Spitinthacoola t1_ja985u2 wrote

I've got one of their enameled cast iron pots and I've baked bread in it nearly every single day for 5 years. Idk if it's BIFL but it's been getting work done for me with no signs of slowing down.


Spitinthacoola t1_j6u06x2 wrote

It might not be better than painting all the roofs white for heat but they'd still do better than shingles or solar panels. A combination of that for the roofs and trees, especially native where possible, would not just impact local temps but also fauna.


Spitinthacoola t1_j6tanax wrote

Most green roofs don't require tons of soil and watering vegetation. They're usually pretty thin layers of media and root barriers for grasses and other native plants to live, they're called extensive green roofs.

Intensive green roofs usually don't cover the whole thing, and have deeper layers and larger plants. They're much less common.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixlgnxp wrote

And I'm saying even compared to just forest area (not sure how to calculate mass of forests burned) its still like 1% of the area that was burned.

So even when you ignore about 80% of the country, about 1% was on fire.

Its so incredibly far from being anywhere near a majority.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixlespp wrote

Yes, and again, even still less than 1% of the forested area burned during the time we are talking about. I'm not sure why you are trying to be argumentative about this.


Spitinthacoola t1_ixikat7 wrote


Spitinthacoola t1_ixe8gvd wrote

Australia's land area is about 770 million hectares. What burned in 2019-20 was about 17 million hectares.

Its a lot. But not even close to a majority. It's hard to imagine what that would be like, especially given how little of Australia's land is actually colonized with humans.


Spitinthacoola t1_iwci27z wrote


Spitinthacoola t1_itm3lnc wrote


Spitinthacoola t1_iti7364 wrote

It absolutely is a red herring. The swarm understands things the individuals dont. Your genes understand things. Intelligence is nested across scale. Single cells have intelligence and solve problems. Tissues have intelligence and solve problems. Organs have intelligence and solve problems. Organisms have intelligence and solve problems. Swarms have intelligence and solve problems. We are just really bad at understanding and working with diverse types of intelligence. This is something we will get better at, by necessity.

Intelligence is almost certainly substrate agnostic.


Spitinthacoola t1_ithnbb2 wrote

>Intelligence arising out of a construct is not the same thing as the construct itself having been directed or planned by an intelligence.


>For example, swarm intelligence might describe the behavior of a school of fish as seemingly directed by a master intelligence, but it’s not postulating that the school of fish has developed its own consciousness independent of that of the member fish.

I think the entire notion of "consciousness" is probably a red herring, or wild goose chase. It makes no sense to use in the context of intelligence because we have no definition for it. There's reason to believe that a school of fish or a hive of bees or a colony of ants does have an intelligence different from that of each unit. This is exactly how your body works.

That TAME framework I think is useful and I highly recommend listening to the available talks by Levin.

(Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2022.768201/full


Spitinthacoola t1_ithibs0 wrote

Its very clearly the latter at this point. If we can't accept that intelligence is substrate agnostic we are going to have a very very bad time in the coming decade.



Spitinthacoola t1_ithhnn6 wrote

You might appreciate Michael Levins new framework for this topic. (Levins lab has been working on some of the most sci-fi biology stuff in the world for the last decade or so)