Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
>In article <UeqdM.536321$Sgyc.318200@fx40.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
>>>In article <ef644585-a589-4ba8-94a7-434045ea2fffn@googlegroups.com>,
>>>Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Thorium is unproven commercially
>>>
>>>But a number of demonstration reactors have been built.
>>
>>Can you actually point to more than the experimental
>>operations at various national labs and the two small
>>research reactors in India?
>>
>>And most of those were built in the early 1960s and
>>shut down within the decade.
>
>Five seconds of Google...
>
>https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

A very optimistic view of a potential future. It doesn't
describe any existing thorium based commercial reactors, nor
are any current in the planning stage to be built (other than
the Indian ones referred to above).

Some quotes from the article:

"Thorium fuels can be designed for both \u2018pebble bed\u2019 and \u2018prismatic\u2019
types of HTR reactors."

"So it is possible, for example, to design thorium-plutonium BWR fuels that are tailored for
\u2018burning\u2019 surplus plutonium"

"They are a viable early-entry thorium platform."

"These reactors are still at the design stage but are likely to be very well suited for
using thorium as a fuel."

"The sub-critical ADS system is an unconventional nuclear fission energy concept
that is potentially \u2018thorium capable\u2019."

"A key finding from thorium fuel studies to date is that it is not economically viable to
use low-enriched uranium (LEU \u2013 with a U-235 content of up to 20%) as a
fissile driver with thorium fuels,"

The remaining portions of the article enumerate the experimental reactors
I referred to above.

And concludes with

"A great deal of testing, analysis and licensing and qualification
work is required before any thorium fuel can enter into service. This
is expensive and will not eventuate without a clear business case and
government support. Also, uranium is abundant and cheap and forms only
a small part of the cost of nuclear electricity generation, so there
are no real incentives for investment in a new fuel type that may
save uranium resources."

"Other impediments to the development of thorium fuel cycle are the
higher cost of fuel fabrication and the cost of reprocessing to
provide the fissile plutonium driver material. "

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 05:27:21 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>In article <ead0f4c6-9a6e-46f4-845c-8907a40ffaaan@googlegroups.com>,
>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>I think that it's going to be very difficult to sell people on switching to a
>>lifestyle that uses less energy. So it makes sense to switch to carbon-free
>>energy urgently, and thus have *more time* to accomplish the much more
>>difficult component of the task.
>
>It's going to be an especially hard sell to convince people they need
>to be poor while the people telling them they need to be poor are
>very conspicuously not-poor. (Thinking about all the glitterati flying
>individually in their private jets to conferences about shutting down
>energy generation for everyone else.)

Which, in a nutshell, is why these pie-in-the-sky plans always fail.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <46ce2ec7-3cc8-4748-a5b2-b451bdd39411n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>I tend to be suspicious of things like super capacitors or super flywheels
>improving on batteries to power electric cars. I will believe those when they
>actually work in practice, because they require orders of magnitude
>improvements to things we have.

(Hal Heydt)
A UK company called RiverSimple has been working on a fuel
cell/supercap "town" car for some years. They've built some
working versions, last I looked at them.

The supercaps are for storing regenerative braking energy and
providing surge power for acceleration.

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:27:25 PM UTC-6, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <ead0f4c6-9a6e-46f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >I think that it's going to be very difficult to sell people on switching to a
> >lifestyle that uses less energy. So it makes sense to switch to carbon-free
> >energy urgently, and thus have *more time* to accomplish the much more
> >difficult component of the task.

> It's going to be an especially hard sell to convince people they need
> to be poor while the people telling them they need to be poor are
> very conspicuously not-poor. (Thinking about all the glitterati flying
> individually in their private jets to conferences about shutting down
> energy generation for everyone else.)

While there is definitely some truth to that, I tend not to go there
because that's usually the kind of politics dragged up by those who
are completely opposed to doing anything to move away from fossil
fuels. But someone does have to tell the Ted Kennedy liberals not to
do the sort of dumb things that make it easier for guys like Trump.

