Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

There's a world of difference between a conservationist and an environmentalist, Bacle. I've tried to explain this to you repeatedly.

The right wing environmental position is, generally speaking, conservationist in nature. Show us a specific problem with a measurable, quantifiable solution, and we are perfectly willing to undertake it. We are quite glad to fund cleaning up polluted rivers and lakes, installing pollution control devices on engines and such.

But then environmentalists try to play on that. They try to create 'crisis' that only they can actually see, but which they insist are real, with solutions that, at the bottom, consist of 'give us your money and all of the power!' When none of their predictions come even close to happening, they don't admit to being wrong, they simply insist that we are too stupid to understand the predictions in the first place and move the goalposts and start yelling that unless we immediately agree with them we are the stupidest stupids to ever stupid and we're ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE SAY IMMEDIATELY AND SHUT UP WITH YOUR STUPID QUESTIONS. And, of course, their solution is for us to give them all of our money and all of the power and let them have total control, but trust them, they'll solve the problem and not, ya know, spend all of the money on conferences at exotic tropical vacation resorts, buying private jets for themselves and their friends, and living the life of Reilly.

LordSunhawk said:

There's a world of difference between a conservationist and an environmentalist, Bacle. I've tried to explain this to you repeatedly.

The right wing environmental position is, generally speaking, conservationist in nature. Show us a specific problem with a measurable, quantifiable solution, and we are perfectly willing to undertake it. We are quite glad to fund cleaning up polluted rivers and lakes, installing pollution control devices on engines and such.

But then environmentalists try to play on that. They try to create 'crisis' that only they can actually see, but which they insist are real, with solutions that, at the bottom, consist of 'give us your money and all of the power!' When none of their predictions come even close to happening, they don't admit to being wrong, they simply insist that we are too stupid to understand the predictions in the first place and move the goalposts and start yelling that unless we immediately agree with them we are the stupidest stupids to ever stupid and we're ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS YOU DO WHAT WE SAY IMMEDIATELY AND SHUT UP WITH YOUR STUPID QUESTIONS. And, of course, their solution is for us to give them all of our money and all of the power and let them have total control, but trust them, they'll solve the problem and not, ya know, spend all of the money on conferences at exotic tropical vacation resorts, buying private jets for themselves and their friends, and living the life of Reilly.

Click to expand...

Look, I get the skepticism, because there are parts of the rad-greens who do overplay things, and look for pie in the sky solutions that have no practical basis. I know the difference between preservation and conservation.

And notice I said practical, not conventionally economic, DO NOT CONFUSE THE TWO; survival isn't 'economic' by normal corpo capitalist metrics, so understand the almighty dollar is going to have to take back seat to some environmental considerations. There are ways to create new economies, or repurpose old ones, to be more enviromentally sound, without mass lay offs or mass gov control.

The problem, that both sides have, is that they think that things will always have 'solutions' immediately available, and that they just need a few. Instead of understand the need for monitoring, and that the environmental has X-factors in it that cannot be conventionally predicted, but can be planned for/hardened against; what's that old saying about an ounce of prevention. Earthquakes are a prime example; that's why we have earthquake building codes (could be seen as gov overeach), tsunami warning systems (also not 'economical' in a conventional sense), ocean temp/salinity stations and ice-coring labs/stations (not conventionally economical).

The idea about changing cattle diets, so we can still have red meat and say fuck you to the bug eaters, just means shifting some types of supply chains, and opening up new connections between existing, but unconnected industries via new tech/ideas. And there even ancient things could help; goats are amazing useful critters ecologically, and their meat has sustianed humans for thousands of years; just ask the Greeks and a lot of the old world.

And as I've said before, if people can just view it as practice for terraforming, and getting the tech in place here...makes it a lot easier to sell this to the youth down the road. I would have thought a Sci-Fi forum would have more people who appreciated the importance of mastering geoengineering and environmental engineering for humanity's future.

Stop trying to reclaim the 1950's, start trying to prepare humanity for the 2950's.

This is the problem with so many conservatives, they think too damn small, and focus on the past, not the future.

Bacle said:

The idea about changing cattle diets, so we can still have red meat and say fuck you to the bug eaters

Click to expand...

