The Steampunk Forum at Brass Goggles
December 16, 2017, 05:55:13 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Support BrassGoggles! Donate once or $3/mo.
 See details here.
 
   Home   Blog Help Rules Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Better Living Through Steampunk; or saving civilisation the civilised way  (Read 7021 times)
Emperor
Snr. Officer
****
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Divine Wind


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2007, 09:43:44 pm »

No appology needed, and now, some much needed humor:

I still argue coal is good for the environment because the sulfer makes the rain droplets on the tops of clouds very small, which makes them refract the hamful rays of the sun away before they even get into our atmosphere! YAY!

Well that is part of the problem clean air laws have introduced and some of the more mad science solutions suggest putting it back  Shocked

Quote
At the beginning of August, he published an essay in the journal Climatic Change. He argues that the world’s response to climate change has so far been “grossly disappointing”. Stabilising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he asserts, requires a global reduction in emissions of between 60 and 80 per cent. But at the moment “this looks like a pious wish”. So, he proposes, we must start considering the alternatives, by which he means re-engineering the atmosphere in order to cool the earth(1).

He suggests we use either giant guns or balloons to inject sulphur into the stratosphere, 10 kilometres or more above the surface of the earth. Sulphur dioxide at that height turns into tiny particles – or aerosols – of sulphate. These reflect sunlight back into space, counteracting the warming caused by manmade climate change.

One of the crueller paradoxes of climate change is that it is being accelerated by reducing certain kinds of pollution. Filthy factories cause acid rain and ill health, but they also help to shield us from the sun, by filling the air with particles. As we have started to clean some of them up, we have exposed ourselves to more solar radiation. One model suggests that a complete removal of these pollutants from the atmosphere could increase the world’s temperature by 0.8 degrees(2).

www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/08/29/no-quick-fix/
Logged

Emps

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Steampunk Collective thread
S.Sprocket
Administrator
Zeppelin Captain
*****
United States United States


Industria Proficiscor In!


« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2007, 09:47:29 pm »

well if we're serious about coke and coal fumes saving the environment then 150 years in the future China will be the saviours of mankind!  they put up a new coal power plant every 10 days that could power all of san diego!  3 cheers for our steampunk friends in the far east!
Logged

"It's what a cove knows that counts, ain't it Sybil?  More than land or money, more than birth.  Information. Very flash." -Mick Radley

"Teaching boys to bake cakes? That's no way to maintain an industrial empire." --Fred Dibnah
HAC
Steam Theologian
Zeppelin Overlord
*******
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2007, 10:09:16 pm »

well if we're serious about coke and coal fumes saving the environment then 150 years in the future China will be the saviours of mankind!  they put up a new coal power plant every 10 days that could power all of san diego!  3 cheers for our steampunk friends in the far east!

And steam railroading is BIG in China, they have the manpower to support it. In fact, China is one of the few palces that you can still get steam loco parts made to order..

Cheers
Harold
Logged

You never know what lonesome is , 'til you get to herdin' cows.
HAC
Steam Theologian
Zeppelin Overlord
*******
Canada Canada


HAC_N800
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2007, 10:43:25 pm »

