Why? Aquaponics is easily the most water-conservative method for growing crops in any climate.
Although Elon is not fond of hybrids, I reckon he'd make an exception for this case. There's plenty of room in the "frunk" for a gas turbine/generator and a large fuel supply.
Here's an idea: eliminate ALL subsidies, across the board. Let fossil fuels and renewables duke it out on a truly level playing field. Speaking as a "green energy" advocate, I would welcome this challenge. So would Amory Lovins, one of the "gurus" of the green movement.
Funny thing though, when it comes to talk about cutting these subsidies, the "big oil" boyz are all against it. Sure, they're against green energy subsidies, but if you want to cut their subsidies, all of a sudden you're threatening the "lifeblood" of the American Way[tm].
For a splash of cold water on the "fracking revolution" check out this interview with Chris Martenson and Richard Heinberg. We are already in a much more precarious position than most people realize.
Sorry dude (assuming you are the same AC as above?), just trying to make your one-word comment slightly relevant.
The perfect "tool" with which to fuck beta I presume?
Clearly you haven't looked at the evidence above, otherwise you'd SEE the difference. The problem is not "insufficient" grazing, it's "un-managed" grazing. (Did you even read the text of my comment?)
And rather than just asserting that some theory is BS, why don't you link to (or at least describe) an argument to the contrary?
While I ponder why the parent got modded down, here are some citations to support those claims...
Admittedly, I was just "guesstimating" the numbers above from vague memory, but as the links here show, I'm right in the ballpark on all of them.
It would be nice to see a lucid argument, rather than just getting down-modded reflexively.
Domestic cattle really destructive of the watershed and have a large negative impact on water quality.
Not so fast... There is a growing awareness that well managed herbivores are the only way to reverse desertification and halt climate change. The key to this counter-intuitive fact is the "well managed" part. (The link above is to a TED Talk by Allan Savory.)
If you put a hundred head of cattle on a hundred acres of pasture, and just leave them there, they will roam around, munching only the most palatable plants (leaving the weeds to thrive), endlessly compacting the soil and disturbing the ecosystem. But if you instead give those same 100-head just one acre per day to graze, they'll eat everything in sight (helping to control weeds), aerate the soil with their hooves, and fertilize it with their dung -- and not come back to the same acre for another 100 days.
This more accurately mimics the pattern found in nature, where herbivores are "mobbed up" and kept moving by predators. And it gives the land time to rest in between visits, allowing the biome to absorb the nutrients and recover from the disturbance. Just look at the before and after photos in Savory's TED Talk to see the effects of well managed herbivores.
Another great example is what Joel Salatin is doing at Polyface Farms in Virginia. (This link is a 10min clip from a talk by Michael Pollan, describing the Polyface model.)
Oh yeah, and then there's the whole "permaculture" movement, as exemplified by Geoff Lawton in his "greening the desert" project in Jordan.
In short, there are many, many options available to us, before we start talking about "going veggie" to save the planet.
Dems. and Reps. *both* are very sensitive to opinion polls.
Universal background checks: 90% approval (85% of Republicans; 80% of NRA members) = VOTED DOWN
"Public Option" healthcare: 75% approval (over 60% of Republicans) = DOESN'T EVEN GET A VOTE
Minimum wage increase: 70~80% approval (over 50% of Republicans) = DEAD IN THE WATER
(The list goes on and on...)
Dems and Reps *both* are very sensitive to MONEY.
a really, really deep chain of industry is required to build something as simple as a one-speed bicycle.
We have such a supply chain right here on Earth. For the rest: In-Situ Resource Utilization.
Why dig a tunnel when you can blow up an inflatable hab module and pile a bunch of regolith on top? In 1/3rd gravity, you wouldn't even need heavy equipment, just bring a couple of shovels (or better yet, make them from local materials with the 3D-printer you brought from home).
There are lots of people studying every aspect of living and working on Mars. For example, one guy has figured out how to make cement with all-Martian materials. Others are working on sintering techniques for brick and glass, or extracting water, aluminum, etc..
No one is suggesting that it will be "easy", but if you think it's "delusional" you haven't been keeping up with the latest research.
Golden Spike is already offering tickets to the lunar surface for $750M a seat, and that price is likely to come down a lot once SpaceX gets its reusable rockets working. Although they are contracting the design of a dedicated lander from Northrup Grumman, I have also seen sketches of a landing stage for the Dragon capsule, so there are multiple efforts underway. It seems likely that at least one of them will reach the moon before anyone gets to Mars.
A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure...
working on a manned version of their Dragon spacecraft.
As you probably know, the current Dragon is already capable of carrying humans, it's just not "man-rated" yet because it lacks a launch-abort escape system. They will probably begin manned test flights by the end of 2015.
In the meantime, SpaceX continues to push the envelope on other fronts. Next weekend's CRS-3 launch will have landing legs, and attempt a "soft splashdown" in the ocean. By next year they could be regularly recovering and reusing the F9 first stage, which would dramatically reduce the cost of spaceflight. That alone would be a game changer, but that's just one of many innovations they're working on.
I'm just old enough to remember the Apollo program, and to me, the last couple of years have been the most exciting period of space exploration since the early 80s. The Shuttle was supposed to usher in the era of reusable spacecraft, but it turned out to be far more difficult than expected. Instead of 50 flights per year, we were lucky to get even a 10th of that volume. We've been stuck in LEO ever since. Right now, SpaceX is well positioned to be the first to give us the ability to get beyond that again.
I can hardly wait!
Fear is not required, just dissatisfaction. I don't get my hair cut because I "fear" having long hair. I don't buy an ergonomic chair because I "fear" lower-back pain, I just prefer not to have it.
You might as well say, the same thing about cancer research, "What we need to cure is: fear of cancer."
Sure, that would also work. But I would prefer to find a cure for cancer instead.
Natural selection comprises two types: ecological and sexual. Both work the same way: An individual passes its genes down more successfully by surviving longer and in good enough health to produce more offspring.
Ecological selection is what we normally think of as "natural" selection (survival of the fittest). In this case the "selection pressure" is determined by fitness for the environment where one lives. In sexual selection, the selection pressure comes from other members of the species.
Though they work in similar ways, the two may often be at odds with each other. The classic example would be the peacock's tail, which is "costly" to produce and maintain, and actually makes the bird less well adapted to the environment -- dragging all that plumage around slows him down, making him more susceptible to predation. The only useful purpose it serves is to attract peahens. The peahen's preference for a large, showy tail creates a positive feedback, pushing the peacock's tail to its maximum "survivable" size.