edit: see my followup comment, didn't mean to mislead here. I'm not a scientist and sleep and food science is both pretty hard to trust.
Ok, it does, but even when it does that, in order to do that it has been continually maintaining homeostasis
I can see an argument around sleeping always being a net loss, since you're never consuming food while sleeping. Sleeping more thus means you may eat less.
Two short articles I was basing this off of:
- "When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go?" https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257
- "Sleep and Metabolism: An Overview" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2929498/
He obviously knows this too. Dealing with human waste/by-product is a real challenge. Far more so in space than on an ocean or in an RV.
We humans need to learn to use everything and not let anything go to waste. Else we have nothing left to waste.
And if the system is large enough, and could be made beautiful, one could take a walk through the system. Call it a "forest".
Compressing CO2 will not create briquettes of combustible charcoal. You still need a way to chemically remove the oxygen from CO2.
James Miller from Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation is working on just such a thing.
If we start synthesizing food from fossil fuels, then human exhalation will actually contribute to climate change.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But maybe you hang out with different activists.
If you think that, then you experience the same cognitive dissonance that they do. The best way to despoil the world is to live like cavemen, which requires experiencing the hunger, disease and displacement that they did with far lower population counts from what we currently have.
Conservatism is the antithesis of science and progress. Tree-huggers are anti-science and anti-progress.
Ironically, it's the "pro-growth conservatives" these days pushing for a return to old technologies.
The reason we have climate change is the we're extracting carbon from geologic formations where it's been trapped for millions of years. There is no carbon cycle: It gets extracted, burned, the CO2 goes into the air and stays there (maybe in 10 million years more oil and coal will form, but there are reasons to believe these processes are no longer occurring.)
But your point is valid. Comparison is still useful for getting a grasp of the quantities involved.
https://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/CountingCarbonCalories.html?y...
I'll submit that as a separate item ...
Exhaled air contains about 4% CO2, so you would have to exhale 12500 l of air to put out 500 l of CO2.
At 0.5 l per exhalation that's 25,000 breaths, which seems rather on the high side: 17 breaths per minute, round the clock.
It seems like a bit of a high estimate; could be true for people who are very physically active during parts of every 24 h period.
I think Carmack is a genius and admire his work ethic, but I can't understand what interests smart people like him about human space travel.
Might be able to get more people excited about maintaining our amazing ecosystem if we talked about "Spaceship Earth" more.
xnx•3h ago
paulluuk•3h ago
justinrubek•3h ago