The 'Victorian' values to which I ascribe are these- that a worker should receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, no more, no less.  That 'women's work' matters, and that working in the home is not a job for stupid people- household management is important, and often makes it possible for others to work outside the home.  Therefore people who do housework should be given a decent living wage or equivalent, and lots of respect. That schooling in the basics of math, science, the arts, and vocations should be freely available to all people, regardless of sex or national origin.  That all people deserve health care, a safe place to live, the right to worship as they please without harming others,suitable and comfortable clothing and decent, nutritious food and drink.  They also deserve a certain amount of leisure time and free or low-cost access to higher learning facilities.  That unions can be a blessing.  That no people should have to live under the yoke of colonialism, and Third world countries should receive proper payment for their exports.  that the wealthy should not gouge the poor or enslave them.  In other words, I'm a radical and a feminist and a trade-unionist- and it's amazing that these ideas still horrify and astound people today.
  Oh dear.. While I agree that those are lofty and noble values (and they are, the world would be a far better place) they don't entirely hold with what I find was the normal set of mores during Victorian Times..
  You had the poorhouse and workhouse systems, where debtors and those who were really posr were sent.  Families were separtated, and the most brutal tasks were the norm. Oakum picking, rock breaking, the treadmill, and horrendous living conditions. Workhouses and poorhouses were not abolished until 1929 after the "Poor Law Act" and the "Local Goverment Act" were passed.
 Unions were thought by the rich industrialists to be a very bad thing, and with good reason. It was not uncommon for any attemtp to unionize (in the early part of the Vitorian era to be met with threats of violence.  Witness the Factory Act of 1802, which introduces a regulation which by later standards seems astonishing. It limits the amount of time which a child may work in a factory to twelve hours a day. In the Factory Act of 1833. Children under nine are now not to work at all. Those aged between nine and thirteen are limited to eight hours of work and must be given two hours of education each day (this is the first small step towards compulsory education in Britain). And an inspectorate is set up for the factories, albeit initially with only four inspectors for the entire country. The last significant regulation of hours of work is achieved in the Ten Hour Act of 1847, which stipulates that number of hours as the maximum working day for women and children in the nation's factories and textile mills. This act is largely the achievement of Lord Shaftesbury, who is responsible also for the Mines Act of 1842. This makes it illegal for women of any age and for boys under thirteen to be employed underground.
 Add to this that most wages were not commensurate with the work done, either, and one was often indebted to the "company stores" for life.
  As for colonialism, and iperialism, those could have been defined by Victorian military and political ambitions. The idea was to uplift the heathen savage to an "English" way of life, thus ensuring that you could exploit their raw materials, and then sell them manufactured goods.  Prime example - the Indian Raj,
reaching its peak when Victoria , at Disraeli's instigation, had herself crowned Empress of India in 1876. This form of imperialism was justified them by invoking a paternalistic and racist theory (founded in part upon popular but erroneous generalizations derived from Darwin's theory of evolution) which saw Imperialism as a manifestation of what Kipling would refer to as "the white man's burden." The implication, of course, was that the Empire existed not for the benefit -- economic or strategic or otherwise -- of Britain itself, but in order that primitive peoples, incapable of self-government, could, with British guidance, eventually become civilized (and Christianized). The truth of this doctrine was accepted naively by some, and hypocritically by others, but it served in any case to legitimize Britain's acquisition of portions of central Africa and her domination, in concert with other European powers, of China. (The Anglo-Chinese war AKA "The Opium War"  comes to mind)
  On education - it wasn;t until 1870 that all children from five to thirteen had to attend school by law, and at best that might give them basic arithmetic, reading and writing. Generally, it was only the rich who could school their children, generally in public schools)
  If you were not rich, and were not apprenticed to some trade (articled, basically you were a slave),  and were not in the country, attached to the land, you ended up in factory labour. Choosing ones trade was very rare. If you were lucky, you surviced apprenticeship, and had a useful if not always lucrative trade... There was always room for more dustmen and mudlarks, anyway, if that failed.
 
 I suppose that what I mean to say is that the "higher ideals" that we can asssociate with Victorian times were just that, idealls crafted by the ruling class , as "Good Christian, British values" but that they never really got anywhere near to being implemented until the really late end of the Victorian era, or possibly the Edwardian era. In the end, it was the Post-World War I era that saw the most social change for the better occuriing.

 As I said, I'm not knocking your dieal, I tend to agree with you, that they have merit, and value. I just don't see them as being applied in Victorian times.
It was not a fun place to be, unless you had money, land, or were of the upper classes.