John Savard

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:35:09 AM UTC-4, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <7bee6207-77e8-4ead...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ross Presser <rpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:48:13 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >
> >> And here are the players, with analysis of the potental
> >> energy provided by each:
> >>
> >> Chapter 10: Renewable overview
> >> https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#page=182
> >
> >OTEC is missing from the report.
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
> >
> >I think it would be classed as both "alternative" and "renewable" since it relies on sun-powered
> >ocean heating. However, the small number of projects in action would seem to say it's impractical.
> I think I recall there were some issues with fouling by
> marine organisms.

Long ago, in a grad school course, we were asked to evaluate OTEC . This
was an exercise to see what we could do with the information provided,
of course. Not a serious study of OTEC

My equations seemed to show that it would not work (not that that means anything
at this point). What amused me, though, is that the professor, who was
big in international science organization, asked if he could keep my solution.
This was probably because I used some unusual mathematics for this field
(IIRC calculus of variations) not because it was terribly convincing.

But a few months later one of the organizations with which he was associated
gave a negative review of OTEC. A coincidence but a funny one.

At scale, creating ocean circulation from
> the depths back up to the surface, bringing up nutrients
> currently lost to the biosphere, would have some effect.
> Arguably beneficial effect,

It's just too complex to be "arguably" anything.

but the "No! Nature is perfect!
> You can't change *anything*!" folks would have connniptions.

Remember when "SSTs are destroying the ozone" was a rallying cry?

At the time we knew of three chemical reactions that took place in the
stratosphere. Thanks to the above money flooded into atmospheric
chemistry and five years later we knew of 170 reactions - and also that
SSTs had little effect on ozone. The real threat lay elsewhere.

And compared to the oceanic mixed layer, the stratosphere is simple.

William Hyde

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:40:27 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:35:09 PM UTC-6, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
> > I'm not forgetting "It would be nothing short of disastrous if
> > we were ever to discover a source of cheap, clean, abundant
> > energy." I'm also not forgetting Paul Ehrlich's editoral
> > in the San Francisco Chronicle (I think; one of the Bay Area
> > newspapers, anyway) when it looked like Pons and Fleishmann
> > had really discovered something, that the discovery was a
> > catastrophe, "like giving a machine gun to a retarded child."
> > (His words.)
> >
> > Whatever the energy source, whatever its characteristics,
> > if it's sufficient to power industrial civilization, the
> > core of "the movement" will find or manufacture some reason
> > to oppose it.
> Yes. Of course, though, James Nicoll pointed out one valid
> argument for that kind of reasoning: with exponential growth,
> eventually our energy use would warm the planet directly in
> an unacceptable manner without help from the greenhouse
> effect.

It required an absolutely huge increase in energy consumption though so not something we need to worry about for a long time.
>
> And population growth, and various human activities facilitated
> by abundant energy would, of course, have negative environmental
> effects.

Population growth isn't a huge concern currently
and with the types of generation we're looking at to reduce pollution (and the impact on climate) they can have significant improvements in environmental impact over the current situation (wood burning stoves, charcoal heating etc all have impacts on the environment in terms of air quality and sourcing the fuel)

>
> The bulk of the people in the ecology movement do have an agenda.
>
> One of the parts of that agenda is that they're anti-war,

anybody who's not anti-war is an idiot
Nobody should be pro-war or neutral about it

How best to avoid wars and what to do about them is open to question.

>so they don't
> believe we really need lots and lots of heavy industry to be able
> to defend ourselves from Russia and China and so on. As long as
> they stick to an agenda so obviously out of sync with reality,

coming from the vatgirl evangelist that's a laugh

> of course
> their movement is going to be a non-starter politically.
>
> But that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic global warming
> is both a scientific fact and a serious menace. If doing things their
> way won't help, we have to find another way.

