f*ck the meat, dairy and egg industry

[Bruce Al]

I wana know if vegans use protection when having oral sex?

[GyzzBrah]

I never cared about sustainability or ethical arguments imo. A certain degree of unsustainability is good for our         economy, people pay more money for everything.

Do the people who use the ethical / environmental arguments for veganism really give a crap, or do you just need these things to make yourself feel better? Like the morons that scream "FREEEEE PALENSTIIIINEEE" etc...

 

If I start paying for my own food I probably would go semi vegan to save money though.

[jimmybro1]

4 hours ago, GyzzBrah said:

I never cared about sustainability or ethical arguments imo. A certain degree of unsustainability is good for our         economy, people pay more money for everything.

Do the people who use the ethical / environmental arguments for veganism really give a crap, or do you just need these things to make yourself feel better? Like the morons that scream "FREEEEE PALENSTIIIINEEE" etc...

 

If I start paying for my own food I probably would go semi vegan to save money though.

I thought the youth were meant to be the future. 

 

What do you think happens with your waste? Do you think it magically disappears? Water is a massive issue, states like California are already suffering the consequences and now want to do something lol. These things are economically driven so no action is taken until the situation has reached a chaotic state.

 

Climate change is an example of this. Carbon credits were introduced to help mitigate emissions but nothing was really done in NZ due to what appears to be economical reasons. They did fund some R&D for sustainable, carbon neutral fuels however. In fact I did my final year research and design paper for NZ government to  produce bio diesel from tallow and bio-gas from effluent but these methods are not going to be economically feasible when compared to conventional fossil fuels. 

 

"Ignorance is bliss" -  Thomas Gray

 

 

[maccaz]

25 minutes ago, jimmybro1 said:

I thought the youth were meant to be the future. 

 

What do you think happens with your waste? Do you think it magically disappears? Water is a massive issue, states like California are already suffering the consequences and now want to do something lol. These things are economically driven so no action is taken until the situation has reached a chaotic state.

 

Climate change is an example of this. Carbon credits were introduced to help mitigate emissions but nothing was really done in NZ due to what appears to be economical reasons. They did fund some R&D for sustainable, carbon neutral fuels however. In fact I did my final year research and design paper for NZ government to  produce bio diesel from tallow and bio-gas from effluent but these methods are not going to be economically feasible when compared to conventional fossil fuels. 

 

"Ignorance is bliss" -  Thomas Gray

 

 

 

first time i seen you talk about any of this.

maybe that brain damaging squat has turned you into a hippy? 

 

[GyzzBrah]

26 minutes ago, jimmybro1 said:

I thought the youth were meant to be the future. 

 

What do you think happens with your waste? Do you think it magically disappears? Water is a massive issue, states like California are already suffering the consequences and now want to do something lol. These things are economically driven so no action is taken until the situation has reached a chaotic state.

 

Climate change is an example of this. Carbon credits were introduced to help mitigate emissions but nothing was really done in NZ due to what appears to be economical reasons. They did fund some R&D for sustainable, carbon neutral fuels however. In fact I did my final year research and design paper for NZ government to  produce bio diesel from tallow and bio-gas from effluent but these methods are not going to be economically feasible when compared to conventional fossil fuels. 

 

"Ignorance is bliss" -  Thomas Gray

 

 

 

Fossil Fuels are bloody awesome compared to other sources of energy. Blame our labour Party for banning nuclear material and warships from our country instead. They didnt do that because nuclear energy was dangerous, they just wanted to show the world how "progressive" we are by "sticking it" to America. At the expense of NZ families.

 

As Patrick Moore says, it is better to develop our infrastructure and way of life to adapt to climate change, rather than to try to avoid it.

 

If liberals took all the money that they spend on protesting, and invested it in nuclear fusion research, or other more feasible things, the world would be a much better place.

 

Also, if you are so concerned about water / land sustainability, blame the greenpeace liberals for their hostility to efficient technoligies like GMO crops etc, which are so much better.

 

More people die in africa from LACK of fossil fuels and GMO crops, than the ammount that die from temperatures being too hot. Not that I actually care about them, but its a good talking point.

 

Also, carbon emmissions from small countries like NZ is a fucking joke. We could probably increase our emmissions x 2 and still not see any environmental impact (carbon dioxide) is harmless.

 

Also, since you mentioned Canada, more people in places like Alberta province are committing SUICIDE because of the policies of that f*cker Justin Trudeau than the number of people that die from thirst from lack of water lol.

[eLm0]

27 minutes ago, GyzzBrah said:

 

Fossil Fuels are bloody awesome compared to other sources of energy. Blame our labour Party for banning nuclear material and warships from our country instead. They didnt do that because nuclear energy was dangerous, they just wanted to show the world how "progressive" we are by "sticking it" to America. At the expense of NZ families.

 

Why are they awesome? Because your car sounds cooler? Fossil fuels  are inferior sources of energy in pretty much every aspect except ease of access. This is a primitive way of thinking. What happens when you run out of a knowingly finite resource? We are already near the technological limit of making fossil fuels efficient whereas technologies such as such as solar are already cost competitive and are in technological infancy (heaps of room for improvement)

 

 

29 minutes ago, GyzzBrah said:

If liberals took all the money that they spend on protesting, and invested it in nuclear fusion research, or other more feasible things, the world would be a much better place.

 

Also, if you are so concerned about water / land sustainability, blame the greenpeace liberals for their hostility to efficient technoligies like GMO crops etc, which are so much better.

 

The ITER project has a budget of approximately 15 billion euros, this is essentially 50 times bigger than greenpeace. More money does not necessarily mean instant scientific reward. That's not how cutting edge science works. 

Also, the green party had the biggest science R&D budget at the last election, they are as liberal as it gets. 

Literally everything in your argument is incorrect.

 

35 minutes ago, GyzzBrah said:

More people die in africa from LACK of fossil fuels and GMO crops, than the ammount that die from temperatures being too hot. Not that I actually care about them, but its a good talking point.

 

I am from Africa, petrol prices are cheaper than here and Africa actually has an abundance of natural resources. Nigeria alone produces 50x the oil of NZ.  The reason I decided to have a go at your post is because of this last sentence. Being apathetic to someone over something like religion is actually ok in my book because that is a personal choice. Being apathetic to your fellow human beings because of their geographical location or race is a sign of weak character and a feeble mind. 

Everybody comes from Africa.

[GyzzBrah]

23 minutes ago, eLm0 said:

 

Why are they awesome? Because your car sounds cooler? Fossil fuels  are inferior sources of energy in pretty much every aspect except ease of access. This is a primitive way of thinking. What happens when you run out of a knowingly finite resource? We are already near the technological limit of making fossil fuels efficient whereas technologies such as such as solar are already cost competitive and are in technological infancy (heaps of room for improvement)

 

They are awesome because they are superior sources of energy to all but nuclear. They have a very high energy density.

 

Also, we have something like 250 years of fossil fuels left. Humans have used less than 50% of discovered reserves since we first began using them. 250 years is enough time to figure out something better / more feasible than current solar / wind etc.

 

Also, as far as "government budget" is concerned, that is something I never brought up, and is irrelevant. f*ck the government budget, it is undoubtledly a bloody waste of tax payer money and will achieve nothing, especially if it is from the greens. You pretty much contradicted yourself here, when you said "More money does not necessarily mean instant scientific reward. That's not how cutting edge science works.  "

I am refering to private investment in a unregulated free market, not government spending that is done for the sole purpose of getting more votes from liberals.

 

Also, you contradicted yourself yet again. Nigeria has massive local fuel shortages, since their government and regulated industries export all the fuel they produce. So my argument still stands. Also Nigeria does not = Africa.

Funny how you left out the part about GMO crops, looks like a straw man.

 

I am apathetic towards them because I care more about the country I live in and pretend to be born in, and the continent the people of my countrys ancestors mostly came from. This is the way humans have behaved for millions of years, and is a perfectly natural / normal way of thinking. What is not normal is the liberal academic thought of the past 30 years that is sympathetic to everyone, everywhere, not despite of, but because of their political, ethnic, and religious differences.

 

Also I am apathetic towards them because much of the poverty in Africa is caused by socialistic / communist governments and their policies, and the religious / political values they posess that cause the violence and greif that inhibit social progress.

I never once mentioned race, so dont make this an argument about race because it is not. I have changed my ways.

 

*Drops mike*

[eLm0]

1 hour ago, GyzzBrah said:

 

I am apathetic towards them because I care more about the country I live in and pretend to be born in, and the continent the people of my countrys ancestors mostly came from. This is the way humans have behaved for millions of years, and is a perfectly natural / normal way of thinking. What is not normal is the liberal academic thought of the past 30 years that is sympathetic to everyone, everywhere, not despite of, but because of their political, ethnic, and religious differences.

 

Also I am apathetic towards them because much of the poverty in Africa is caused by socialistic / communist governments and their policies, and the religious / political values they posess that cause the violence and greif that inhibit social progress.

I never once mentioned race, so dont make this an argument about race because it is not. I have changed my ways.

 

 

Lol are you trying to compare solar to fossil fuel in terms of energy density?  Energy density is an irrelevant argument in terms of energy generation. Solar panels have extremely low energy densities, does this mean they are bad for the planet?
Energy density is only relevant when it comes to storage and transport of eixisting energy, it does not mean one source of energy is superior. I would go as far as saying fossil fuels are the most inferior form of energy. It is primitive for humans to still be using these and we are only still doing so because of the economic implications.
Sure 250 years is enough time to find a solution, its also more than enough time to cuase irreversible damage to our only planet. Why not cut our reliance on an arachaic source of energy as soon soon as possible?

I feel like writing a book here on why fossil fuels are inferior but I'll leave that for you to look up yourself.

It doesn't matter where the money comes from be it a budget or private investor. Money doesn't ensure advancement but it helps. If you think the governments investment in science is a waste of money I think you need to read MBIE's latest statement on this. They also paid my salary at one point lol.
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/science-innovation/resolveuid/7f05c227eed949e0b33d7be9a48db67a
Take away that money and see what will happen. Despite the current reliance, my point still stands that throwing money at science doesn't always provide a solution

 

I was simply using Nigeria as an example because uneducated fools think that everybody there is dying of starvation when it couldn't be further from the truth. People are dying from preventative means like diseases due to lack of health infrastructure and environmental conditions. 
https://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-the-leading-causes-of-death-in-africa/

 

I left out the GMO part because I am about as pro GMO as you can get...

 

Thanks for clarifying your position on apathy, re-read your statement above as if it were said by a German with a small moustache and there is a strikingly strong parallel to that of Nazi Germany. I don't even want to get into the fact that homo sapiens only left Africa 125 000 years ago. There is poverty in Africa and poverty in your back yard and these are by definition the people that can't help themselves. There is only one human race. Since you are in the process of changing your ways here's an old quote still relevant. 
"Must we wait for selection to solve the problems of overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, pollution of the environment and a nuclear holocaust, or can we take explicit steps to make our future more secure? In the latter case, must we not transcend selection?"
-BF SKinner

 

 

[jimmybro1]

3 hours ago, maccaz said:

 

first time i seen you talk about any of this.

maybe that brain damaging squat has turned you into a hippy? 

 

Haha a topic of interest bro. 

 

Ive always wanted to start a consultant company designing bio fuel plants. 

[Pseudonym]

Gyzzbrah, you do realise you're trying to argue about fuel efficiency with a chemist and an engineer?

 

8 hours ago, GyzzBrah said:

I never cared about sustainability or ethical arguments imo. A certain degree of unsustainability is good for our         economy, people pay more money for everything.

I just couldn't get past this statement.

 

1) There is no such thing as "a certain degree of unsustainability". A system is either sustainable, or it's not. The only difference between a "completely unsustainable" system, and a "slightly unsustainable system" is the timeframe. Even a small leak will empty a bucket eventually.

