Americans Are Saving Energy Because Fewer People Go Outside (theverge.com) 202
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Americans are saving energy because they don't go outside as much anymore, researchers say. It's a plus for the environment, though in another light (no pun intended), it's just sad. In 2012, Americans spent an extra eight days at home compared to 2003, according to the American Time Use Surveys. Being at home means using more energy by keeping the lights on and watching TV. But it also means less travel, and it means that fewer people are outside operating offices and stores. So overall in 2012, we saved 1,700 trillion British thermal units (BTU) of heat, or 1.8 percent of the national total, according to an analysis published today in the journal Joule. That's about how much energy Kentucky produced in all of 2015. Specifically in 2012, Americans spent one day less traveling and one week less in buildings other than their homes when compared to a decade earlier. The trend of staying indoors is especially strong for those ages 18 to 24: the youths spent 70 percent more time at home than the general population. At the other end of the age spectrum, those 65 and older were the only group that spent more time outside the home compared to 2003. Next, the researchers want to look at energy consumption changes in other countries as a result of lifestyle changes.
Money (Score:1, Interesting)
Those demographics also coincide with who has the most money (65+ baby boomers) and the least (18-24 year olds). When you have no money, you can't afford to go places and do interesting things.
Re: (Score:2)
those 65 and older were the only group that spent more time outside
...simpler explanation: to get away from the smell of mothballs and ben gay.
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the real truth is that the 18-24 crowd is too absorbed in Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to want to get outside. If John Calhoun were still alive he'd be yelling about behavioral sink right about now.
Re: (Score:2)
Utter nonsense. Get a cheap bicycle and rid down to a local park. Drop by some basketball courts and meet some new people and get some exercise. Go down to the city library and find some interesting books to read. Go to some wacky community event involving art or music. There's all manner of things that can be done for free and even more on top of that which can be done for $10 or less if you're willing to look around a bit.
I think the real truth is that the 18-24 crowd is too absorbed in Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to want to get outside. If John Calhoun were still alive he'd be yelling about behavioral sink right about now.
Interestingly, most of those inexpensive methods of getting out to have fun use little to no energy, particularly if you use a bicycle to get there.
If you live in a built up city (Score:2)
Going down to the city library isn't exactly getting out. It's a drive, followed by being inside for a bit, followed by another drive. Thanks to urban sprawl Most of the community events
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, at least to an extent. Sure, there are always free activities out there people can attend. But quite frankly, a vast majority of them I see on a regular basis don't interest me much or at all. The small city I live in tries to do a number of events each year to promote some tourism and stimulate the local economy, and I participate whenever it's appealing. (For example, they do a big Veterans's Day parade each year. As a Jeep owner, I always volunteer to be part of the parade along with a whol
Re: (Score:3)
A cheap bicycle costs $50+ and there's nothing to do at the park except talking to old people and judgmental moms who look at you like you're about to eat their baby.
Why do that when you have a Kindle or project Gutenberg? You're just wasting gas money.
You can't afford a cheap bike or gas money, but you have a Kindle?
Re: (Score:2)
My Kindle, purchased second-hand, cost way less than a cheap second-hand bike. Hell, if I bought it new, it would still have cost less than the price of a second-hand bike in a major city.
The idea that bicycles are super cheap is a fantasy found only in the minds of non-bicyclists.
Re: (Score:2)
My Kindle, purchased second-hand, cost way less than a cheap second-hand bike. Hell, if I bought it new, it would still have cost less than the price of a second-hand bike in a major city.
The idea that bicycles are super cheap is a fantasy found only in the minds of non-bicyclists.
The last 3 bikes I've owned were free, so...
Re: (Score:2)
My Kindle, purchased second-hand, cost way less than a cheap second-hand bike. Hell, if I bought it new, it would still have cost less than the price of a second-hand bike in a major city.
The idea that bicycles are super cheap is a fantasy found only in the minds of non-bicyclists.
Or in the minds of those that are willing to shop at garage sales -- I bought my commute bike at a garage sale for $20.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why I got Nishiki 18 speed for $50 from a coworker who was moving overseas. I must be a non-bicyclist.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone can enjoy a Kindle rain or shine, day or night. A bicycle, not so much. If I can get the same words on a Kindle as going to the library then I'm really just riding the bicycle for the sake of riding the bicycle, no? That might be enough reason to go for a bike ride for many but some might rather spend the time they'd be riding the bike reading instead.
You've obviously never relied on a bike as transportation, you can (and people do) ride a bike in the rain and at night, with the big difference between a bike and a kindle being that a bike can get you to work.
Re: (Score:2)
I have relied on a bike for transportation. If it's raining, dark, icy, snowing, or windy then the bike is often not safe to ride. I have a nice scar on my elbow from my bike sliding out from under me when I hit a wet patch of pavement, leaving me skidding across the concrete.
I learned to schedule more time for a walk if the weather was not favorable to ride my bike. In really cold weather I drove to a parking lot about halfway to my destination and walked the rest. Getting to my destination soaked to t
Re: (Score:3)
I have relied on a bike for transportation. If it's raining, dark, icy, snowing, or windy then the bike is often not safe to ride. I have a nice scar on my elbow from my bike sliding out from under me when I hit a wet patch of pavement, leaving me skidding across the concrete.
I still rely on a bike for transportation, and regularly ride in the rain, even the dark and rain. Snow/ice are not a problem where I live now, but when I was in college, I regularly rode in the snow, which was tolerable. Ice was a problem, but then, it was a problem in a car too.
Getting to my destination soaked to the bone, with a nice stripe of mud down my back from the rear wheel picking up dirt and flinging it at me, is not the most comfortable way to spend my day. That's also not great on my clothes, that mud can stain
Ahh, I think I see the problem, you haven't discovered the utility of a fenders and a rain jacket for riding in the rain. I always wear rain gear when it's cool or cold and raining. When it's very warm or hot, then I forgo the rain
Re: (Score:2)
Try putting yourself in a situation where $50 is a big expense, and I think you'd manage to get yourself on the bike when it's the difference between getting to work in 30 minutes or getting there in 2 hours by walking since you can't afford a car.
30 minutes vs. 2 hours? I think you walk too slow or bike too fast. Must not be many stop lights for you. Where I live traveling as far as you imply could be a death sentence by bike in the winter. If sliding on ice won't kill you then the sub-zero temperatures will. Seeing 40 below zero temperatures are not uncommon, and wind chills can take that down a few notches more. I could bundle up in a heavy coat and such and find myself sweating a bit from the walk when I get to my destination. I do that on
Re: Money (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just hearing excuses from you. Can't you at least take your kindle preloaded with some e-books outside? It wouldn't be much different than taking a book with you to the local park.
Who cares if the people there don't want to talk to you. Unless they're committing a crime leave them be and they'll leave you be to enjoy the weather.
Maybe just go on a run around the park. I know this isn't applicable to everyone, but having a dog is a good reason to go outside and not become completely obsessed with some st
Re: Money (Score:5, Insightful)
As you say though not everyone will benefit from the dog. If you are not going to take your pet for walks daily and give them attention, please do not adopt one. They are not a game that you can pause for a week and then turn them back on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hearing a lot of excuses. (insert whiny voice) "oh, I'm too short. It's all old people. it's boring..." My Dad would STILL smack me if I said something like that today, and we've got 25 years between us and my teenage years.
If you don't want to go to the park, then go hiking in the mountains. Anything so I don't have to listen to the whining.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything so I don't have to listen to the whining.
Maybe you should consider taking your own suggestion to heart and get off the internet.
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah. It's caused >35 years of non-stop alarmist propaganda about "stranger danger".
Re: (Score:2)
"Buuuh, Videogames are for losers"
meh
Unfortunately, the GP's every post is confirming the stereotype for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was a daily bicycle commuter for 15 years. What you say about free bicycles is plainly FALSE.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bikeforfree.net/7-w... [bikeforfree.net]
SO (Score:1)
Web surfing is now green.
Re: (Score:2)
As I say... (Score:2)
Outdoors sucks which is why we invented the great indoors! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Bugs, skin cancer, and sneezy tree spooge. (Not that there aren't plenty of indoor air quality hazards, but it's much easier to clean a house.)