Cheers
Harold
 

Logged
Cephias
Gunner
**


« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2007, 10:45:22 pm »

As nice as cottages and hobbit holes tucked into the woodlands are. (And believe me, I love them) We often forget a major thing with our lovely compact eco-dens.  That is, there a LOT of people on this planet, and there isn't enough space out there for everyone to have their own little home, I am sorry.  Instead the future lies in arcology, and close living.  You want some ideas to light the imagination, check out Mr. Tsui, an amazing man. http://www.tdrinc.com/ He has things like plans for a self-contained building that holds 1 million people.  Obviously things like this aren't feasible at the moment, but we haven't let that stop us in the past.
Logged

Your's ect.
G. S. Cephias
The Grand Duchess
Snr. Officer
****
Patior Sed Supervivo


« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2007, 11:03:59 pm »


  Oh dear.. While I agree that those are lofty and noble values (and they are, the world would be a far better place) they don't entirely hold with what I find was the normal set of mores during Victorian Times..
  You had the poorhouse and workhouse systems, where debtors and those who were really posr were sent.  Families were separtated, and the most brutal tasks were the norm. Oakum picking, rock breaking, the treadmill, and horrendous living conditions. Workhouses and poorhouses were not abolished until 1929 after the "Poor Law Act" and the "Local Goverment Act" were passed.
 Unions were thought by the rich industrialists to be a very bad thing, and with good reason. It was not uncommon for any attemtp to unionize (in the early part of the Vitorian era to be met with threats of violence.  Witness the Factory Act of 1802, which introduces a regulation which by later standards seems astonishing. It limits the amount of time which a child may work in a factory to twelve hours a day. In the Factory Act of 1833. Children under nine are now not to work at all. Those aged between nine and thirteen are limited to eight hours of work and must be given two hours of education each day (this is the first small step towards compulsory education in Britain). And an inspectorate is set up for the factories, albeit initially with only four inspectors for the entire country. The last significant regulation of hours of work is achieved in the Ten Hour Act of 1847, which stipulates that number of hours as the maximum working day for women and children in the nation's factories and textile mills. This act is largely the achievement of Lord Shaftesbury, who is responsible also for the Mines Act of 1842. This makes it illegal for women of any age and for boys under thirteen to be employed underground.
 Add to this that most wages were not commensurate with the work done, either, and one was often indebted to the "company stores" for life.
  As for colonialism, and iperialism, those could have been defined by Victorian military and political ambitions. The idea was to uplift the heathen savage to an "English" way of life, thus ensuring that you could exploit their raw materials, and then sell them manufactured goods.  Prime example - the Indian Raj,
reaching its peak when Victoria , at Disraeli's instigation, had herself crowned Empress of India in 1876. This form of imperialism was justified them by invoking a paternalistic and racist theory (founded in part upon popular but erroneous generalizations derived from Darwin's theory of evolution) which saw Imperialism as a manifestation of what Kipling would refer to as "the white man's burden." The implication, of course, was that the Empire existed not for the benefit -- economic or strategic or otherwise -- of Britain itself, but in order that primitive peoples, incapable of self-government, could, with British guidance, eventually become civilized (and Christianized). The truth of this doctrine was accepted naively by some, and hypocritically by others, but it served in any case to legitimize Britain's acquisition of portions of central Africa and her domination, in concert with other European powers, of China. (The Anglo-Chinese war AKA "The Opium War"  comes to mind)
  On education - it wasn;t until 1870 that all children from five to thirteen had to attend school by law, and at best that might give them basic arithmetic, reading and writing. Generally, it was only the rich who could school their children, generally in public schools)
  If you were not rich, and were not apprenticed to some trade (articled, basically you were a slave),  and were not in the country, attached to the land, you ended up in factory labour. Choosing ones trade was very rare. If you were lucky, you surviced apprenticeship, and had a useful if not always lucrative trade... There was always room for more dustmen and mudlarks, anyway, if that failed.
 
 I suppose that what I mean to say is that the "higher ideals" that we can asssociate with Victorian times were just that, idealls crafted by the ruling class , as "Good Christian, British values" but that they never really got anywhere near to being implemented until the really late end of the Victorian era, or possibly the Edwardian era. In the end, it was the Post-World War I era that saw the most social change for the better occuriing.

 As I said, I'm not knocking your dieal, I tend to agree with you, that they have merit, and value. I just don't see them as being applied in Victorian times.
It was not a fun place to be, unless you had money, land, or were of the upper classes.

Cheers
Harold
 



Oh, definitely.  They were nothing more than ideals during that time.  The reality was quite horrifying.  We don't even want to go into what constituted much of the mentality behind anthropology during that period- we would all throw up.

