I'm very uneasy about us collectively seeking longer lifespans. Earth is already supporting more people than is sustainable. Living longer robs someone else of an opportunity to live, or a shorter life. Over many generations we may be able to lower our birthrate to compensate, but I worry about happens in the meantime.
> Over many generations we may be able to lower our birthrate to compensate
We’ve gone—globally—from 5.3 births per woman in 1963 to 2.3 in 2022 [1]. 2.1 is replacement [2]. In the rich world, where longevity treatments will first become available, it’s 1.6 [3]. (3.3 in 1960.)
There are arguments against longer lifespans. Population growth is not one of them.
I don't argue for a second that our birthrate isn't dropping; it is. But we either haven't dropped it enough, or it's being offset by higher consumption. The overshoot day is now the 1st of August [1]. Until we push that back out to to a sustainable level, we haven't done enough.
To achieve that, I can only see a few classes of solution. We could reduce our per-capita consumption, our lifespan, or our number.
I'm assuming that the overshoot day is roughly correct. The details of exactly how much our birthrate has dropped or by how much our consumption has increased isn't important to know that there is a massive discrepancy between where we are and what is sustainable. Doing anything that increases that discrepancy is probably going to make it worse.
> We could reduce our per-capita consumption, our lifespan, or our number
What is your evidence for shorter lives promoting long-term thinking? Like, look at a map of life expectancy in America [1]. Is Mississippi the bastion of ecological awareness you’re looking for?
Number and per-capita impact are the important variables. Wealth reduces the former and exponentially increases the latter. Longevity reduces the former and linearly increases the latter. (Poverty and reduction in lifespan exponentially increase the former while linearly reducing the latter; you don’t worry about efficiency when you have a short, brutish life.)
> looking at it in the other direction; that long-term thinking might result in shorter lives
Based on what? Increasing lifespan reduces fertility [1]. This is empirically and theoretically grounded. Older populations shrink [2]. Your proposal, shortening lives, is one for boosting populations and consumption.
All that said, this debate is academic. If longevity treatment is possible, we will develop it, and the population can sort itself into those who live longer and those who don’t.
What value do you get out of believing in Earth Overshoot Day? Does it provide real, actionable utility? Does such a belief instill good feelings?
If I had to guess: it tickles the reward pathways in your brain, connected to your survival instinct to be aware of possible threats, whether real or (as I would argue is the case here) imagined. I would doubt there's anything you plan to personally do about Earth Overshoot Day, and I doubt thinking about it instills positive feelings. It's doom porn.
What makes you think we're supporting more than is sustainable?
Though I don't think we desperately need to make more people, as some people think we do, I also don't think we need to restrict lifespan progression.
When I look at sustainability of the planet I consider
1) significant portions of the population are obese, and these numbers continue to trend higher. This suggests that we have an abundance of calories available to support more people. We have too much food.
2) water, and particularly fresh water is probably the most restrictive element we require. But I don't think we are restricted by a lack of water, we are restricted by a lack of clean water in the right geographic regions, and of course, the damage that we have caused to the supply. However, we are generating methods of creating fresh water.
3) energy may be the last resource, and particularly that major portions of our current energy needs are provided by damaging and non-sustainable methods. This doesn't mean we need to pause longevity potential, we need to find clean methods of producing energy, which is, and has been in development for a long time.
Is there something else big that I'm missing here?
> Earth is already supporting more people than is sustainable.
By what metric? If it's a matter of available land, there's plenty to go around: open Google Maps, turn on satellite imagery, center the map on Arizona, USA and zoom in. Absolutely nothing but interstate roads and bushes. No buildings, no people, no nothing.
"There are over 11 million blocks in the U.S., and 47 percent of them are uninhabited."
I think that both metric and imperial systems are good for woodworking but I think you need to adapt the way you think of measurements depending on which you choose.
I like that using imperial you have a hierarchy of measures: wholes, halves, quarters, eights, sixteenths. It's clear and precise. You know that if you needing to measure 16ths or 32ths things are getting weird.
With metric you have similar measures but the hierarchy isn't strongly defined: 100s of mm, 10s of mm, then maybe 5s of mm, and 2s of mms.
As far as dividing a meter into equal thirds, you wouldn't use a ruler to do that, or at least I wouldn't.
I like that you can fairly easily use the metric system to measure something that was that was made with imperial measures. You can't really say the same for the opposite without a bunch of estimates and holding unmemorable numbers.
What I do wonder is whether there is beauty in the ratios you naturally get from using imperial measures when furniture making or designing building façades.
Sorry, I didn't express that well. I guess in that specific case I would use a ruler.
Normally I would take measurements from my pre-existing pieces instead of the ruler. It's more accurate because it accommodates for any slight inaccuracies.
// beauty in the ratios // I've watched some youtube tutorials on how to use a speed-square for framing out a roof, and marveled at how perfectly that tool is fitted to the job. I know they make metric speed squares, but I've never seen a video from a European carpenter using one.
I sure have seen some beautiful homes made with either system, however!
