This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
On Slime and Water
Slimy
Just saying the words, “Pink Slime” gives me the creeps. I’m not pleased to learn that I’ve been dining on this swill for the past sixty years. The US Department of Agriculture has made an interesting response to the public outcry about slime. (Link) Starting in September, every school district in the country will have the right to chose whether to buy burgers with or without slime.
Think where this goes. Beverly Hills schools will have no slime, while East LA is all slime. Scottsdale will go slime free, while Phoenix has slime-fattened burgers. Westchester will definitely go "No Slime", but I'm guessing the schools in the Bronx will opt for slime. Same for Bethesda versus the District of Colombia.
Should we see this new form of “red lining”, income disparity will be a topic of discussion. When school rolls around again, it will be at the height of the election. It will be interesting to see how the candidates handle slime.
The FDA left it up to restaurants and grocery stores to deal with slime as they wish. Without any rules, the public will decide what they want in their burgers.
Some tony restaurants have already changed their menus to assure their customers they are not eating slime. (If the menu has be changed, does that mean they were dishing up slime before?) It’s just a matter of time until more eateries follow suit. This has some interesting implications.
A fellow walks into McDees:
Can I have a quarter-pounder with cheese, fries and a coke?
Yes sir! How would you like that burger? With, or without slime?
It’s funny how a word can make a difference. I’m a big burger guy, so I went and bought a meat grinder and some chuck from the butcher. Delicious, made all the better knowing it wasn’t slimy. Very "Old School".
*************
Peak Water
Twenty thousand folks from all over the world showed up at the World Water Forum in Marseilles, France this week. For those who lose sleep at night worrying about peak oil, I suggest they re-direct their stress to Peak Water. Peak oil may scare us to death, but peak water will be what kills us. In less than forty years, two out of three people will be living in areas described as being in Severe Water Stress.
There are two ways of looking at consumption of water on a global basis. The first is per capita: (Total per capita use = Agricultural + Industrial + Municipal + Individual consumption / Population
The USA is the world’s water glutton based on this measure of consumption, due to our industrial water use. GDP is directly correlated to total water consumption. A second way to look at water consumption is by comparing total gallons used.
By this matrix, China and India are the truly big users. Now look at geographic areas that are “water troubled.” China and India jump out as problems. (Mexico too?) Most of India and substantial portions of China are already stressed:
With a population of 1.2 billion, India is already facing a water crisis in some areas.
.
The US is in a very favorable position when it comes to water. There is adequate rainfall in most areas; the Great Lakes hold 22% of all fresh water. If water is to be the difference in history, then the USA will probably be the last country drinking. Unless we screw it up….
.
»
- advertisements -
So, tie-ing the two sub topics together, I can envision sitting at a restaurant and ordering
Half pound burger - with swiss, medium rare, no slime.
Glass of water - with ice and no fracking chemicals.
I suspect ( and hope) that Bruce is just trying to be funny with this post?
Pray?
"water scarcity"?
Are you fucking kidding me?
More like lack of human freedom crisis.
Absent 'controllers' human beings don't suffer a single 'scarcity' crisis.
The fear campaigns are all herding tools.
Bruce is way to smart to believe otherwise.
Absent 'controllers' human beings don't suffer a single 'scarcity' crisis.
That is quite a naive statement. Left to ourselves, every one of us suffers from a scarcity crises. Think of everything you deal with / consume in your life, and how much of that is delivered by others. If those others weren't there, producing what you consume, you would not have quite the quality of life you now have.
Specialization among humans is what allows us to enjoy things we cannot get or produce by ourselves. And history has demonstrated that groups of people will not work toward a common objective (specialization) without some sort of controller planning and managing the work. Controllers are necessary in order for us to have specialization. And specialization is necessary in order for us to have more than what we could produce by ourselves.
Having said that, I do understand that some scarcities are manufactured.
