74
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Kimdracula@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Modern society. At the end 60s hippies were right after all...

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago
[-] don@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago
[-] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 23 points 6 days ago

Opting for gasoline over electricity early on when cars started to become a thing, we were already going electric, but a smear campaign put fear into people's minds about electric and switched tk gasoline.

[-] arxdat@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

We always have to pander to the capitalists profits, how could the make money with clean electricity???

[-] CanadaPlus 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Batteries could have been standard for a bit longer, but it seems to me that eventually the need to go faster for longer would have forced combustion engines to be a thing. All they had were lead-acid batteries (or primary cells, but that would be dumb) and new more energy-dense chemistries didn't show up for a long time after. Maybe they could have found one if they really needed, but it's a tricky science even today, so I'm skeptical.

It's possible, I suppose, that infrastructure could have been rolled out for both en mass, but I don't see an even mix lasting through the whole 20th century. Probably not even past WWII.

[-] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

That's because of car companies pushing the mentality that everyone needs to drive everywhere... for freedom and shit.

We could have been more like europe is today and have a robust railsystem. Shit, we could have had the best rail system in the world.

[-] CanadaPlus 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Or, y'know, there's a war on and you can't stop to recharge, or you need to cross a desert, or you just want to do an express route with one vehicle...

Combustion is just a superior vehicle technology vs. lead-acid electric, assuming you don't worry about emissions, and that will show up in plenty of contexts. Eventually, lead-acid would go the way of the other workable-but-not-as-nice technologies like crystal radios or black-and-white film.

[-] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

So... there isnt a war in the US right now, and there probablywont be one.

"Lead-acid electric..." when was the last time you looked at an electric car. Electric cars can now give you 400+ miles of range just like ICE vehicles, and I don't have to scavenge fuel from who knows where, all I need is a few solar panels and I'm good... eventually.

Also, IF this was a war zone, I'd rather be whisper quiet than to tell everyone around that I'm driving by with the sound of an engine. Oh and it's easier to remain undetected by food than on a vehicle anyway.

[-] CanadaPlus 3 points 4 days ago

Yeah, I know, I'm not arguing against electric now, or even as a concept then. This was an alt-history exercise, remember?

Batteries could have been standard for a bit longer, but it seems to me that eventually the need to go faster for longer would have forced combustion engines to be a thing. All they had were lead-acid batteries (or primary cells, but that would be dumb) and new more energy-dense chemistries didn’t show up for a long time after. Maybe they could have found one if they really needed, but it’s a tricky science even today, so I’m skeptical.

It’s possible, I suppose, that infrastructure could have been rolled out for both en mass, but I don’t see an even mix lasting through the whole 20th century. Probably not even past WWII.

[-] Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago
[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

Let's go with the atomic bomb...if you disagree, consider that we made a weapon too powerful to ever be used again, but nations that have them get taken way more seriously in diplomacy.

And let's be serious, it's pretty much tick-tock, tick-tock before they get used again when they get put in the hands of zealots. Let's be doubly serious, it will be religion that convinces some leader that they are within their divine rights to cleanse the world of their enemies.

[-] CanadaPlus 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Human history, as a whole, is so depressing and meandering it's a weird question to try and answer. Were the great empires a success, or a failure? It depends on if you're measuring monuments built or social justice enacted, and if you're comparing against modern polities or whatever shitty local warlord they replaced. History doesn't really have an end goal, as much as we'd like it to.

Maybe you just meant a personal failure:

Thomas Midgley is one of my favourites, because he's famous for three things: Inventing leaded gasoline, inventing ozone-destroying PCBs, and inventing an accessibility contraption that strangled Thomas Midgley. He did nothing else of note; he's like the real life Bloody Stupid Johnson.

Pheidippides of Battle of Marathon fame is famous for running a long way just to deliver some news first, and then dying from exhaustion. ~~People regularly make the same trip and are fine.~~ He was regarded as a hero, and the races were originally in his honour, but I wouldn't want to be him. Edit: Maybe not a great example, actually. The story names a much longer distance than a marathon, although it's kinda mythical.

Muhammad II of Khwarazm received an envoy from Ghengis Khan, who wasn't bent on invading at all but wanted trade, and decided to steal their shit and kick them out instead. Then he killed the people sent next to ask for a nice apology. You can guess where that went.

The Soviets once tried to sextort Indonesian quasi-communist leader Sukarno with a tape. It did not work, because he was shamelessly proud of his "virility". In at least some tellings he misinterprets the KGB's presentation as a gift, although I doubt he could have been that dumb.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

If it's the same person I'm thinking about he understood that it was blackmail but didn't care. He requested copies of the tape to keep for himself.