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of sissies. Get on a bicycle, motorcycle, boat, snow or waterskis, snowmobile, jet ski, basketball court, hiking trail, the side of a mountain, swimming pool, ice rink, Buy some suntan lotion, deet bugspray and a hat to address the issues you raised.
It still boggles the mind that someone above claimed VR is better than real life, and got modded +5. If you guys really believe that crap, we're all fucked in the future.
Re:As I say... (Score:5, Funny)
Just to clarify, when they say "outdoors" they are referring to the big blue room with the trees, right?
Re:As I say... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no. They mean the really ugly building with fluorescent tubes in the ceiling and lots of desks. Or maybe lots of shelves stocked with things to buy. They define it as "buildings other than their homes". The author seems a little confused about what "outside" normally means.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, it's too cold to go out. In 6 months, it will be too hot. In between, it will be too rainy.
The reality is.. (Score:5, Interesting)
... the internet opened the doors to endless entertainment and curiousity, you can really never get bored because you're interacting with other people. Despite all the trolling and awfulness of internet comments the reality is humanity likes a train wreck, even amongst the most intelligent it's hard for those curious primates NOT to look.
I still haven't recovered (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
and there's limits to how much she can borrow
I hit those limits as a student. My parents took on the loans - but in name only. I'm the only one who has ever made payments on them.
Re: (Score:2)
The loan is not in my name. That is the justification - my parents took out the loan in their name and my identity is not tied to them whatsoever.
For some reason, the federal government will only allow your parents to take on the debt if they are in a certain income bracket - even though it was laughable to think they could even afford it. While if they weren't eligible for the loans (i.e. made less money), I probably would have received more financial aid myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldn't be in your current situation.
There is no such thing as an enlightened country with free college.
The people still pay for it through their taxes, and an enlightened country would not shackle their educational system with government mandates. I've read some history books. Government controlled schools are not where people get educated, they get indoctrinated. Schools know where they get their money, they will not bite the hand that feeds them and allow their students to think freely on matters that the government has already decided f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that one of those enlightened countries that jails people for being offensive?
Re: (Score:2)
So, why are you still in this position? You've had a decade to change your skills, change jobs, careers, and location. If you're not happy, fix your life!
In the same time period I moved a thousand miles away, went through 3 different jobs doing different things, and doubled my income in the process. My current job isn't similar to the one I had back then, but tangentially relies on some of those skills. I'm in an area with a reasonable cost of living and unemployment in my general field that often hovers un
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of argument always assumes that there's only ever 'the government' and the individual.
What of society, or on a smaller scale, community?
They are the ones who will suffer when their members can no longer afford to pay for locally produced goods, and have to purchase from cheaper retailers who import from places with lower standards of living and lower costs. They suffer when people can no longer afford to live in the area and move away. Property prices fall, the neighbourhood changes.
Crime correlat
Re: (Score:1)
> Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity.
Counterpoint: Venezuela. Their attempt at social policy has caused a massive crimewave.
I think it's more accurate to say government policy causes some of these problems. Government policy for decades has caused massive immigration (legal, visa, and illegal) that lowers wages and puts people out of work. The policy aids businesses that want cheap labor while also helping certain politicians.
No one ever talks about a compromise: in exchange for
Re: I still haven't recovered (Score:2, Insightful)
Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity.
Counterpoint: Venezuela. Their attempt at social policy has caused a massive crimewave.
Venezuela has massive wealth disparity. Your rebuttal is grounded in a confusion of propaganda over reality.
The same nature of which pervades human behavior. People lie.
Re: (Score:2)
They suffer when people can no longer afford to live in the area and move away. Property prices fall, the neighbourhood changes.
That's backward. If people are moving away because they can't afford to live there, that means property prices are *rising*, not falling. That's classic gentrification. When a neighborhood gets expensive, the poor people move away. That does change the neighborhood, but a lot of the rich people moving in probably think it's changing for the better. And income disparity within that neighborhood decreases, not increases, because the poor people are moving away.
What you really end up with is segregation.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you all attacking people for wanting a decent quality of life instead of the unchecked capitalism clusterfuck we are heading to, go fuck yourselves.