On 6/1/2023 6:59 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:40:27 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:35:09 PM UTC-6, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not forgetting "It would be nothing short of disastrous if
>>> we were ever to discover a source of cheap, clean, abundant
>>> energy." I'm also not forgetting Paul Ehrlich's editoral
>>> in the San Francisco Chronicle (I think; one of the Bay Area
>>> newspapers, anyway) when it looked like Pons and Fleishmann
>>> had really discovered something, that the discovery was a
>>> catastrophe, "like giving a machine gun to a retarded child."
>>> (His words.)
>>>
>>> Whatever the energy source, whatever its characteristics,
>>> if it's sufficient to power industrial civilization, the
>>> core of "the movement" will find or manufacture some reason
>>> to oppose it.
>> Yes. Of course, though, James Nicoll pointed out one valid
>> argument for that kind of reasoning: with exponential growth,
>> eventually our energy use would warm the planet directly in
>> an unacceptable manner without help from the greenhouse
>> effect.
>
> It required an absolutely huge increase in energy consumption though so not something we need to worry about for a long time.
>>
>> And population growth, and various human activities facilitated
>> by abundant energy would, of course, have negative environmental
>> effects.
>
> Population growth isn't a huge concern currently
> and with the types of generation we're looking at to reduce pollution (and the impact on climate) they can have significant improvements in environmental impact over the current situation (wood burning stoves, charcoal heating etc all have impacts on the environment in terms of air quality and sourcing the fuel)
>
>>
>> The bulk of the people in the ecology movement do have an agenda.
>>
>> One of the parts of that agenda is that they're anti-war,
>
> anybody who's not anti-war is an idiot
> Nobody should be pro-war or neutral about it
>
> How best to avoid wars and what to do about them is open to question.
>
More energy supplies is generally considered one way....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 3:27:25 PM UTC+10, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <ead0f4c6-9a6e-46f4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >I think that it's going to be very difficult to sell people on switching to a
> >lifestyle that uses less energy. So it makes sense to switch to carbon-free
> >energy urgently, and thus have *more time* to accomplish the much more
> >difficult component of the task.
> It's going to be an especially hard sell to convince people they need
> to be poor

It's a bullshit argument
We aren't in a situation where we need to reduce energy consumption due to waste heat and, if we ever approach a situation where we do, we should be so energy rich we could synthesise fuel to get to the moon, hollow it out and use it for a lot of the production, or move some asteroids to closer orbits use them
We can improve the efficiency of various tasks (reverse cycle air conditioners for heating, improved building design for thermal efficiency etc) but it's not a "reduce energy usage or die" situation
(Yes, there are legitimate questions of where we should put new generation & transmission but that's also true about coal or gas generators, not to mention coal mines and fracking)

There are also legitimate questions about how we make living better for people in all sorts of areas as well, suburban sprawl vs higher density living, car focused cities versus improved public transport more support for walking and cycling but we don't need answers for them to address carbon emissions

>while the people telling them they need to be poor are
> very conspicuously not-poor. (Thinking about all the glitterati flying
> individually in their private jets to conferences about shutting down
> energy generation for everyone else.)

"Shutting down energy generation" is not the aim of the vast majority of people arguing we need to stop emissions, focusing on that means you ignore the vast majority of discussion which gives vastly more practical approaches to the problem.

And, seeing as the entire air travel industry emits about 2.4% of CO2 emissions, a few people taking private jets to events is completely insignificant in real terms, but it does give the people who want to keep with the status quo something to jabber about while they ignore the actual arguments

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:40:27=E2=80=AFPM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 11:35:09=E2=80=AFPM UTC-6, Mike Van Pelt wr=
>ote:=20
>>=20
>> > I'm not forgetting "It would be nothing short of disastrous if=20
>> > we were ever to discover a source of cheap, clean, abundant=20
>> > energy." I'm also not forgetting Paul Ehrlich's editoral=20
>> > in the San Francisco Chronicle (I think; one of the Bay Area=20
>> > newspapers, anyway) when it looked like Pons and Fleishmann=20
>> > had really discovered something, that the discovery was a=20
>> > catastrophe, "like giving a machine gun to a retarded child."=20
>> > (His words.)=20
>> >=20
>> > Whatever the energy source, whatever its characteristics,=20
>> > if it's sufficient to power industrial civilization, the=20
>> > core of "the movement" will find or manufacture some reason=20
>> > to oppose it.
>> Yes. Of course, though, James Nicoll pointed out one valid=20
>> argument for that kind of reasoning: with exponential growth,=20
>> eventually our energy use would warm the planet directly in=20
>> an unacceptable manner without help from the greenhouse=20
>> effect.=20
>
>It required an absolutely huge increase in energy consumption though so not=
> something we need to worry about for a long time.