[-] CanadaPlus 2 points 4 days ago

"Thanks bro/comrade!" would be a great way to play this off diplomatically with someone you still want to be allies with, so that could be the origin of that bit.

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 days ago

Isn't what we call a marathon just the last short leg of his journey, and he ran like 100-150 miles?

[-] CanadaPlus 2 points 6 days ago

In addition to mixing up the man and the place, I got that wrong. Fixed.

[-] z00s@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

The United States of America

[-] IsoSpandy@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago
[-] IsoSpandy@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

Ohh it's much worse than that. Usually humans would live to around 60 if they survived infancy before that. Their diet was varied and since food was a limited resource, there was no way of population blasts. But agriculture just fucked it all up. We stopped moving around since the land needed constant maintainence and since the diet became mostly carbohydrates, combined with back breaking work, our life expectancy dropped to 40. We didn't domesticate wheat, wheat domesticated us. It took modern medicine... ie 20th century to get the average life expectancy up again.

I recommend you read the book called Sapiens. It's an eye opener.

[-] CanadaPlus 1 points 6 days ago

Because it lead directly to feudalism and other forms of autocracy?

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago

Agriculture

[-] AromaticNeo@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago
[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago

Stuart Pearce of England’s missed penalty kick in the 1990 World Cup semi finals.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 125 points 1 week ago

Our collective response to climate change

[-] thepreciousboar@lemm.ee 32 points 1 week ago

That's right. We theorized the effects shortly after the first coal power plant, and we have observed the effects for a century now. Yet the response has been minimal, to say the least

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 91 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Fostering societal systems of greed and competition rather than of cooperation and compassion.

[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

This, we moved from Tribes to towns to cities to be more efficient but lost the cooperative aspect of the tribe which made it more efficient in the first place. Now corporations do market research until they figure out exactly what we can afford to get our needs met and then charge that price instead of anything related to their actual costs. It's resulted in a situation to where most people live month to month and can't afford vacation or even an unexpected car repair.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Thats me. My car, teeth, hair, and some parts of my rental house (thanks landlord) are falling apart and I can't afford to fix any of it cause rent and bills are due each month and they keep going up. Its fucken madness, its making me insane.

[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago

Cheers from across the hellscape, friend.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 52 points 1 week ago
  1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
  2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
  3. We eat the nutrients in our food
  4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
  5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
  6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it's just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don't notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

Having the intelligence to create technology but not enough intelligence to understand the implications.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ssm 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

letting unqualified businessmen rule the planet instead of experts in their given fields.

[-] MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

For me, this post is right under the person who said "Agriculture" and the response "Because it lead directly to feudalism and other forms of autocracy?"

And if unqualified businessmen ruling instead of experts in their "given fields" isn't a perfect way to describe feudalism, I don't know if irony has survived.

[-] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago

Leaving the tide pools. Possibly even forming proteins to begin with. I much more enjoyed being stardust.

[-] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 25 points 1 week ago

Every time someone tried to make "a weapon so powerful it would make people not want to wage war".

Several weapons are on this list, from the cannon to the machine gun to, most famously, the atomic bomb.

The fact that this happened once would've been understandable. The fact this escalated to nuclear weapons because people just tried pushing this idea is nuts though.

This is not toward so much the technology, with all tech being no less inevitable, but more to do with the intentions/hindsight/foresight of the people making something that can only be produced by an assembly in a seemingly dire setting, as opposed to something like AI, which does not stem from that and which would've come around at some time.

By extension, this extends to populism in general, a mindset that from experience I refuse to compliment. I'm surrounded by people every day who come off as thinking with their feet and not with the methodological part of them, and my experiences with this have never allowed me to be fully at peace.

[-] Vej@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago
[-] morbidcactus@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

I remember one of my engineering profs describing Midgley as the most environmentally destructive organism ever, Dude also was involved in the creation of freon.

[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

But he also killed the biggest environmentally destructive person on the planet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Investing everything in engines and abandoning battery development in the early 1900s. Lead-acid batteries were heavy but usable, and electric cars were more popular until electric starters were added to engines. A disproportionately big, short-lived reason was the lack of sufficient electrical grid for electric cars trying to go far.

Nobody in government was thinking ahead, so everyone was forced to trying to make their own money NOW, and that's how we get inhumane tech in general. Same thing happening in computers for decades now. We need centralised R&D free from market influence for the benefit of all life.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
74 points (92.0% liked)

Asklemmy

42502 readers
1451 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS