In the real world entropy takes its toll and nothing is truly sustainable forever. Yet this energy technology development is not a global funding priority compared to - say weapons development, manufacturing, and sales. While recycling is a good thing, its is also necessary to understand that declining and more energy resources - only make recycling less attractive and less possible over time - without a future essentially “free” and inexhaustible energy source. Especially as a solution to the complex problems of the current context of our growing unsustainable overpopulation and finite critical resource dilution and depletion economic problems. Understanding that in 2021 only 8.8% of 101.4 billion tonnes of virgin materials (a proportionate decline from previous years) were recycled because they were not sufficiently economically attractive - economically possible to recycle - should give a plausibility pause to warm and fuzzy assumptions about the economic viability of circular economies any time soon. Perhaps starting with the economic myths of resource "proven reserves." Another topic your authors should explore and debunk where needed. The broad assumption that the Earth is an inexhaustible supply of everything humans need, should be increasingly and systematically exposed quantifiably as the uninformed myth that it has always been. Including the over due planning and funding of long term strategies to acquire extra-planetary finite critical resources - before we need and economically run out of them here on Earth and thus lose the technical ability to solve gaining them again. While I see the need for your work and am encouraged to see the attention you bring to the problem, IMO you need to focus far more on real economic solutions and less on un-quantified conceptual economic philosophies - like circular economies and or "Doughnut Economics." Without quantifiable inputs and outputs it is far too easy to economically confuse subsistence, decline and economic decay, with optimized economic sustainability. Far from leading to social collapse, economic growth was thus self-correcting – not to mention the only way for countries to develop out of poverty. Technological innovation will lead to new, cleaner methods of production. Other resources will then be substituted for it, and it will be used more efficiently. If a resource becomes scarce, its price will rise, they pointed out. In 1972, the book came under immediate fire from economists who claimed that its authors failed to understand basic economics. Exponential economic growth could not go on forever at some point in the next 100 years, it would inevitably run up against Earth’s finite environmental limits.Ī half-century later, with a climate and environmental crisis upon us, the debate triggered by The Limits to Growth has returned with a vengeance. Written for the Club of Rome by Donella Meadows and colleagues at MIT, The Limits to Growth used new computer models to forecast an uncontrollable collapse in the global population and economy if prevailing patterns of environmental resource use and pollution continued. parvum genotype 1 (837 bp, AF481962) and 628, 104, and 102 bp for genotype 2 (834 bp, AF164102).BERLIN – Fifty years ago this spring, one of the most influential books of the twentieth century was published. The expected sizes of the SSU rRNA fragment are 561, 104, 102, and 70 bp for C.
parvum genotype 1 and 413, 106, and 34 bp for C. The expected sizes of this COWP fragment are 284, 129, 106, and 34 bp for C. meleagridis COWP fragment are 372, 147, and 34 bp, and the sizes of the 833-bp AseI-digested SSU rRNA fragment are 456, 171, 104, and 102 bp. The expected sizes of the 553-bp RsaI-digested C. The mock DNA extraction sample was negative for both PCRs (data not shown).
A negative PCR control (lane 14), uncut PCR product (lane 15), and 100-bp DNA ladder (lanes 1 and 16 Promega Corp., Madison, Wis.) are also included. parvum genotype 1 (TU502) and genotype 2 (GCH1) digested PCR products are shown in lanes 12 and 13, respectively. Samples are from the following animal passages: human (lane 2), first mouse (lane 3), last mouse (lane 4), first pig (lane 5), last pig (lane 6), first chicken (lane 7), last chicken (lane 8), first turkey (lane 9), last turkey (lane 10), and calf (lane 11). For COWP and SSU rRNA RFLP analysis, PCR products were digested with RsaI and AseI, respectively. meleagridis TU1867 passaged through different host species. COWP (A) and SSU rRNA (B) PCR-RFLP analyses of oocysts from C.
0 kommentar(er)