Still, the ideals I mentioned were ideals that were, for the most part, developed and floated during the actual 19th Century.  Some of them received partial fruition in the 20th Century.  Most of them were never seriously attempted, and won't be so long as people can make more money by squeezing 'the least of these'.

I don't want to go back to the era of child labour, slavery at home and abroad, mental institutions that were torture chambers, and TB-infected milk.  However, as repressive as that time was, things are not necessarily any better now.  We hide much of the repression and prejudice a lot better now. Capitalism may have taken up the 'happy face' veneers of McDonaldization and Fordism, but we don't even pretend to be civilized anymore.  In fact, the idea of civilization seems to have become a dirty thought for many people regardless of political leaning.  I don't necessarily see that as an improvement, even though in some ways Westerners live in a much cleaner, safer world than we once did.
Logged

A true alternative subculture is one that not only questions the social status quo but poses viable solutions to some of the perceived underlying problems. Difference from the norm is not the same as superiority to the mainstream unless it can be  argued that the difference is positing a better way.
Adml. Etherington
Snr. Officer
****
United States United States

Airship Pirate


« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2007, 11:36:28 pm »

theres not really that many people on the planet, if we're talking about the actual space a person takes up...

using the figure from the us census website "POPclock", the world population (~6,581,840,393) could fit into the state of Texas with 1130 sq ft per person, or a population density of about 24,671 people per square mile.

New York City (the whole city, not just the super dense areas in the Bronx or Manhattan) has a population density of over 26,000/sq.mi.

And with everyone living in Texas, we have used up 0.4% of the land area of earth.

Theres plenty of space, even accounting for large percentages of it being unusable. It's more a matter of how we use it...
Logged

The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds.
 - Theo Jansen
Lasairfion
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2007, 12:02:05 am »

As nice as cottages and hobbit holes tucked into the woodlands are. (And believe me, I love them) We often forget a major thing with our lovely compact eco-dens.  That is, there a LOT of people on this planet, and there isn't enough space out there for everyone to have their own little home, I am sorry.  Instead the future lies in arcology, and close living.  You want some ideas to light the imagination, check out Mr. Tsui, an amazing man. http://www.tdrinc.com/ He has things like plans for a self-contained building that holds 1 million people.  Obviously things like this aren't feasible at the moment, but we haven't let that stop us in the past.


I disagree. The entire population of the world could fit onto a small island. Admittedly there'd be standing room only. The problem is that in order for all of us to have his acre or two would require better utilising the land mass.

So rather than trying to terraform Mars, why don't we take a leaf from Dubai and get on with terraforming the Sahara. Plus solar power out there will be easy.

Errrr. Adobe walls anyone? In fact, why don't we just build underground: constant temperature etc and put sun rooms up above for the required light. Or of course pipe it in with Parans ^^ http://www.parans.com/
« Last Edit: March 13, 2007, 12:03:49 am by Lasairfion » Logged
Cephias
Gunner
**


« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2007, 12:13:06 am »

Well, then I suppose it comes down to a matter of personal/societal aesthetics.  First off, much land is not all that hospitable, and there is a lot of benefit to high density living.  Mostly I would prefer to have as much of the world untampered with as possible.  But western culture is generally repulsed by collectivist living. 
Logged
OHebel Wring
Snr. Officer
****
The world is only 80 days away.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2007, 12:15:27 am »

you all realize that the reason steam REALLY took off is that it was cheaper and faster transport than horses and barges.  It was easier to pull plows through a field allowing farmers to plow twice as much as he could with a horse-plow.

The fact is cheap and fast is what drives us.  Laziness is what drives most innovation.