 

2) Apart from the problems with the semantics, I'm genuinely trying to understand how you think unsustainability is good for the economy. Are you saying that with a limited resource, prices go up, and therefore this is good for the economy? I'm not economist, so I don't know whether that's true or not, but the main point you're missing is that the resource IS LIMITED. So any stimulus the economy might gain is going to be fairly short-lived.

 

Let's say you have a goose with the convenient tendency to lay golden eggs. Obviously killing it outright does not improve the economy. So explain to me how a slower death does? If it dies of old age, and the golden eggs gradually stop coming, talk me through the fiscal outlook under the Gyzzbrah economic model?

 

(And my apologies to Aesop for bastardising his fable.)

[GyzzBrah]

1 minute ago, Pseudonym said:

Gyzzbrah, you do realise you're trying to argue about fuel efficiency with a chemist and an engineer?

 

(And my apologies to Aesop for bastardising his fable.)

 

The eggs will become more expensive as the people who sell the eggs need to invest more money in healthcare to stop the goose from dying of old age so they can keep getting more money. And the money that was lost by people who like goose eggs is transfered to other people making them wealthier and is re - spent on other things.

 

You could have just used the chicken industry as an example br0.

 

I am not arguing science so much as I am arguing cynicism, western exceptionalism, and conservative politics.

[GyzzBrah]

.

[Kalidane]

7 hours ago, eLm0 said:

 

Why are they awesome? Because your car sounds cooler? Fossil fuels  are inferior sources of energy in pretty much every aspect except ease of access. This is a primitive way of thinking. What happens when you run out of a knowingly finite resource? We are already near the technological limit of making fossil fuels efficient whereas technologies such as such as solar are already cost competitive and are in technological infancy (heaps of room for improvement)

 

 

 

Proved reserves of crude oil have never been higher in all of human history.  There really is a lot of it and we continue to access more.

 

At $35 a barrel and falling, solar isn't close to competitive.  It'll get there, along with other cleanish energy sources, just not in a hurry.

 

We can easily feed 10bn+ people.  Over-population (particularly in terms of access to proteins) was a bogeyman that appeared around 95 years ago and will likely never go away.  We do need to clean up our protein production processes but the economic costs mean we are currently reliant on small technology-driven incremental changes.  An economy such as ours would be crippled by implementing highly sustainable standards.

 

Things aren't as bad as some think, and they are improving.  I wouldn't lose sleep over it.  We aren't on track to destroy the planet.

 

[jimmybro1]

Ok so internal combustion engines are more effective than alternative sources of energy (bio-diesel, electricity)..... Yes octane is more energy dense than alternative fuels (apart from electricity, essentially pure energy), but internal combustion engines are far from superior. An internal combustion engine is ideally modeled but the Otto cycle which an idealize thermodynamic cycle , this assumes the process is isentropic  (no friction, constant temperature, ideal gas, idea insulation)

These conditions will give the theoretical limit of a spark ignition engine. As the internal combustion engine is a heat engine the efficiency can be determined using the Carnots theorem which uses the ratio of the combustion temperature and exhaust temperature to derive efficiency. The thermodynamic limit of which is 37% for metal alloy engines, ceramic engines could potentially get higher efficiency  as they have better thermal stability (can get greater difference between combustion and exhaust temperatures).  But most engines efficiency levels are 20-18%  even with addition of turbo charges etc.

 

Although other engines that operate via internal combustion such as jet engines can achieve efficiencies of 60-70% because they operate at extreme temperatures and pressures however still limited whereas electric motors have 90+ % efficiency and could theoretically approach 99%. So in my opinion combustion engines are primitive technology and its time to adapt to newer technologies. An other higher efficient but still requiring research engine is the hydrogen engine.  

