The first flight of an A380 operating one engine on 100% sustainable aviation fuel follows successful flight test campaigns involving an A350 and an A319neo last year. This latest milestone once again demonstrates Airbus’ commitment to achieving certification of unblended SAF for commercial use by 2030.
Reminder that this is a test but it looks promising.
Most things do not even need a flight, lots of things can be done over the internet. The irony is you still have a carbon footprint, it is less but even the internet itself depends on some stuff.
Climate crisis is not the only big threat for humanity. It is very likely we get new viruses, atomic war etc.
I would not call potential solutions or ideas bullshit, you improve tech over time … baby steps… always baby steps… it is important to point out new research and new ideas, for me this is not bullshit it falls under process.
I would not per-see call society nonsense or air travel or any other amusement nonsense, it might has meaning but not in a bigger scale that helps the earth.
Problem is, society expects practical solutions and ideas you can apply in the real world. And doing nothing and resign is something lots of people will not accept, it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale. Instead we even try to cheat death, trying to create copies of ourselves to become immortal or go to other planets and do the same all over again. Who are we in the universe to decide such things.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad. I see it as irrelevant because we are all made out of stars, the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us and the same will happen again and again in and endless cycle … which makes life and death in that sense obscene and obsolete because this is how the universe works.
Well I think that is enough OT now, point remains, no one here has any practical solutions, which is clear otherwise people would just post them and I trust the eggheads that they know what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more than random people here telling everything is wrong, they know all better but never posting any ideas or solutions… I make that really that simple.
would not call potential solutions or ideas bullshit, you improve tech over time … baby steps… always baby steps
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of technology. Yes, LEDs will get brighter and smaller and use less energy… and whatever the limit to that improvement is it’s pretty absurd and grounded in physics.
There is another class of problems. It is scaling. It starts when someone says “I can make an amazing widget, it’s beyond incredible!”. The first question you ask shouldn’t be “how much does it cost”. Because indeed, cost will come down with time. It shouldn’t be “how efficient is it”, because that too will improve.
The question is “how many can you make”. Ask that. And the truth here is that they couldn’t ever hope to make enough. And that jets are fast approaching or have already met the fundamental limits of physics as far as being fuel efficient.
This means that this can never be a solution. We’re not going to suddenly have less interest in flying. It’s fucking convenient to be able to pay some company $300, and be in a city a 2000 miles away in just 4 hours. There won’t be fewer people (or, if so, not until 2100-something, when falling fertility shows everyone that we’re on a path to extinction).
This can’t ever be a solution.
it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale.
I don’t know how to respond to the assertion that fighting for survival against genocide is comparable to fighting for your right to fly to Italy and have your idiot friend take the picture of you pretending to hold up the Tower of Pisa.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad.
I suspect that this is a symptom of profound mental illness. Life is, without reasonable dispute, wonderful. I acknowledge that when people are tortured and tormented that they seem to change their opinion on that, and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope to live to see effective treatment for their illness.
I do not understand those who hold this opinion minus the torture, but perhaps ennui and middle-class wankery over the “meaning of life” is its own special kind of self-torture. I blame the weird parenting fads of western culture.
the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us
Then your crime’s all the greater, to have been given what they were denied, and to waste it.
what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more
The linked article was not written by Science with a capital S. It’s an abstract concept (and not even unflawed). It was not written by scientists. Generally, they are too busy to write articles for public consumption, and also generally, they are untalented at the sort of writing needed for the public to be able to understand it. Furthermore, to be good at science requires a certain sort of personality that embraces the sort of tunnel vision that makes them difficult to understand.
Thus, you are not listening to scientists here. You’re not listening to someone who listened to scientists. My own bad estimate is, that for a typical article like this, there is a chain of up to 4 interpreters between you and the scientists, starting with the administrative staff of major research institutions, their public relations department, science journalists, and then editors themselves.
If you think there is no solution then there is nothing for you to respond, so there is no point you make. You have no solution and this is what I expect from green people, ranting without anything behind, which you clearly displayed. Like the rest of this discussion, useless, pointless and no one has anything. It is just pretending that you are smart, which you are not, same like me, because if we had solutions we would show that and change the wold but this is not the case. Instead we talk about things that is destent to happen so or so.
There are only 3-4 options, I showed them. You do not need to like them. I would not call fusion energy or new engines which might be one day based on it overall no solution, it opens new ways. Question is how long that will hold, of course at the end of the day the sun will destroy us all which is the bitter end.
I think you did not get the analogy I made about death and life. In the universe it is simply obsolete and irrelevant since this is our fate. The universe will collapse and even if we make it to this point, there is no escape from this. Even if we going to be immortal. So the bottom line is, for the universe it does not makes any difference if we find solutions or not. This is also not about meaning of life, since I clearly outlined death is also irrelevant too. Its about that the universe simply works this way and there is no tech to prevent that, as said even if we become immortal there is no escape here. I mentioned it because on a big scale it probably would better to give up and accept it and not try to fight it. In tech and the universe, old things die, new things emerge from it, this is the bottom line. A constant circle, without death nothing new … universal truth.
My point is that the community always, no matter what I link here shit-talks scientists as if you know better, you do not, you just another dude who thinks he has the answer, maybe accept that you have no solution. I clearly do not have one, I bet my horse on new engines but that is all. Again it does not matter at all.
The article is based on research, so it is absolute irrelevant what you and I have to say, did you spend millions of dollars, so why pretend you know better and know all the answers. I do not claim such things, I show the options and that is all. I think it is better than going the old way because we need to change something, so or so.