They're doing it because they're abject cowards. They cannot stand hearing about it happening to someone else because they cannot accept that it could happen to them. Their whole lifestyle is predicated upon causing that kind of suffering, after all, and the idea that they've been screwing themselves over conflicts with their idea that they are smarter than everyone else. Lo, cognitive dissonance. This is one of those things that happens to people who believe in things too strongly. They build a whole psych
We spend so much time online (Score:1)
Confusion (Score:2)
There seems to be a lot of confusion. Staying home doesn't necessarily mean staying indoors. I telecommute and I hate the mall, but I like to go outside when I make a phone call and when the evenings are nice I go for a walk around the neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
Right? I'm not sure where they got to staying indoors more from data that says people travel less.
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation vs. causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Being at home means using more energy by keeping the lights on and watching TV. But it also means less travel, and it means that fewer people are outside operating offices and stores.
The logic here appears flawed. Fewer people aren't "outside operating offices and stores?" What does that mean? Offices and stores don't shut down because fewer people are in them. There aren't fewer office buildings or stores, and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh?
Offices and stores don't shut down because fewer people are in them.
An office or business with limited foot traffic may reduce their hours so they aren't paying for staffing when people aren't coming in often enough.
There aren't fewer office buildings or stores...
There most certainly will be "fewer office buildings and stores" when businesses are closing from lack of customers (who are doing their business online while they are staying closed up at home).
...and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.
Yeah, that's why when I'm driving around at 4am in the commercial district all the businesses have their road signs on and interiors fully lit. ...Oh wait. No, they
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't fewer office buildings or stores, and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.
Correlation does not imply causation.
My office turns off the lights when people aren't there (and you have to stand up and wave your arms every hour so the motion sensor keeps the lights on). Just last year our building announced that they weren't going to turn on HVAC on weekends due to lack of use. And they already turned off HVAC off from 9pm-6am. For a fee, after hours HVAC can be arranged, but as far as I know, no one has asked for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor example but still a good conclusion. Sitting at home and watching TV is still far better for the environment than sitting in the car and watching traffic, even when the latter activity takes up a fraction of the time.
Also you're implying that everything is fixed on the other end. It's not. We just closed down an office and merged it with another due to a rise in working from home. This reduces travel, well reduces the amount of energy spent lighting (why the hell are there so many fluros over my head?)
Re: (Score:2)
If your lights use more energy than driving around in a car, just WTF do you light your house with? 1000W halogens? Do you use them for heating too?
Whoever modded you informative apparently doesn't math at all.
Gas has about 33 kWh/gallon.
Modern LED lights will draw around 0.01 kWh, and even hungry plasma screens are in the ballpark of 0.1 kWh.
Moving our fat asses around is ridiculously energy intensive.
thank you (Score:1)
Energy cost of the health impact? (Score:2)
Wouldn't the energy cost of the portion of the obesity epidemic attributable to the sedimentary lifestyle subtract from this? I didn't see any consideration of that though it would be tough to untangle.
Perhaps you could start by estimating what portion of the million plus deaths directly and indirectly attributable to obesity could be prevented with a less sedimentary lifestyle, total up the entire health industry's energy bill, figure out what fraction of the health industry's business is attributable to t
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the energy cost of the portion of the obesity epidemic attributable to the sedimentary lifestyle subtract from this? I didn't see any consideration of that though it would be tough to untangle.
Perhaps you could start by estimating what portion of the million plus deaths directly and indirectly attributable to obesity could be prevented with a less sedimentary lifestyle, total up the entire health industry's energy bill, figure out what fraction of the health industry's business is attributable to those illnesses, and multiply the energy bill by that fraction.
If we weighed the impact of one of our largest health issues against damn near anything, the end result would likely invalidate the original study. How many of "those" illnesses are you going to attribute to a sedimentary lifestyle? Heart disease? Diabetes? Cancer? There are a number of our top killers in society that are certainly exacerbated by sitting on your ass all day every day.
When I was allowed to work from home, it saved me two hours every day in commute time. I took one hour of that time and
Staying indoors... in the indoor rainforest (Score:2)
Ultimately (Score:3)
I see this as bad for the environment. The fewer that appreciate the natural beauty of the outdoors, the fewer people there will be to protect it when humans inevitably carelessly expand to more regions.
re: bad for the enviornment (Score:2)
Nope.... That concern isn't that valid, IMO. We know from our history that we tend to congregate together in densely packed groups. Half of the U.S. population exists in something like a dozen big cities.