   

 

Here is a list of energy densities 

• Diesel 48MJ/kg
• LPG 46.4MJ/kg
• Ethanol 26.4 MJ/kg
• Octane 44.4MJ/kg
• Hydrogen 142MJ/kg 
• Lithium battery 1.8MJ/kg
• Bio-diesel 37.8MJ/kg 

Bio-diesel isn't much less energy dense than diesel although limited to warmer climates due to higher freezing point. Hydrogen much more energy dense than all your fossil fuels. Batteries have lower energy density but far better efficiency and with developing technology this will be improved. Ethanol is another bio fuel alternative with reasonable energy density and can be produced through fermentation of many waste products for example bark. The production of ethanol did cause a crisis in America though as grain was being sold to ethanol industries rather than feed for animals due to economical reasons. 

 

I don't think there is enough bio mass to support ethanol production to support the way we live now though although plenty of alternatives for the remainder. 

 

Yes nuclear fusion is the most energy dense fuel and has high efficiencies but waste will eventually become an issue. Nuclear waste isn't something that is easy to dispose of.     

 

[BAE]

Good post jimmybro.  Its worth noting that if you extend the lines out to the right of the graph i.e. release exhaust gas at lower pressure then you get more power from your engine for same amount of fuel used. There are practical limitations obviously e.g. engine size. 

 

Its also worth mentioning that diesel engines function at significantly higher effeciency than petrol.

[jimmybro1]

11 minutes ago, BAE said:

Good post jimmybro.  Its worth noting that if you extend the lines out to the right of the graph i.e. release exhaust gas at lower pressure then you get more power from your engine for same amount of fuel used. There are practical limitations obviously e.g. engine size. 

 

Its also worth mentioning that diesel engines function at significantly higher effeciency than petrol.

Yes your right diesels don't use a spark ignition 

[AuntMaud]

Electric already overtaking the combustion engine.
Fastest production bike is now electric, it produces around 200hp and makes 170 foot pounds of torque, which is not only nearly double what most sports bikes make, but is immediately accessible due to the efficiency of the electric motor, no gearing or rev ranges to worry about.

[GyzzBrah]

2 hours ago, AuntMaud said:

Electric already overtaking the combustion engine.
Fastest production bike is now electric, it produces around 200hp and makes 170 foot pounds of torque, which is not only nearly double what most sports bikes make, but is immediately accessible due to the efficiency of the electric motor, no gearing or rev ranges to worry about.

 

Yeah ok so if we want to make electric everything the future, then we need so much electricity supply, so, soooo much, that makes our current production look like piss, in order to avoid energy shortages due to such a high demand if we are to use it for automobiles etc.

And the main way to get so much quick efficient energy that can meet this demand, is through fossil fuels.

 

We could use nuclear, but our fucking liberal politicians decided to ban nuclear power and the great American naval fleet from our shores to show liberal communist greenpeace activist vegan college students all around the world just how progressive we are as a country and how we arent afraid to "stick it up" to America.

 

America is the worlds oldest standing democracy and has defended liberty and freedom all around the world.

I am ashamed to breathe the same air as the little socialist wankers that pushed for this retarded legislation. What utter disrespect.

 

"Drill baby Drill" - Sarah Palin.

 

[BAE]

Sarah Palin is probably one of the worst people you could quote - she's a fucking retard.

 

8 minutes ago, GyzzBrah said:

 

America is the worlds oldest standing democracy and has defended liberty and freedom all around the world. 

 

 

Bullshit.

 

Why doesnt the national government allow US (potentially nuclear powered and/or armed) warships to visit nz again and renew the ANZUS defence treaty?

 

I do agree that electric powered vehicles are currently impractical. That electric bike someone used as an example is also pretty average. Plenty of sports bikes exceed 200hp and 75 foot pounds of torque is hardly anything to write home about. Maybe its double power of what most 250cc sports bikes make..lol

[Pseudonym]

[AuntMaud]

13 hours ago, BAE said:

I do agree that electric powered vehicles are currently impractical. That electric bike someone used as an example is also pretty average. Plenty of sports bikes exceed 200hp and 75 foot pounds of torque is hardly anything to write home about. Maybe its double power of what most 250cc sports bikes make..lol

That's 170 foot pounds, not 75.
A 2016 R1 has 110 for comparison, and that is in a relatively narrow power band.
The electric bikes power delivery is far more linear so all of that torque is far more accessible to boot.
It's the same bike that recently won the pikes peak race by more than 20 seconds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_LS-218

Incredible performance, especially when you consider how recent a development electric motorcycles are and how little R&D has been done on them. Just imagine how they will look if big sports bike manufacturers with millions of dollars to spend start adopting them.