I am all about steam and I am all about keeping stuff green, but PLEASE don't jade yourselves into thinking that steam is in anyway environmental.  Because it was this technology that you all love and this era of science and technology that got us the "problems" that we have today.  But... nobody really wants to hear any of that,

so on with our current program.
Logged

“The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes. “
-Sherlock Holmes
phineas sheridan
Snr. Officer
****
Antarctica Antarctica



« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2007, 12:26:25 am »

basically i was going to repeat most of the things previously said.
but i don't want to insult your intelligences  Cheesy
anyway
i am all for green innoventions and steam powered/aesthetically pleasing style
i wish for a cleaner more user friendly world and a more open minded society
"be the change you want to see in the world" ~ Albert Einstein

so yea......

my greenest project in the works is a do-over of a 1960's VW hippie van to a bio-desil hybrid rolling workshop
modeled slightly after Mr. Von Slatt's campervan

will get pics when i start (and when i can drive)


d
Logged

"It's all about the top-hats and goggles"~Jake Von Slatt
fmra
Snr. Officer
****

Dollmaker


« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2007, 12:28:33 am »

Laziness is what drives most innovation.

Ha!  I've always told people that laziness is the real mother of all invention.
Logged

Tempus Rerum Imperator.

"But that's not steampunk hjghahkahjkfdsahjklfdsa!!!!!11one11" -- Anachronist

20,000 leagues below Chuck E' Cheese
Lasairfion
Guest
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2007, 12:29:30 am »

Re: OHebel

Hmm it wasn't the steam that was the problem, it was all that coal. We haven't really advanced though. Nuclear Reactors are still just big complex dangerous kettles.

If we could perhaps use hydrogen instead?
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans_doc.htm
http://waterpoweredcar.com/

blah blah you get the idea

Phineas: perhaps it should be a water VW lol
Logged
phineas sheridan
Snr. Officer
****
Antarctica Antarctica



« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2007, 12:49:48 am »

Phineas: perhaps it should be a water VW lol
ehh mebe but i did hear somewhere that the hydrogen cars were a negative energy thing
meaning more energy to get the hydrogen than to run the car
probably a lie
anybody know anything elese

(and no i didn't read most of the sites...............lazy i guess XD)

d
Logged
teawithsteph
Officer
***

WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2007, 01:30:28 am »

I have found this discussion very interesting.

My husband and I always felt the odd one out in school as we both loved science and technology. We both despised how difficult everyone made math when it was much easier than they made it out to be. We decided to "teach" our children in addition to what they are taught in school. We do math and science stuff at home for fun. We use the "real" terms for math when they bring home problems to reinforce what they are doing at school. We explained the number line, algebra, the terms cuminitive, and assign extra problems for fun. As a result we have 2 children that we feel are rather capable, even dealing with the whole "math is hard for girls" crap my daughter brought home from school. (That we dealt with by laughing at her and explaining that as she was our child and had learned multiplication the summer before for fun to not bother pulling that crap again.)

I too think that working with one's hands is so demeaned now and showed that a degree is the only way to go. Honestly that makes me laugh as not a single person I know with a degree makes a significant amount of money more than several people I know who barely finished high school. My husband dropped out of college and honestly makes a lot more than people he knows who got a degree. Not only is he happier in his job but he has had better employment (IT).

I grew up in a large family where we all worked with the family business and we had a lot of variety. I know how to operate a tire machine, program pagers, run a concession stand, operate a pager business, use several accounting programs for the computer, run an industrial sewing machine/s, use woodworking equipment, and other things that honestly I can't remember right now. One of my brothers who barely finished highschool and then kind of did a variety of things now has a business that he expects will do several millions of dollars worth of business this year. He is doing so well he hired a sister to manage the office and even my mother to oversee some things in the shop. This is a blue collar job where he gets his hands dirty and often has to do some terribly disgusting jobs. But you know, people pay a lot for this sort of service.

Whoever said that household management is not nearly respected as much as it should be, I completely agree. I cannot tell you how dismaying it is to see my mother who stayed home for the last 35+ years need to go to work as she does not qualify for her own social security because she does not have enough "work credits". My mother raised 9 children and managed the household for all of us. Even if she only got a couple of work credits a year it would have been better than nothing. I seriously need to find out how to go about changing that law so that myself, my mother, and many of my friends can get the credits we deserve.
Logged
Emperor
Snr. Officer
****
United Kingdom United Kingdom

Divine Wind


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2007, 01:35:33 am »

Nuclear Reactors are still just big complex dangerous kettles.

I will have to use that in conversation.

The future is fusion the problem is we need something to keep us moving until then.

Spark up the tokamak Doris time for a cuppa.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.975 seconds with 16 queries.