The people who really get into "the great outdoors" tend to be the ones motivated to sacrifice a lot of conveniences and even better job prospects to live in more rural areas. But they're also the ones more likely to take care of the place they're moving to!
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. There's plenty of people willing to stand up and protest destruction of the environment. They are pretty much crushed under the boot of the market. Decreasing demand of energy is key.
Also, I'm very suspicious of a particular type of "environmentalist"--the kind that appreciates the natural beauty of the outdoors, but wants it all for themself. The kind that drives around national parks in big RVs, perhaps owning a large amount of land where they hunt and camp, while feeling smug about themselves
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is totally confused. It defines "outside" as "buildings other than their homes". So specifically not including being outdoors. Probably it just means more people shop online and telecommute, so they spend less time in stores and offices. Hopefully that leaves them more time to spend enjoying the outdoors.
Why care about saving energy? (Score:2)
So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.
If the concern is carbon output then I still don't care much about how much energy I use so long as it's from carbon free sources. Going for a drive takes energy. So does running power tools in my shed to make something. I
Re: (Score:2)
Not all energy is equal on environmental impact.
I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?
Because right now, most everyday residents don't have control over where their energy comes from; "energy used" is the best proxy you and I have for environmental impact.
Plus, in many areas, low-impact energy is a limited resource. So even if the electrons YOU are using are from the wind turbines down the road, by using them you are preventing* someone else from using them and potentially offsetting higher-impact sources.
*Yes, I know grid dynamics are a little more complicated than this. But again, this is
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine if we assume the continued use of coal and natural gas, and people don't have control on where their energy comes from. If the Democrats had not held up nuclear power then we'd have energy that is "green", cheap, and safe.
Oh, and nuclear power is effectively unlimited. There's enough uranium and thorium in the crust of the Earth to last humanity beyond when the sun consumes the planet.
Democrats holding us back from nuclear power goes back to the Carter administration. If the Democrats don't c
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not solved exactly but the concerns over global warming should stop any day now
Only if you take a very long term view of "any day now". Most energy infrastructure (power plants and the like) is built to last around 40 years. Even if we completely stopped building non-renewable energy sources today (and we're not there yet, though the majority of new capacity is now renewable), existing power plants would keep producing greenhouse gases for decades. To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if
Re: (Score:2)
To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if overall energy use is decreasing than if it's increasing.
If we use the same amount of electricity year after year then those existing plants will still be producing energy from burning carbon. If usage increases then new power plants must be built to meet demand. Those new plants would presumably be using new technology. This can be carbon free sources like solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. Or at least "greener" energy like natural gas, "clean coal", or something. The per joule carbon output would be lowered. The funds for these new plants would be from peopl
Re: (Score:2)
The per joule carbon output would be lowered.
It's the total emissions that matter, not the per joule emissions. If we cut the emissions per unit energy in half but double the amount of energy we produce, the effect on the climate is the same.
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for an electric utility to see this growing demand and decide that instead of buying new land and running new wires that they could instead put these funds from new electricity demand into upgrading existing power plants.
Sure, that could happen if they have a financial incentive to do it. A carbon tax for example. But it's not going to magically happen on its own. Most power plants are in places where land is cheap, and anyway solar takes more land than coal, not less. (Actually that's only true if you don't count the land us
Re: (Score:2)
A carbon tax for example.
Why would I vote for a carbon tax? Why would anyone vote for a carbon tax? I'm assuming we are discussing nations where people get to vote. A government can get addicted to taxes, creating a carbon tax means the government will never want to see coal go away. If the government honestly thought electric cars would dominate the roads then they'd be taxing electric cars right now instead of gasoline to pay for highway construction. If anyone thinks that there is an "addiction" to petroleum then that appli
Re: (Score:2)
I have no clue what point you're trying to make. You made the assertion that "concerns over global warming should stop any day now". I explained all the reasons that's not true. We are currently emitting large amounts of CO2, we are currently on a path to keep doing so for decades (worldwide emissions actually increased last year), and even if we stopped today the planet would continue getting warmer for the next century. This has nothing to do with ideology. They're just facts. We can discuss the bes
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?