RichardP:
Surplus can be manufactured as well. I'm open to be proven wrong on this, however my (minimally) researched look into the population 'problem' asserts that the entire global population could be situated within the State of Texas at the same density as found within the city of New York. I do understand that at some point 'we' would obviously have a human population that exceeds the planets ability to sustain. I do not believe that we are at, or even near that point today.
I suspect that 'scarcity' memes are largely just fear campaigns by elitist desiring to 'herd' humanity toward behavior that the elite intend to profit from.
Think SIMS.
And yes, I have a problem with authoritie.
I suspect that 'scarcity' memes are largely just fear campaigns by elitist desiring to 'herd' humanity toward behavior that the elite intend to profit from.
Getting the thing that is needed to the place that it is needed requires production and delivery. We can have problems with production and/or problems with delivery. Problems with either production or delivery can create scarcity. And we can create surplus at one point by delivering too much to that one point with the offsetting result that we deliver too little to another point. These types of scarcities are all the natural outcomes of mismanagement, and are real. The claims of scarcity are not always simply fear campaigns by elitists.
Yes - both scarcity and surplus can be "manufactured". Your point that I disagreed with because it is too simplistic is the claim that scarcities would not develop if the command and control structures of commerce were removed and people were left free to fend for themselves. Getting the thing that is needed to the place that it is needed usually requires some sort of command and control structure. If we can't get the thing that is needed to the place it is needed, scarcity is the result. And getting rid of the command and control structure is a good way to ensure that we won't get what is needed to the place that it is needed. Yet, I understand that command and control systems can be corrupt. Like I said, the problems of and solutions to scarcity are not simple.
People often confuse needs with wants. I need a fueled 10 mpg SUV and you want air to breathe, for example.
Specialization among humans is what allows us to enjoy things we cannot get or produce by ourselves.
__________________________________________
Pure non sense.
Specialization allows nothing like that.
Specializing in cropping wheat does not even mean you'll enjoy the wheat you crop.
So things others make...
Pure non sense. Specialization allows nothing like that.
Perhaps you don't understand the point. Do you create everything you consume (or use, or benefit from)? Do you earn money by creating a "product" that people other than yourself consume (or use, or benefit from)? If you consume (or use, or benefit from) things you don't produce yourself, then you've demonstrated that my point is not pure nonesense.
In China maybe thats true, but as screwed up as things are here in the land of "US Citizenism" if you grow wheat you can do as you please with it.
In your country it gets turned over to the party for distribution.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
by Albert A. Bartlett
http://jclahr.com/bartlett/population_problem.html
IS THERE A POPULATION PROBLEM?
My answer to the question is “YES” there is a problem. The scale of human
activities is now so large that we are appreciably affecting the climate
and ecosystems in the U.S. and the world.
The total impact of people on the environment is proportional to each of
two factors:
A) The number of people, and
B) The average impact of each person.
If we are to reduce the total impact of people on the global environment,
we must address the first, or preferably both, of these factors.
There are many strong forces that will cause continued growth of the
average impact of each person on the global environment. To the extent
that people in underdeveloped countries seek to increase their material
standard of living to levels more like ours, material consumption per
capita will grow. So we are left with the imperative of halting population
growth, and then of studying the question, “Can this stable population be
sustained?”
To gain a better appreciation of the seriousness of the problem, let us
review some very elementary arithmetic. Let us consider a quantity that is
experiencing steady growth at a rate such as 5% per year.
First we note that this growing quantity will double in size in a fixed
time. This doubling time is found by dividing 70 by the percent growth
per year. For example, the doubling time for a steady growth rate of 5%
per year is 70 / 5 = 14 years.
Second, we note that a few doublings can give enormous numbers. It is
convenient to remember that ten doublings causes the growing quantity to
increase in size by a factor of approximately 1000: twenty doublings will
cause an increase by a factor of 1,000,000, etc.
Let us look at some current approximate, data (1997).
United States World
Population 270 million 5700 million
Annual increase 3 million 90 million
Annual growth rate 1 % per year 1.6 % per year
Doubling Time 70 years 44 years
two factors:
A) The number of people, and
B) The average impact of each person.