But glad you are were bored and answered, it was absolute irrelevant, same like my answer. It brings us no step forward and each time new tech emerges or improved tech comes up the out crying such as, oh this is not 100 percent green, is pointless, so or so. It is about management, otherwise we can surrender, or go back into caves but I am not willingly to accept it and I will fight that, because it is in my nature. Same like it is in our nature to improve tech, constantly.
Abandon tech and live in a cave, no one wants this because otherwise we would not invest money, time, passion into tech in the first place.
Suicide on global level. Which would be my first and last idea. However, this is radical and most people would not accept it and resist, which I can understand. It is also not a solution more to get rid of a variable in the global equation and no one can foresee if once we are all gone that there will be no more humans ever, earth possible could create new ones or another species that does the same over time.
Use tech to improve things over time … but baby steps … small moves … And this is what I overall propose.
Changing society radical over night will simply not work. I believe the eggheads know about climate change and that earth runs out of resources and they are not stupid, they know it is a trade-off and not a final solution but it is better than our other options. People like me see cars, flying etc als luxury and piece of freedom and I know that green people want to abandon it entirely but this is not gonna happen friends. So instead of insisting removing those aspects we should come to a common ground to improve existing tech and to at least get rid of some problems.
Please give the scientists a little bit credit friends, I think they know what they are doing. IT is not like in the dontlookup movie… 😅…
Problem is, society expects practical solutions and ideas you can apply in the real world. And doing nothing and resign is something lots of people will not accept, it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale. Instead we even try to cheat death, trying to create copies of ourselves to become immortal or go to other planets and do the same all over again. Who are we in the universe to decide such things.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad. I see it as irrelevant because we are all made out of stars, the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us and the same will happen again and again in and endless cycle … which makes life and death in that sense obscene and obsolete because this is how the universe works.
Well I think that is enough OT now, point remains, no one here has any practical solutions, which is clear otherwise people would just post them and I trust the eggheads that they know what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more than random people here telling everything is wrong, they know all better but never posting any ideas or solutions… I make that really that simple.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of technology. Yes, LEDs will get brighter and smaller and use less energy… and whatever the limit to that improvement is it’s pretty absurd and grounded in physics.
There is another class of problems. It is scaling. It starts when someone says “I can make an amazing widget, it’s beyond incredible!”. The first question you ask shouldn’t be “how much does it cost”. Because indeed, cost will come down with time. It shouldn’t be “how efficient is it”, because that too will improve.
The question is “how many can you make”. Ask that. And the truth here is that they couldn’t ever hope to make enough. And that jets are fast approaching or have already met the fundamental limits of physics as far as being fuel efficient.
This means that this can never be a solution. We’re not going to suddenly have less interest in flying. It’s fucking convenient to be able to pay some company $300, and be in a city a 2000 miles away in just 4 hours. There won’t be fewer people (or, if so, not until 2100-something, when falling fertility shows everyone that we’re on a path to extinction).
This can’t ever be a solution.
I don’t know how to respond to the assertion that fighting for survival against genocide is comparable to fighting for your right to fly to Italy and have your idiot friend take the picture of you pretending to hold up the Tower of Pisa.
I suspect that this is a symptom of profound mental illness. Life is, without reasonable dispute, wonderful. I acknowledge that when people are tortured and tormented that they seem to change their opinion on that, and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope to live to see effective treatment for their illness.
I do not understand those who hold this opinion minus the torture, but perhaps ennui and middle-class wankery over the “meaning of life” is its own special kind of self-torture. I blame the weird parenting fads of western culture.
Then your crime’s all the greater, to have been given what they were denied, and to waste it.
The linked article was not written by Science with a capital S. It’s an abstract concept (and not even unflawed). It was not written by scientists. Generally, they are too busy to write articles for public consumption, and also generally, they are untalented at the sort of writing needed for the public to be able to understand it. Furthermore, to be good at science requires a certain sort of personality that embraces the sort of tunnel vision that makes them difficult to understand.
Thus, you are not listening to scientists here. You’re not listening to someone who listened to scientists. My own bad estimate is, that for a typical article like this, there is a chain of up to 4 interpreters between you and the scientists, starting with the administrative staff of major research institutions, their public relations department, science journalists, and then editors themselves.
The article is based on research, so it is absolute irrelevant what you and I have to say, did you spend millions of dollars, so why pretend you know better and know all the answers. I do not claim such things, I show the options and that is all. I think it is better than going the old way because we need to change something, so or so.
But glad you are were bored and answered, it was absolute irrelevant, same like my answer. It brings us no step forward and each time new tech emerges or improved tech comes up the out crying such as, oh this is not 100 percent green, is pointless, so or so. It is about management, otherwise we can surrender, or go back into caves but I am not willingly to accept it and I will fight that, because it is in my nature. Same like it is in our nature to improve tech, constantly.
So… In summary: “Trust the technocracy and just look past the issues and vested interests” for any solution World Economic Forum &co. Propose?
There is in retrospective only this
Changing society radical over night will simply not work. I believe the eggheads know about climate change and that earth runs out of resources and they are not stupid, they know it is a trade-off and not a final solution but it is better than our other options. People like me see cars, flying etc als luxury and piece of freedom and I know that green people want to abandon it entirely but this is not gonna happen friends. So instead of insisting removing those aspects we should come to a common ground to improve existing tech and to at least get rid of some problems.
Please give the scientists a little bit credit friends, I think they know what they are doing. IT is not like in the dontlookup movie… 😅…