Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. Ah, the irony of the post clearly flew over my head! (point 10 notwithstanding )
  2. Seems to be less than people were expecting. Maybe 25 years is pushing it a bit but there's plenty of evidence that battery degradation is less of an issue than originally thought. Over-computerised might be an issue.
  3. If you can afford that £10k additional up-front cost, yes. For most people the up-front cost of electric cars puts them out of their reach, although I'll be very surprised if the situation doesn't change fairly rapidly, particularly once a half decent second hand supply starts to appear.
  4. Not by me. "Massive housebuilding" paints a pretty bleak picture of the future, so that's an immediate no. Massive suppression of artificial demand for housing, a goal of getting towards managed population decline, and then a one-off limited building programme if still needed to supply enough homes with the goal that that's it, not a constant expansion of development, those are goals that I could vote for. Although I'd need to scrutinise the means by which it's hoped they'll be achieved first too. How are you going to be strict on immigration and generous to asylum seekers?
  5. It's really quite disturbing how many of them believe they've got some moral high ground yet use the sorts of arguments that people once used to argue against ending slavery. There will be problems when a rug for keeping wages suppressed is pulled from out under their feet (although as has been pointed out there are many more significant incidental reasons for this); labour shortages ultimately benefit the poor, but they'd rather have the poor stay poor than have to pay a bit more for their food. The transition is inevitably problematic because a short-termist, lowest possible price economy won't make the necessary adjustments until circumstances force it to, so issues like pay, training, and conditions will inevitably lag change and make things difficult in the short term. Arguing for cheaper labour gives a very distasteful impression of the person making the argument.
  6. The overall global risk per individual in the latter case is much higher though (because in the first case it's zero for the majority of the population). I'm asking because I've had arguments with people who regard a disease outbreak today as more serious than one historically simply because there are far more people it could affect due to their just being more people around, even though the risks to each individual might well be lower. I tend to look at things from the perspective of the individual - let's say everyone in the world was at the same risk from something (far too simple I know), but it will kill far more people now than it would've done five hundred years ago simply because there are far more people. To me that doesn't make it a worse problem. To others it does, simply because it affects more people - the absolute number rather than the individual risk matters to them.
  7. On that last point then do you think an issue is a bigger issue if the population doubles but the risk to an individual remains the same?
  8. As much as I roll my eyes at a lot of stuff that gets trotted out just because the UK is a small proportion of the whole doesn't mean it doesn't have its part to play - ultimately why should individuals in countries with large populations do differently than ones with small populations? We shouldn't dismiss our contributions beyond what they could be due to having had a century of insane and irresponsible population growth either. Although it's notable that the emissions per capita in China are higher too (but you could legitimately claim some of those are effectively us outsourcing them to China).
  9. I do have a bit of a bad back that flares up occasionally (usually it's fine). Losing some weight would probably help me there though.
  10. It was a bit of an odd one that, it was well documented for hitting young people much harder than the elderly.
  11. The link between simply getting the calories when growing and being tall is well established. Obviously there's a genetic component too. I'd say my grandparents were on the tall size of average, but my dad's over 6' (as am I, and my brother). None of us at 100 yet but my dad's in his early 70s and with no real signs of age beyond grey hair.
  12. Availability, yes, but quality, at least away from the low end? There's a balance to be struck somewhere - go back in time and you have common malnutrition issues in the UK, but now there are quite a lot of people with health issues due to being overweight; it suggests a better balance was struck somewhere in between.
  13. The difficulty is putting it in to perspective - a high accident rate might well still be too low to make much impact on life expectancy numbers. I'm guessing but my guess is that whilst the chronic health consequences of working conditions might well have been quite significant on the stats outright accidents probably weren't, even though there were a lot more of them than now.
  14. I doubt food's got any healthier though, more likely the opposite. Did enough people ever die in accidents to make a significant difference to the statistics (as opposed to health conditions as a result of jobs)?
  15. On what timescale? Compared to a century or two ago very definitely, but in the last few decades, whilst there are always improvements I think the lion's share had been achieved. At any rate I get the impression that infant mortality was a rare, tragic thing in post war Britain rather than the ordinary part of existence that it was to the Victorians.
  16. Nope. On my mum's side from the north east, and on my dad's from Derby. That said I know that one of my great grandfather's on my mum's side didn't live to a particularly old age, although I think I had a couple of great grandparents still alive when I was small (I don't remember meeting them though). My grandad was convinced that he was about to drop dead when he reached 70 ("done my three score years and ten"), he lived until he was 93.
  17. Had three grandparents live in to their 90s, the one who didn't still made her 80s and smoked heavily for years (it was the results of that that finished her off), so family history wise probably quite a while. Yay, even more time to see people make a mess of things and call it "progress."
  18. Might be, might not be. Recycling complex devices and alloys and mixed together bits and bobs can be a considerably more complex process than processing ore out of the ground, and it's the refining rather than the actual mining that's often (but not always) going to be the problem. It depends upon the minerals and methods used (I suppose simple gravity-based rather than chemical methods are still used if the ore is suitable, it'll probably be cheaper).
  19. Ah, concrete. A major source of CO2. But it's not cars or coal or insulation and helps us build lots of sh1te, so that's fine.
  20. A very minor part indeed, too minor for even the most zealous greeny to get worked up about (which is a bit of a surprise considering their generally black and white view of the issue and how they'll start haranguing other negligible contributions). CO2's like water. Even if you're flooded out and water everywhere is making a complete and utter mess you still need a reliable supply of clean water.
  21. We've spent decades developing greater levels of productivity, we can provide the essentials with massively fewer people involved in working on them (compare the number of people working in agriculture in the UK to 100 years ago, and that was with a much smaller population then) - we shouldn't even need the robots, even with a big demographic shift.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.