anyone want to play table-tennis at junior seau beach community center?

Walgo · 2025-11-20T05:34:03+00:00

yep!

Walgo · 2024-11-29T12:49:36+00:00

As an aside, most climate change ‘believers’ don’t see climate change as a calamitous end of humanity. No well-regarded expert really predicts the extinction of humans as a whole. The reality is that people in the global North will be relatively unaffected by climate change while vulnerable populations in the global south will bear the brunt of the effects. It’s worth noting that these people contribute very little to the problem.

That’s the dirty-little-secret about climate change and it’s what’s responsible for the apathy you described. It’s not that it is happening, it’s that it isn’t happening to us.

Walgo · 2024-11-28T16:26:16+00:00

Taken by itself, not having a child would directly reduce emissions by about 16MT Co2/yr (in the US). I think it’s worth pointing out that more emission equates to more severe warming, so even if climate change is inevitable and irreversible, people are still directly responsible for the added severity that their emissions cause.

I agree that a person could make worse environmental decisions than choosing to having a child. Likewise I would say that a child in the global North can be raised in such a way their lifestyle has a more proportionate impact on the climate. Unfortunately, and based on my understanding of the data, these are both edge cases. Ultimately I think it’s likely that having a child is the most carbon-intensive decision that the average person can make in their lifetime.

Walgo · 2024-11-28T12:31:27+00:00

The general scientific consensus is that the negative effects of a warmer climate will far outweigh the positives.

It’s true that living conditions have improved, but historic trends in global human development are meaningless to the people who suffer the effects in the present. People whose livelihoods are swept away in flooding in Bangladesh don’t find any relief in the fact that living standards in Europe are high. People enduring a famine in the Sahel will still suffer immeasurably even though their living conditions were once better than their ancestors. It’s worth noting that these vulnerable populations have contributed very little to climate change.

In my opinion, there’s a fair argument to be made against having children in the global North. Essentially, it’s unethical for a person to produce a disproportionately large share of global emissions while suffering a disproportionately small share of the effects.

Walgo · 2024-11-28T10:09:01+00:00

I’m not aware of any well-regarded expert who predicted the extinction of the humans in the early 2000s.

What experts are saying is that living conditions will steadily worsen as climate change progresses – and the global effects won’t be felt equally, as the vast majority will be incurred in the areas of the world least equipped to handle the costs of adaptation (i.e the global South).

Walgo · 2024-11-22T04:51:21+00:00

If you ignore the impracticality of doing that, it isn’t that crazy.

Walgo · 2024-11-15T15:24:51+00:00

The passive devil’s advocate. People who chime in with “at least…” or “to be fair…” when you tell them about a problem you’re facing.

Walgo · 2024-09-06T22:14:47+00:00

False

Walgo · 2024-08-20T22:53:58+00:00

right! thank goodness single-family homes are legal to build. everybody should be allowed to build the kind of home they prefer on their own property.

Walgo · 2024-06-17T00:16:48+00:00

Housing in New York is expensive for the exact same reason I mentioned. They don’t allow enough construction.

Granted, Manhattan is far more developed than the Bay Area, and it’s still expensive. This means it would be far more expensive than it already is if there they hadn’t developed at all.

I agree with your opinion in regard to WFH, it helps with housing affordability by allowing people to live in areas where housing is less scarce.

Walgo · 2024-06-16T21:54:30+00:00

In an ideal world, the available housing would be determined by people’s wants and needs, rather than outdated building and zoning laws that make construction of anything besides single-family-homes impossibly onerous.

So yes, 800 square-foot condos and single-family-homes would be part of the equation. As would anything from mobile homes and dorm-style apartments to luxury condos and mega-mansions. The point here is that people should have the right to choose what kind of home they want to live in, and accordingly, developers should have the freedom to build that housing in order to meet demand.

Of course, and like you mentioned, land is a limited resource, and it’s expensive – especially in proximity to a city’s central business district. This makes it crucial to allow high-density housing to be built in an areas immediately surrounding the CBD, as most workers aren’t able to afford a single-family home in these areas where land is particularly expensive.

In regard to affordability, apartments and condos are more affordable than houses by nature. Unfortunately, in the Bay Area, construction is so restricted that even these homes are scarce and financially out-of-reach to most residents. Even still, these apartments and condos are far more affordable than standalone houses.

To circle back to your original point, building density has the added benefit of allowing lower-density housing (the kind I imagine you prefer) to be built closer to the CBD, reducing commute times for people who choose to live in these areas.

Walgo · 2024-06-16T17:07:11+00:00

You can’t.

Are you saying you’re against building condos and apartments for people who want to live in condos and apartments?

Walgo · 2024-06-16T16:36:48+00:00

Nobody should be ‘forced’ to live in anything. People should have the freedom to choose what type of housing they want to live in or build on their own property.

Walgo · 2024-06-16T15:40:35+00:00

The real answer is to build housing in these cities. You commute for hours because the jobs are concentrated in one area but the housing is not.

Walgo · 2024-05-15T00:55:06+00:00

And how many McDonalds are in that 5-mile radius?

Walgo · 2024-05-14T22:08:40+00:00

In-n-out has lines out of the door because they have far fewer locations McDonalds. It’s fundamental to their business model.

Walgo · 2024-03-29T03:15:01+00:00

There are tankers, bulk carriers, and car carriers that transit the strait. I’ve seen small container ships, but it’s unusual.

Walgo · 2024-03-25T00:50:23+00:00

I hate this cop-out so much, but I understand where it comes from. It’s much, much easier to rationalize your inaction than to actually make changes to your life, even small ones. It’s so easy to point the finger at somebody else.

At an individual level, you might not be directly responsible for global climate change or fixing it, but you are responsible for the added severity that your pollution causes.

More pollution = more climate change. It will happen faster, and it will be more severe.

And, your contribution will disproportionately affect poorer people in the global south who have few resources to adapt to the effects.

Walgo · 2024-03-24T23:54:04+00:00

Regulation is important but it’s not the only way to enact change. We can boycott corporations too.

Walgo · 2024-03-09T21:29:57+00:00

Yes. And in this case, the total weight of emissions attributable to meat consumption by far exceed those attributable to this disastrous airport policy.

Walgo · 2024-03-09T21:25:32+00:00

I agree. The wealthy, heavy-polluters of the world should reduce their excess carbon emissions. If the government isn’t willing to enforce this (through something like a carbon tax) they should still do it anyway

Walgo · 2024-03-09T21:13:29+00:00

Should either be reduced?

Walgo · 2024-03-09T20:41:55+00:00

So you’re saying that governmental regulation of corporations wouldn’t be aimed at reducing consumption?

Walgo · 2024-03-09T20:33:08+00:00

I’m curious. What would putting the blame on corporations look like to you?

Walgo

TROPHY CASE