300 years or thereabouts if the growth rate of the last century
continues.

>>=20
>> And population growth, and various human activities facilitated=20
>> by abundant energy would, of course, have negative environmental=20
>> effects.=20
>
>Population growth isn't a huge concern currently

Consider if the rest of the world per-capita usage rate matches
same per-capita energy as the USA.... Even without population
growth (which is currently progged to reach 9billion).

On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>
> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>
> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> are limited in that area.
>
> John Savard

Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.

On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>
>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>
>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>> are limited in that area.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Narrator:  They could not in fact, achieve world peace.

I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
predator?

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>
> >>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> >>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> >>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> >>
> >> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> >> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> >> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
> >>
> >> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> >> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> >> are limited in that area.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> > Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
> predator?

Very few prey species would fit that either

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 12:53:27 AM UTC-4, Titus G wrote:
> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>
> >>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> >>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> >>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> >>
> >> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> >> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> >> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
> >>
> >> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> >> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> >> are limited in that area.
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> > Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
> predator?

Members of any species that can influence the breeding success of
others of its own species will attempt to manipulate the situation to pass along
their own genes preferentially. Fighting over mates, territories, etc, all are part of
this.

Perhaps shellfish don't compete.

pt

On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>>
>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>
>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
>> predator?
>
> Very few prey species would fit that either

In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
herbivores.

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
> >> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> >>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> >>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> >>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> >>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> >>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> >>>> are limited in that area.
> >>>>
> >>>> John Savard
> >>>
> >>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
> >> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
> >> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
> >> predator?
> >
> > Very few prey species would fit that either
> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
> herbivores.

We're omnivores

On 7/11/2023 6:30 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>
>>>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
>>>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
>>>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
>>>> predator?
>>>
>>> Very few prey species would fit that either
>> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
>> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
>> herbivores.
>
> We're omnivores

I think he's referring more the things like hippos kill more people in
Africa than any other animal....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/07/23 16:43, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 7/11/2023 6:30 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
>>>>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.

>>>>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say
>>>>> that
>>>>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
>>>>> predator?
>>>>
>>>> Very few prey species would fit that either
>>> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
>>> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
>>> herbivores.
>>
>> We're omnivores
>
> I think he's referring more the things like hippos kill more people in
> Africa than any other animal....

My vague hypothesis was that the only species that lives in peace with
itself are prey. "Do hippos form groups that attack other groups of
hippos?" should be the question rather than references to squashing
insignificant annoyances such as ants or humans.

On 12/07/2023 11:30, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>>>>>> are limited in that area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>
>>>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
>>>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
>>>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
>>>> predator?
>>>
>>> Very few prey species would fit that either
>> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
>> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
>> herbivores.
>
> We're omnivores

No, we're a modified carnivore, our gut is juuust long enough to digest
plants.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Wednesday, 12 July 2023 at 06:05:22 UTC+1, Titus G wrote:
> On 12/07/23 16:43, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 7/11/2023 6:30 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> >>>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> >>>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> >>>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> >>>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> >>>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> >>>>>>> are limited in that area.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John Savard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
>
> >>>>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
> >>>>> predator?
> >>>>
> >>>> Very few prey species would fit that either
> >>> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
> >>> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
> >>> herbivores.
> >>
> >> We're omnivores
> >
> > I think he's referring more the things like hippos kill more people in
> > Africa than any other animal....
> My vague hypothesis was that the only species that lives in peace with
> itself are prey. "Do hippos form groups that attack other groups of
> hippos?" should be the question rather than references to squashing
> insignificant annoyances such as ants or humans.

Well, this about horse herd dynamics may be relevant.
<http://www.happy-horse-training.com/herd-dynamics.html>

Specifically:
There is one male leader, a stallion, in the herd.
A young mature male, a colt, is made to leave
the herd.