______________________________________________
Made me laugh. Typical US citizenism. Dilution of responsibility, kicking the can.
It is stupid.
One can swap people.
What matters is the number of people with the largest impact. Those ones do not sway with the number of people with the smallest impact.
Actually, when one looks at things, US citizens hit the current situation by themselves, the addition by other people has to be neglected.
But hey, self indiction is a big thing in US citizenism, dont expect US citizens to stand up and to admit they are the root of the issue, not the amazonian jungle dweller.
Yes, let's "address" these factors rather than allowing the markets to work because people can't fucking think for themselves or make decisions based on real economic indicators.
Your free market can't discount 5 years into the future let alone the 50 needed to address the energy question...
Always funny how folks cite the exponential function, but completely forget to mention that world population growth has *started* to flatten out more than 10 years ago, so
1.) it's not a fluke
2.) world population will level off, it's just hard to tell if in 40 or 60 years (and thereby what the peak pop will be)
3.) and may I remember that flattening has not occurred due to mass starvation, new uncontrollable diseases, or similar
World population has nothing to do with the current situation.
The other US citizen confessed it carelessly.
If the other populations step up, then, so we have to limit the other populations.
That US citizen admitted that the current situation is the result of US citizens as the primary force of consumption. Adding will do no good. But it is necessary to withdraw where it originates from.
Status quo is not sustainable.
Take that Malthusian NWO crap and stuff it back up your ass.
overpopulation is transitory
With the water problems coming down the pike, Las Vegas is transitory as well.
I'll see your Vegas and raise you one Phoenix...
The US is in a very favorable position when it comes to water. There is adequate rainfall in most areas; the Great Lakes hold 22% of all fresh water. If water is to be the difference in history, then the USA will probably be the last country drinking.
Um, let's change that to "The US and Canada", shall we? If you look at the map, all that delicious fresh water in the great lakes is a shared commodity.
When you look north, it might be good to remember there is a whole other country up there. It's not just a blank spot on your map. There are people and trees and animals and everything - and we all drink water.
Yes, I'm sensitve.
Yeah but you've got icebergs too. You can just tow them into some harbor and have delicious, pure, industrial pollutant free water. If I were Canadian I would sell the Great Lakes water to the Americans to wash down their pink slime burgers with and keep the ancient pure iceberg water for your own use.
Interesting about icebergs and Glaciers. The cities of Quito Ecuador 2.5 M, Lima Peru 8+M Santiago Chile 8+ M are all fed by glacier water which is nearly gone (melting) and the headwaters of the Amazon river are in the Andes. Down stream from the Andes is Sao Paulo Brasil 25+M and BsAs Argentina 18+M plus many more 2-4 M cities.
Here in the U.S. with a water shortage projected for the Rockies, cities such as Las Vegas and Phoenix are or will be history just to name a few. Yea, we are going to have water problems right here in River City in the near future; and these places are not canidates for desaltinazion. Milestones
We actually have a local ice company called "Titanic". A little dark humour when you pick up a bag of cubes for a party. It's got a picture of the ship going down right on the packaging.
Al Gore says icebergs are a vanishing thing. Like his credibility.
Sorry if I offended any Canooks.Yes, the water is yours too. Canada has plenty of water, but you're fracking too.
"Re: water": I suspect it will be akin situation with pipeline from Alaska to mainland US during WW2. While Canadian debated should US be allowed to build it, Americans just built it. Same will be with water in the Great Lakes: few protests from the north, but Americans will do as they see fit.
Fracking. The water table is at risk, siesmic repercussions - it's scary. Guilty as charged.
Loose Caboose
Fucking Canadians come here and steal all our high paying entertainment jobs! Like we don't have an American Celine Dion who would work for half her pay?
We deserve their water because of Shatner and Akroyd!
I consider Celine Dion as an overt act of terrorism.
Well, I suppose we should apologize for Dion and Akroyd. But don't you be slagging Captain Kirk!
Jim Carrey may be President one day. Afterall, the guy is brilliant at impersonations. He has no core. He can be anybody. A true puppet ripe for picking. They can photoshop a birth certificate - I think he was adopted from Idaho or something.
Canadians - we're everywhere.
Surprisingly, Reveen is not Canadian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IThsYOM2y10
Loose Caboose
Goddamnit Bif Naked what are you doing here?
Jim Carey is a Canadian, K.D Lang is a Canadian, Martin Short is a Canadian, Predare Trudeau, is a Canadian, Micheal.J.Fox is a Canadian, Lesley Nealson is a Canadian, Shannon Tweed is a Canadian, huuuuh, MAC make-up is a Canadian, Linda Evangelista is a Canadian. NnnNeail Young is a Canadian, Brain Adams is a Canadian, Sharon Breaneau is a Canadian, Wayne Gretzy is a Canadian, Irvin Layton is a Canadian, Ferusa Bulk is a Canadian, Mike Myers is a Canadian, Yasmine Gallowry is a Canadian, Shalom Harlow is a Canadian, DICK ass man is a Canadian, Celine Deon is a Canadian, Sabastion Botch is a Canadian, Kella Furr is a Canadian, Paul Shafer is a Canadian, Peter Jennings is a Canadian, Alex Treveck is a Canadian, Monty Hall is a Canadian, Shynia Twain is a Canadian, Rick Moranis is a Canadian, Keanu Reeves is a Canadian, Pamela Anderson is a Canadian, and me, and you
Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen & Gordon Lightfoot - more Canadians!
would that I was Canadian too. . .
So was jennifer granholm....which worked out swell for Michigan as they were positively entertained during her reign as governor.
I just had a steak and egg sandwich. That pink slime was fucking delicious. My bowel movement was a little saturated though. Like my friend Papillion once said, "Im still here you bastards"
The world is full of water. All you have to do is get the salt out. It is called de-salinization. You just have to distill sea water. The navy has been using it on their ships for decades. In a worst case scenario, we could have desalinization plants on both sides(three sides) of the country. Build pipelines to deliver it to the center of the country.
Personally I think the water crisis is just another scare tactic.
Yes... could you remind us of the energy requirements and infrastructure to desalinate enough water for a city of 10 million or so? Let alone 1/2 a continent....
We already have a global system that does this. The sun provides this energy. It causes the water to evaporate from the oceans, lakes, etc. This process purifies the water which is carried in the clouds (amazingly retained by a force called gravity that we don't completely understand), rains down upon the land where it is used by the people..it eventually flows into the rivers and streams..back to the oceans..where the process starts all over again. There are also huge underground cistern systems to provide backup storage. These cisterns have gigantic limestone filters with complex chemical and bacterial filters and other mechanisims to remove pollutants which we still don't completely understand. Why not give the creator some praise.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:44-48&version=KJV
Are you a good person? Take the test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb-uKgBirIU
It can be a simple, cheap process at the individual level with an evaporation technique
"The current method used for desalianization is the only possible method."
Errr... Nope! http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-17/slime-and-water#comment-...
I'm sure it's a bunch.
It's expensive, but desalination has finally arrived for drought-stricken London.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114832/Desalination-plant-provide-million-people-water-taken-River-Thames-drought-hits.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Upon further research I found that Slewie the pi-rat has all the answers. Seems like my answer was wrong- its not a bunch.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26916/page2/
Any commercial demonstrations...
You've been here almost two years and you're still a dumb fuck?
WOW
Yep... been here 2 years and have chewed up and spit out shit heads like you by the dozen...
Wonder why?
So show me a plan that gets an unproven technology providing 20% of human power requiremnets within 50 years....
Here's a proven one: Thorium, you stupid, stupid asshole.
Go fuck yourself.
LMAO....
What fraction of world electricity is from a thorium based reactor?
What fraction in 5 years? 10 years?
Were there any commercial demonstrations of the diesel engine in 1890?
According the you, if it hasn't already been commercially exploited, then it isn't commercially possible.
Where do you claim to have received your Phd in physics, Bernadean University in Van Nuys?