It doesn't actually accomplish that, though. On the contrary, it plays right into it, because it makes beef production prohibitively expensive, which is undoubtedly the goal. It transforms beef into a luxury item, and I doubt it would stop at beef. Then the idea of eating bugs as an economic source of protein would be basically the only choice for those of us who aren't super-rich, as well as putting most family-owned ranches out of business. So you are playing directly into the hands of the envirofascists with this example, and it's all because you insist on actually believing their bullshit about cow farts in spite of all evidence that the oceans are actually by far the largest source of atmospheric methane, and not much evidence to show that atmospheric methane is going to lead to the climate apocalypse the alarmists claim it is. To be frank, the only thing really separating you from watermelons is degree. This is your blind spot and your example of cognitive dissonance in the same way Zach's is pretty much anything to do with the intelligence community and law enforcement.

Captain X said:

It doesn't actually accomplish that, though. On the contrary, it plays right into it, because it makes beef production prohibitively expensive, which is undoubtedly the goal. It transforms beef into a luxury item, and I doubt it would stop at beef. Then the idea of eating bugs as an economic source of protein would be basically the only choice for those of us who aren't super-rich, as well as putting most family-owned ranches out of business. So you are playing directly into the hands of the envirofascists with this example, and it's all because you insist on actually believing their bullshit about cow farts in spite of all evidence that the oceans are actually by far the largest source of atmospheric methane, and not much evidence to show that atmospheric methane is going to lead to the climate apocalypse the alarmists claim it is. To be frank, the only thing really separating you from watermelons is degree. This is your blind spot and your example of cognitive dissonance in the same way Zach's is pretty much anything to do with the intelligence community and law enforcement.

Click to expand...

This is not trying to kill the cattle industry, or make it a luxury item, and I have tried to point out and explain how. Even if the ocean produces more than cattle, it does not mean reducing the methane content of cow farts is a bad idea, especially if it can be done in ways that create new jobs, preserve existing jobs, and keep products accessable to the common person. All of which can be done, if we accept some upfront sunk costs to get the logistics chains, business contracts, and distributors set up or repurposed.

But you all hate the idea that the environmental groups on the Left might occasionally have a legit point, you exaggerate all sorts of shit to keep each other scared of addressing larger environmental issues, and often act like even if they do have a point, since the CCP is being retarded about environmental shit, we have to be equally retarded to keep economically competitive with them.

Addressing environmental issues does not mean bowing to the rad-greens, or giving tons of power to governments, but those seem to be the only two ways even trying to have a convo about environmental issues is viewed by a large part of the Right.

I mean, if I was so far down that hole you claim I am, why would I have a history of supporting nuclear power? Oh wait, I wouldn't.

Bacle said:

This is not trying to kill the cattle industry, or make it a luxury item, and I have tried to point out and explain how. Even if the ocean produces more than cattle, it does not mean reducing the methane content of cow farts is a bad idea, especially if it can be done in ways that create new jobs, preserve existing jobs, and keep products accessable to the common person. All of which can be done, if we accept some upfront sunk costs to get the logistics chains, business contracts, and distributors set up or repurposed.

But you all hate the idea that the environmental groups on the Left might occasionally have a legit point, you exaggerate all sorts of shit to keep each other scared of addressing larger environmental issues, and often act like even if they do have a point, since the CCP is being retarded about environmental shit, we have to be equally retarded to keep economically competitive with them.

Addressing environmental issues does not mean bowing to the rad-greens, or giving tons of power to governments, but those seem to be the only two ways even trying to have a convo about environmental issues is viewed by a large part of the Right.

I mean, if I was so far down that hole you claim I am, why would I have a history of supporting nuclear power? Oh wait, I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Hey.
Question.
How easy would it be to switch from the grass on the ground to what you are wanting cows to eat?
You do know how hard it is for Ranches in states like Texas, Montana, etc etc are just woth grass fed roaming cattle?
A specialty diet is asking for less spread out cows more couped up not good tasting cows

Bacle said:

This is not trying to kill the cattle industry, or make it a luxury item, and I have tried to point out and explain how.

Click to expand...

In what way does forcing beef producers to pay to have kelp brought in to feed to their stock and prohibiting them from letting them graze free-range not make beef production prohibitively expensive? I come from an agricultural state for crying out loud - I know what the fuck I'm talking about! My state is literally as far from any ocean as you can get! What part of this are you not getting!?

Bacle said:

But you all hate the idea that the environmental groups on the Left might occasionally have a legit point, you exaggerate all sorts of shit to keep each other scared of addressing larger environmental issues

Click to expand...