@Gyzz
 You are right about one thing, wind and solar are not anywhere near reliable enough to provide backbone power generation, and battery tech is far too far away to provide storage for the peak power they can generate.
I disagree that this means that we need to keep burning fossil fuels though.
Just because 'a bunch of fucking liberals' decided to ban nuclear power in New Zealand doesn't mean that it always has to be that way.
Nuclear power has come a long way since cold war technology, and modern reactors are extremely safe, clean and efficient. Reactors like the Liquid Fluroid Thorium Reactor can operate by burning our existing waste, are extremely safe, and due to their design, can not be used in assisting nuclear weapon proliferation.

I don't think banning nuclear power in the 80's was necessarily a mistake, back then the technology was still relatively young and had not had much in the way of field testing, people were nervous about the potential for nuclear war.

However, I do think that societies current perception of nuclear power is a mistake. The media loves to focus on events like Fukushima. Which for the record, has not yet claimed the life of a single person, despite the fact that reactor was ancient and long past due to be decommissioned and almost every single thing that could go wrong, did go wrong. A single oil spill poses a far heavier environmental impact than any nuclear meltdown, and is also far more likely to happen.

[GyzzBrah]

9 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

 

So is that why Albertans are committing suicide by the dozens because of Canadas climate policies?

[maccaz]

17 minutes ago, GyzzBrah said:

 

So is that why Albertans are committing suicide by the dozens because of Canadas climate policies?

 

gyzz

you have a juvenile attitude to most things. you are incapable of considering other opinions and like to sound smart. im suprised you dont get your ass kicked at school.

 

its annoying.

stop posting in anything other than your journal, or your diet thread.

you annoy people and say dumb shit, and when i call you out you just blame autism (which you dont have)

 

from now on, only post in your journal, or your diet thread, limited to those topics. otherwise il stop giving you input and let them ban you

[GyzzBrah]

47 minutes ago, maccaz said:

 

gyzz

you have a juvenile attitude to most things. you are incapable of considering other opinions and like to sound smart. im suprised you dont get your ass kicked at school.

 

its annoying.

stop posting in anything other than your journal, or your diet thread.

you annoy people and say dumb shit, and when i call you out you just blame autism (which you dont have)

 

from now on, only post in your journal, or your diet thread, limited to those topics. otherwise il stop giving you input and let them ban you

 

Look for fk sakes I wont listen to what you just said. Im not trying to sound smart, issues like conservatism is something I am very passionate about and I feel very deeply about, as these are my deeply held beliefs, and nobody has the right to take those beliefs away from me.

I genuinley believe the things that I say, and its ok for other people to disagree with me I dont really care.

[eLm0]

1 hour ago, GyzzBrah said:

 

Look for fk sakes I wont listen to what you just said. Im not trying to sound smart, issues like conservatism is something I am very passionate about and I feel very deeply about, as these are my deeply held beliefs, and nobody has the right to take those beliefs away from me.

I genuinley believe the things that I say, and its ok for other people to disagree with me I dont really care.

 

Lol buddy you need to get with the times. 

 

The good thing about science is that its true whether you believe it or not (NDGT).

Nothing to do with opinions.

 

If GDP is a measure of a nations relative wealth, the social progress index is a measure of relative wellbeing. The UN sets their goals based on this. Environmental sustainability, equality and personal freedom all contribute to SPI.

Your attitude seems to be in direct contrast to this meaning that your attitude is in direct contrast to the progression of society - in other words you oppose progress.

 

A progressive mindset that embraces technology will improve society.

A conservative mindset that abhors technology and resists change can only restrict progress and will probably be best if you are living an Amish or Mormon life. Perhaps you can find some like-minded friends down in Gloriavale?