feedback loop of spending and inflation.

[feelotraveller]

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/desert/

Desertification is the process of productive cropland turning into non-productive, desert-like environments.

Changing climatic patterns are a problem as they alter the regional suitabilities of food production and along with the ever-increasing challenges of feeding the global population and the systematic exploitation of food for profit this repeatedly triggers unsustainable land usage patterns.*  Local farmers/herders are generally poorly equipped (culturally/traditionally) to deal appropriately with rapid environmental change, and even worse are often 'forced' by the (global) market to engage in destructive practices - witness slash and burn 'agricultural' techniques for example. Or again - more generally - think about the drivers of the Dust Bowl.


* The most direct link being soil carbon levels which significantly impact both the ability to retain moisture and plant fertility.

[Starver]

At an extreme end, it is thought by some who study these things that there is a tipping point beyond which the Amazon will be forced into much drier savannah (or worse) by passing a critical point of industrial deforestation... and a possibility that this point is already passed, but local ecogical inertia is so high that it's currently 'only' an inexorable crawl, not yet an obviously runaway juggernaut.

[Arx]

@Max I linked an article in Nature which projects the increased desertification. We also have historical data supporting it, and what everyone else has said. It's not fear mongering or physically impossible, but I don't know what more convincing evidence we could provide.

[Kagus]

Changing climatic patterns are a problem as they alter the regional suitabilities of food production and along with the ever-increasing challenges of feeding the global population and the systematic exploitation of food for profit this repeatedly triggers unsustainable land usage patterns.

"And that, kids, is how Siberia became a bread basket"

[anewaname]

I don't object to the idea of grown meats but I do worry about what the current meat industry will do with the technology. I was reminded of a podcast, "A while ago, a farmer walked through a pork processing plant in Oklahoma with a friend who managed it. He came across boxes stacked on the floor with labels that said "artificial calamari." So he asked his friend "What’s artificial calamari?" "Bung," his friend replied. "Hog rectum.". Comedy mimics reality....

[Starver]

[The "protection from civil litigation" is largely myth. Everything you can sue any other company for, you can sue a gun manufacturer for. The special protective legislation simply states "so long as the manufacturer followed all applicable laws, you can not sue them for the actions of their customers".

Somewhat tangential but topical to that statement[1], but this confusion is troublesome.

If nothing else, if anyone were maintaining the right to make a real item look like a toy it would make the outright ban on making a toy look like the real thing much more troublesome as then potentially a toy that is clearly a toy could also potentially look like a real thing (that looks like a toy!).

(Is there no law that, frexample, stops the real thing looking like basically anything-else that ought to be innocent, e.g. a mobile phone? Could that not apply? Also I recall the "pink hunting rifle for hunters' daughters" of years ago, which is dangerously close to some sort of "deerstalker Barbie" accessory, and probably troublesome in not just that aspect.)


[1] I knew I'd seen about this when you said the above, and then when I refound it, in passing, I knew I'd seen someone say something related (as part of a set of messages, maybe I should better be quote-inserting someone else) but only just realised where. Took 'til now to fully link them together in my mind properly enough to get to make this post...

[Lord Shonus]

Disguised weapons have special restrictions, but this wasn't intended as a disguise. I haven't found anybody but the manufacturer able to come up with a "why would anybody think this was a good idea" explanation.


As for the pink gun thing, that is an artifact of companies trying to broaden their appeal but not knowing how.

[Micro102]

I would say giving gun manufacturers the same defenses as other manufactories is protection from civil litigation. Other industries don't make items designed to kill large groups of people.

[wierd]

That is a misconception.  A gun is a tool. How you use the tool, is up to the end user.

Saying the gun is designed to kill large groups of people is incorrect.  The gun is designed to chamber a small explosion, originating in a small, standardized form-factor cartridge, using a firing pin, with a directed means of egress for explosion products, and an optional projectile.


Yes, the projectile is completely optional. That's what a blank is. A cartridge with no projectile.


The kind of projectile is what is engineered for killing people. Not the gun.  Certain types of bullet are designed for people, vs hard objects, like cars, tires, or even robots. (Like UAVs.)

Some guns are designed to be able to fire a projectile with specific needs-- this is what a high-power rifle is.  It is able to deliver a projectile with certain needs for a certain application. That application COULD be military use, as many weapons are indeed designed for military functions, but saying they are designed for killing humans is still incorrect-- they are designed for military use, which means they are equally engineered for penetrating armored transports for materiel disposition/denial of service, which need not harm a human at all.  A .50 cal anti-tank round is exactly that.

This then devolves into an argument about what the most common use for the tool is.  That is a dangerous field to try and wade into, as trying to frame that argument leads to strange conclusions that you most certainly do not intend.  Take for instance, common uses for kitchen knives.  Or common uses for scopolamine motion sickness pills. (used as a date-rape drug.)


My thrust here:  Any object or tool that CAN be easily used to kill/hurt people, WILL be used that way.   The vast majority of the discharges of firearms are not at people at all.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/guns-and-daily-life-identity-experiences-activities-and-involvement/ 

Most people who own a kitchen knife, use it to cut up vegetables and meat products in the kitchen for culinary preparation.  Some people use them to murder their spouse.

Simply because the gun scares you, and the idea of somebody having one scares you, does not mean the gun was designed to kill people.  It is simply untrue.

[Micro102]

Why did you think that would be a convincing argument?

"O, a gun isn't designed to kill people, it's the bullet that is. Ignore how the gun was meant for use with the bullet, and vice verse. You could use the gun as a hammer! Therefore it's not that dangerous"...

You can kill many many many more people with guns than with knives. Another thing with heavy killing power, cars, require licenses, training, inspections, up-to-date registration, and have an entire organization revolving around monitoring them.

Guns in America need more regulation.

[wierd]

Sir, Please back away from the a-priori conclusion. It's dangerous, and wrong.

It is already illegal to possess a weapon in the US that is designed specifically for military purposes, without special permits and tracking.

It is already illegal to possess ammunition for such weapons.

It is already illegal to modify a weapon to be able to use that ammunition, or to be used in such a capacity.



The issue, is that people (such as yourself, who have a-priori decided that guns are for killing people, end of story) consider things like a high power rifle to only be for a specific kind of ammunition, discounting that other kinds of ammunition, for other applications, have similar firing requirements.

A gun that can kill a bear, is identical to the one needed to penetrate a ballistic vest.  This is because the energy profile needed to penetrate a bear's heavy musculature is very close to the same thresholds needed to penetrate a ballistic vest.

There are valid reasons for owning a device that can kill an angry bear.

[TamerVirus]

[quip about bear arms here]

[Micro102]

Why would you focus on "designed specifically for military purposes"? A glock can be bought by anyone who can pass a background check, and in some states, by anyone who finds someone willing to sell it. It's completely capable of killing many people without "military design".

This also has nothing to do with whether guns can be used for other things. Or if they are needed for bears or other wildlife. The mere fact that they exist and are efficient at killing people, demands they have more regulation than an object that can't efficiently kill people. This does not mean that people who need a high-caliber gun can't get one.