I've been slowing learning the imperial measurement system and I would say that it's now natural to me in a very limited sense.
I grew up in Australia using the metric system. As a child, it was (and probably still is) common to throw around estimates in inches or yards, but anything precise was expressed in in mm or meters. So I've always had a sense of how big and inch or two is but like the presenter, for anything bigger I'd need to perform a quick conversions back to my natural metric measurements to understand what was meant.
I'm also a woodworker and use many vintage tools, produced before the world adopted metric. I decided long ago that I would these tools as they were designed to be used and not try to mess with metric, too.
At the time, I had no intuition at all about fractions of an inch. I didn't even know that 8ths and 16ths where how they were divided. I literally had no idea. I needed to pull out my maths brain to tell you whether 7/8 or 5/16 was bigger.
I used imperial measurements almost exclusively while woodworking in my shed. This was possible because I don't need to communicate measures to anyone other than myself. I also don't often need to take measurements of odd things that don't fall nicely onto an imperial ruler.
I'm now comfortable using inches for measuring things up to maybe 100" — I wonder if 100 is only an obvious stopping point because of my metric upbringing — I still have no concept of a mile or yard before converting to metric.
But I do still do use metric when I need a precise measure of something that can't be expressed easily in inches. So I'd use 12" rather than 304mm, but I'd use 300mm rather than 11 and whatever inches.
Also, it's made easier due to a lot of hangover in stock wood dimensions. It still comes in thicknesses that are more naturally expressed in inches, for example 19mm (3/4"), 25mm (1").
I've been working this way for about 10 years and can now think in inches without any conversion. I doubt I could flip all units of measure to imperial without changing the world I live in and the people I work with.
Dividing it by two gives you 3/8 rather than 9.5mm. Dividing it by 4 gives you 3/16 rather than 4.75mm. Both 3/8 and 3/16 are common sizes. You can drill holes cut grooves this size. You can use your 3/8 chisel to quickly find the centerline.
It's not like you can't do any of this with the metric system, but you'll either need to measure things more, or round things. Often rounding is fine, but to me it feels like a compromise that is born out of the measuring system; a compromise that isn't needed when using the imperial system.
It's like suddenly listening to an unfamiliar language.
"Dividing it by two gives you 3/8 rather than 9.5mm." - so? What's wrong with 9.5 mm? And what's going to happen when you divide by three, not two?
"It's not like you can't do any of this with the metric system, but you'll either need to measure things more, or round things." - won't you need to round things in any positional system when you divide in not a divider of the base of the system - that is, in imperial system the base is 2, and you have convenient halfs, quarters, eights... and in metric the base is 10 and it's convenient to divide by 2, 5 and all combinations of 2s and 5s - like 50 or even 125.
In your example, 3/4 is 0.75, and divided by 2 is 0.375, and for quick estimate for what it would be in inches you take an inch as 25 mm and go from it.
Don't see anything natural in one compared to the other.
As a number, well nothing. I'm not saying there are anything wrong with the numbers, I'm saying that with a standard set of imperial or metric tools, you're more likely to find your imperial tools working with with you.
> And what's going to happen when you divide by three, not two?
Well dividing by three will be 1/4". That's another common imperial size. But to answer the point I think you were trying to make, there are sometimes cases where it isn't natural — like dividing 3/4 by 5. In those cases you need to measure or pull out of divider. Your problems don't all disappear when using imperial but I find that more often the perfect dimension happens to be that of a commonly size tool.
> Don't see anything natural in one compared to the other.
I think you're arguing from the perspective of pure numbers verses the practicality of making something with tools that I own. If I was using CAD, it metric or imperial would make zero difference.
Actually, I take it back. As I said earlier, I mostly use vintage imperical hand tools. I've just been looking into modern metric tools and I'm finding that they're actually imperial, as in they come in sizes like 0.25"/3.2mm. So long as they're not rounding them to whole millimeters, they'll have the same ratio as the imperical tools.
I guess you can use whatever number system you care for.
> I'm bored with the tech stuff but nobody has ever offered me any other kind of work.
I recommend doing the work that you want (alongside your regular responsibilities) and if you're good at it the offers will follow. If you're not, you'll develop experience.
It's documented in Underground[1] that Spafford was the target of some crackers, eager to get info on the latest security vulrabilities; information that was difficult to obtain in the 80s. They intended to break into his computer and take it.
It's a wonderful book all about the hacking scene of 80s and early 90s. It covers a young Julian Assange, but that's not why you should read it.
Today I learnt that salt raises the boiling temperature of water. I knew it lowered the freezing point but I never considered it might also change the boiling point.
"So yes, salt increases the boiling temperature, but not by very much. If you add 20 grams of salt to five litres of water, instead of boiling at 100° C, it’ll boil at 100.04° C."
This property is really helpful in making eggs using microwave. Take a mug of water, add salt, crack an egg and pour it in. Stick this in the microwave, the egg gets boiled perfectly, because the salt slows down the boiling point.
https://github.com/BuGlessRB/procmail/releases/tag/v3.24