What points have they got? The entire reason so many of us are ragging on you is because there is little to no substance to any of this environmentalist bullshit, which is illustrated by how transparently authoritarian the people pushing it are in their "solution" to this supposed problem which they have essentially created from nothing. Witness their reactions at the continued failure of their predictions to come true.

Bacle said:

and often act like even if they do have a point, since the CCP is being retarded about environmental shit, we have to be equally retarded to keep economically competitive with them.

Click to expand...

The point of bringing up China isn't to concede any kind of a point it's to both illustrate the futility of going along with what the globalists want as well as to illustrate that the people pushing this bullshit don't actually believe in it themselves, or they'd be doing something to go after the actual source of most of the evil gases they claim are the doom of us all. Much like how all the people pushing for mask mandates and travel restrictions continually get caught failing to live up to their own standards. This in no way concedes that they might have some kind of a point.

Bacle said:

Addressing environmental issues does not mean bowing to the rad-greens, or giving tons of power to governments

Click to expand...

How?

Bacle said:

I mean, if I was so far down that hole you claim I am, why would I have a history of supporting nuclear power? Oh wait, I wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Actually the fact that you see nuclear as a solution helps to illustrate that you actually believe in it vs. the people who are pushing it.

Zachowon said:

Hey.
Question.
How easy would it be to switch from the grass on the ground to what you are wanting cows to eat?
You do know how hard it is for Ranches in states like Texas, Montana, etc etc are just woth grass fed roaming cattle?
A specialty diet is asking for less spread out cows more couped up not good tasting cows

Click to expand...

Captain X said:

In what way does forcing beef producers to pay to have kelp brought in to feed to their stock and prohibiting them from letting them graze free-range not make beef production prohibitively expensive? I come from an agricultural state for crying out loud - I know what the fuck I'm talking about! My state is literally as far from any ocean as you can get! What part of this are you not getting!?


What points have they got? The entire reason so many of us are ragging on you is because there is little to no substance to any of this environmentalist bullshit, which is illustrated by how transparently authoritarian the people pushing it are in their "solution" to this supposed problem which they have essentially created from nothing. Witness their reactions at the continued failure of their predictions to come true.


The point of bringing up China isn't to concede any kind of a point it's to both illustrate the futility of going along with what the globalists want as well as to illustrate that the people pushing this bullshit don't actually believe in it themselves, or they'd be doing something to go after the actual source of most of the evil gases they claim are the doom of us all. Much like how all the people pushing for mask mandates and travel restrictions continually get caught failing to live up to their own standards. This in no way concedes that they might have some kind of a point.


How?


Actually the fact that you see nuclear as a solution helps to illustrate that you actually believe in it vs. the people who are pushing it.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, it's not 'switching out' the grass at all, as some of you seem to think, nor is it trying to 'force' anything. Seaweed is pretty cheap, and inland kelp grows are possible to reduce shipping costs.

It's more like adding the seaweed to their diet, the same way ranchers will add things like oats, barley, or corn. The enzymic reaction in cattle guts neutralizes some of the usual methane production, so the cows can keep eating their usual stuff with less gas.

When I said it's like Beano for cows, I wasn't really exaggerating, but you all are certainly exaggerating what I have tried to suggest.

Just found your source for the kelp to reduce cow farts.

Know what else it reduces? Milk production, meat accumulation and growth rates on the cattle. So you'd cut 67% of cow farts, but reduce milk production by over 90% and growth rates by half, in addition the meat massively loses quality.

So... Good job breaking it, hero.

You have to read past the abstract on these things, and when someone with actual experience with cattle tells you that your brilliant solution is not, listen to them.

Bacle said:

That's the thing, it's not 'switching out' the grass at all, as some of you seem to think, nor is it trying to 'force' anything. Seaweed is pretty cheap, and inland kelp grows are possible to reduce shipping costs.

It's more like adding the seaweed to their diet, the same way ranchers will add things like oats, barley, or corn. The enzymic reaction in cattle guts neutralizes some of the usual methane production, so the cows can keep eating their usual stuff with less gas.

When I said it's like Beano for cows, I wasn't really exaggerating, but you all are certainly exaggerating what I have tried to suggest.

Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand the magnitude of difference in cost between 'grass that grows for free,' vs 'harvesting from sea, shipping for hundreds of miles, then paying to have distributed to cattle.' Even if you do 'inland kelp grows,' you're adding up front construction costs, then maintenance, then still the harvesting and distribution, with just a smaller shipping cost.

