Sociobiology wrote:Meryuma wrote:
If we base everything around silk, then what's going to stop us from over-harvesting and driving silkworms to extinction? Not very sustainable? And how will we fuel the vehicles to transport the silk?
You have a very narrow way of looking at sustainability issues.
1. Go back to my comments on the Fischer-Tropsch process.
2. I never said those things "cannot be built", or that we "cannot make hydrogen". And what do you mean by "hydrogen, not hydrocarbon"? Genuine question BTW.
3. You don't have to prove a negative. However, you do have to prove why methane would overcome the general problems with renewable energy I've outlined.
you do realize we don't use wild silk worms, we breed them, its like saying we are going to over harvest potatoes to make fries.
you power the transport with electric, hydrogen, fungal diesel, methane, ect.
I have just gone through every post you have made here, the closest you came to addressing diesel was the un-sourced claim that fungal diesel requires diesel to make (false) and that transportation requires oil again with no source, and I have shown how this is false aswell.
you never mentioned methane, and methane was extracted by the ancient Chinese and requires no oil products, and can be harvested from dozens of highly varied sources from old garbage dumps to livestock, to abandoned coal mines.
I never mentioned the Fischer-Tropsch process nor am I referring to its use, we have biological means to produce these things, you might want to go back and read my posts.
I refer to hydrogen because your continued assertion that oil is needed to make hydrogen could only come from a misunderstanding of the difference between hydrogen and hydro-carbons, since how hydrogen is produced has been explained multiple times.
you DO have to prove an negative WHEN you are claiming a negative when proof of the positive is given and scientifically acceptable, for instance you would have to prove the negative claim that the earth does not orbit the sun.
and again your assertion that oil based fuel is required to build nuclear ad solar plants has been refuted, so what other reasons do you offer that they cannot replace coal.
1. You can overconsume farmed animals, you know. You can also destroy forests, etc. to build farms.
2. Did I ever claim fungal diesel requires diesel to make?
3. I never claimed that transportation necessarily, directly requires oil.
4. Can you point to a place where the production of hydrogen is explained?
5. Is methane renewable? How is it extracted? Can it make up for what currently requires oil?
6. Where was my statement about nuclear and solar refuted?