This seems to imply that the rest of the herd is
female or not mature, and basically consists of
females following the male. The experience of the colt
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_(horse)>
may be this male group
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_herd>

The "Colt" article seems to imply that the male
aspires to - graduate? (B.Hay) - "to form their (his)
own herd of mares."

So, the behaviour of the herd is decided by the leader.

It doesn't seem that that can work with critters that
form herds of thousands, though. Do they perhaps
have multiple leaders and collective decision making?
Horses have a pecking order... not called that, I don't think...

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:14:08 AM UTC-4, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/07/2023 11:30, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27 PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
> >>>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22 AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
> >>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
> >>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
> >>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
> >>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
> >>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
> >>>>>> are limited in that area.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John Savard
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
> >>>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
> >>>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
> >>>> predator?
> >>>
> >>> Very few prey species would fit that either
> >> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
> >> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
> >> herbivores.
> >
> > We're omnivores
> No, we're a modified carnivore, our gut is juuust long enough to digest
> plants.

Cite? Many nominal herbivores will eat meat if its available, and many
nominal carnivores eat the stomach contents of killed herbivores.

Carnivore/Omnivore/Herbivore aren't divided by sharp bright lines.

Where, along the evolutionary path, were our ancestors primarily
carnivores?

As for our guts, the other great apes have bigger ones than ours,
which helps with their digestion of leaves.

I understand that the big thing the allowed our guts to shrink
(not expand) is cooking - that breaks down the food enough to
let us digest it more easily.

pt

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:36:34 PM UTC+10, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I understand that the big thing the allowed our guts to shrink
> (not expand) is cooking - that breaks down the food enough to
> let us digest it more easily.

I find my gut expanding more than shrinking now and good cooking (so not mine) helps that

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 05:36:31 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 6:14:08?AM UTC-4, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/07/2023 11:30, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:09:41?AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:
>> >> On 2023-07-11 12:23 a.m., Hamish Laws wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 2:53:27?PM UTC+10, Titus G wrote:
>> >>>> On 11/07/23 04:24, David Johnston wrote:
>> >>>>> On 2023-05-29 9:19 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:38:22?AM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Aw, you're just saying that because you cannot see how the Market
>> >>>>>>> can facilitate living on an Earth that is an incandescent ball of
>> >>>>>>> molten magma, whereas I know the answer is blockchain.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Spot-on satire of one point of view. But unlike disaster from the
>> >>>>>> greenhouse effect, I think that one is sufficiently far enough away
>> >>>>>> that it has not yet become a serious concern.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If we can achieve world peace, then we can make a serious start
>> >>>>>> on decreasing our total energy use. Until that is done, our options
>> >>>>>> are limited in that area.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> John Savard
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Narrator: They could not in fact, achieve world peace.
>> >>>> I haven't thought about this really but would it be correct to say that
>> >>>> the only species that lives in peace with itself are prey rather than
>> >>>> predator?
>> >>>
>> >>> Very few prey species would fit that either
>> >> In fact claiming that herbivores are peaceful is one of my science
>> >> fiction pet peeves. The most dangerous animals in the world are
>> >> herbivores.
>> >
>> > We're omnivores
>> No, we're a modified carnivore, our gut is juuust long enough to digest
>> plants.
>
>Cite? Many nominal herbivores will eat meat if its available, and many
>nominal carnivores eat the stomach contents of killed herbivores.
>
>Carnivore/Omnivore/Herbivore aren't divided by sharp bright lines.
>
>Where, along the evolutionary path, were our ancestors primarily
>carnivores?
>
>As for our guts, the other great apes have bigger ones than ours,
>which helps with their digestion of leaves.
>
>I understand that the big thing the allowed our guts to shrink
>(not expand) is cooking - that breaks down the food enough to
>let us digest it more easily.

Hippocrates, IIRC, credited the person who discovered cooking to be
the first physician, for that very reason -- cooked food is easier to
digest. Which avoids certain illnesses.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."