That is a major increase to costs, because free is an impossible price to beat.

On top of the issue with productivity loss that Sunhawk raised.

LordsFire said:

You do not seem to understand the magnitude of difference in cost between 'grass that grows for free,' vs 'harvesting from sea, shipping for hundreds of miles, then paying to have distributed to cattle.' Even if you do 'inland kelp grows,' you're adding up front construction costs, then maintenance, then still the harvesting and distribution, with just a smaller shipping cost.

That is a major increase to costs, because free is an impossible price to beat.

On top of the issue with productivity loss that Sunhawk raised.

Click to expand...

Grass is not free you fool; that's a complete and utter fallacy that ignores how hard it is to keep the topsoils of major farming areas arible and productive, year after year, while also leaving enough for the wild life.

That why the gov has permits for ranchers to use for access to public lands, or have you all forgotten about Bundy and his group.

Even if that was infil'ed by glowies and CIs, the permitting issue around it exists because GRASS ISN'T FREE YOU IDIOT.

If you already own the land, that grass is not something you have to pay for.

Bacle said:

Grass is not free you fool; that's a complete and utter fallacy that ignores how hard it is to keep the topsoils of major farming areas arible and productive, year after year, while also leaving enough for the wild life.

That why the gov has permits for ranchers to use for access to public lands, or have you all forgotten about Bundy and his group.

Even if that was infil'ed by glowies and CIs, the permitting issue around it exists because GRASS ISN'T FREE YOU IDIOT.

Click to expand...

Uh.
You know there are ranchers who have thier cattle roam in the ranges of Fort hood right?
Like full on herds I'd cattle wandering around where we shoot tanks and stuff, and the US government paid for the lands years ago and they STILL have to allow the cattle to roam and if a head dies they pay big bucks to the farmer to make up the loss in meat and milk products the cow could be used for.
And you think the grass the cattle eat there isn't free? It literally is not thiers and the cows eat plenty.
So I dint know where you getting this needs permits from.
Also, where you gonna get kelp to a ranch up in Montana in late amounts? Kansas?

Captain X said:

If you already own the land, that grass is not something you have to pay for.

Click to expand...

This. Hell, the people whose cattle grase on Fort Hood ranges don't pay for the grass either.

LordSunhawk said:

Know what else it reduces? Milk production, meat accumulation and growth rates on the cattle. So you'd cut 67% of cow farts, but reduce milk production by over 90% and growth rates by half, in addition the meat massively loses quality.

Click to expand...

That would result in a net increase in methane production in order to keep up production.

I guarantee you that cow farts aren't the doom of the world.

Husky_Khan said:

Harlock said:

Click to expand...

DC made it a thing with Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn.

This seems more pausible as a fictional ship.

Click to expand...

Whelp... Too late for the pebbles to vote. The avalanche has begun. It's a thing now.

Bacle said:

That's the thing, it's not 'switching out' the grass at all, as some of you seem to think, nor is it trying to 'force' anything. Seaweed is pretty cheap, and inland kelp grows are possible to reduce shipping costs.

Click to expand...

You have no idea if this is actually true. They haven't managed to grow it inland. They are still trying to see if they can even commercially grow it in the ocean, much less set up inland grows. The stuff grows in warm water 20m deep (it's a red algae and those grow much deeper than green or golden algae) and only grows where there are strong tidal currents. You certainly can't know that massive inland saltwater growing operations under those conditions, which have never been done before, are going to be cheap.

Bear Ribs said:

You have no idea if this is actually true. They haven't managed to grow it inland. They are still trying to see if they can even commercially grow it in the ocean, much less set up inland grows. The stuff grows in warm water 20m deep (it's a red algae and those grow much deeper than green or golden algae) and only grows where there are strong tidal currents. You certainly can't know that massive inland saltwater growing operations under those conditions, which have never been done before, are going to be cheap.

Click to expand...

Random idea: what animals would normally eat kelp?
And could we ranch those for meat?

Scottty said:

Random idea: what animals would normally eat kelp?
And could we ranch those for meat?

Click to expand...

We already ranch and eat several of them... Like Abalone


A lot of the others, like Sea Urchins, are not particularly edible (aside from roe) and mostly get eaten by things higher on the predator tree, like lobsters, that we eat.

Santa Karl