Because nothing is free. Everything has a cost. The more energy you save in one area, then that's energy that can be applied for other work instead. Or it's less effort and cost to serve 100k people, money that can be applied to other tasks. We're still an energy-starved society. Need a desalination plant in a state with a drought? Sorry, desalination takes a huge amount of electricity. Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That did not clarify anything. Are they saying we should build more nuclear power plants? I'm not sure since it seemed to open with a concern over the shuttering of some aging nuclear power plants in the northeast US, but then never mentioned new nuclear power as a solution.
I'll get on board with the reduction of carbon output if that means nuclear power is part of the solution. We can choose nuclear power, keep burning coal, or we can all freeze to death in the dark. We don't have any other options.
I h
Re: (Score:2)
I think you should check yourself, your false dichotomy is showing.
Daylight savings time? (Score:2)
Am I understanding correctly that this is yet something else that is having more of a positive effect than daylight savings time is?
Has anyone thought about getting rid of that yet?
Bullshit! (Score:3)
People are not using as much energy because they're too damned broke to go anywhere or do anything that costs money, so they stay home.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Strat
two ways to save the environment (Score:2)
We can either cut down the population drastically, or, we can go full matrix and never leave the internet.
Wait a minute... (Score:2)
I thought that we just had a Slashdot story a few days ago about our energy consumption going up because of cryptocurrency mining. Which story is right?
Re:Progress is perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
For many people, having fun in beating a boss in WoW is a much better experience than hunting down a bear in real life. So if you could have a better experience on your computer, why would you try to do it in real life? It costs much less, there's no animal protection laws to worry about, a lot less of sitting around waiting for the bear to show up, absolutely no risk of being mauled, and if you want to go with a group, you don't need a bunch of well-off friends with a lot of time to spare.
Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect. When that day comes, you can fully expect nobody to be outside anymore except to do work that needs to be done outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect. When that day comes, you can fully expect nobody to be outside anymore except to do work that needs to be done outside.
This sounds like one of the solutions to the Fermi paradox. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
a lot less of sitting around waiting for the bear to show up, absolutely no risk of being mauled, and if you want to go with a group, you don't need a bunch of well-off friends with a lot of time to spare.
While I've never hunted bear, part of the fun of hunting is the tracking and anticipation -- hunting would not be nearly as interesting if I could press a button and a deer would walk right in front of me. Even being cold and uncomfortable in the rain makes for a good experience. While deer hunting is not particularly dangerous (just don't mix guns & alcohol), the little danger there is also ads to the experience - who cares if someone 'shoots' me with a bazooka in an online game, I know I'll still be g
Re: (Score:2)
Better spend the money on computers and potato chips than on guns and ammunition for killing animals for fun.
Unless you're a vegetarian, you can't really have a moral argument against killing animals for food. Even if the hunting part is "for fun". Not to mention that in some states, there are so few predators that unless hunters killed the deer, overpopulation and starvation would.
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly never hunted bear, nor been outside your mom's basement much. VR will be part of the future, but will never replace real life.
FWIW, I've had fun "beating a boss in WoW", and hunted IRL. The two don't compare.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have tons of fun beating a lot of bosses in WoW.
I also like to go riding through the hills on my bike on the weekend. The outdoors, the actually immersive experience (as opposed to faux immersive that VR guys like to sell you), the physical exercise. The online world is fun, but it simply doesn't compare.
Re: (Score:2)
As do I. I've been on WoW since open beta, but gimme some hunting buddies any day. Looking forward to retirement and a new fishing boat soon too.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I've had fun "beating a boss in WoW", and hunted IRL. The two don't compare.
Agreed.
You don't have to gut the WoW boss and drag his steaming, over-30kg carcass through a half-kilometer or so of meter-deep snow covering partially-wooded, broken terrain in -35C to get it to your vehicle.
Yeah, that's what people will miss. Well, that and adding to the odds you could be shot by a nervous-Nellie rookie cop during a traffic stop on your way there or back because of having the gun(s). The most dangerous thing in the world is a scared person holding a deadly weapon, and the most certain to result in tragedy all around.
Yeah, like all that bullshit actually happens in any but the most rare of hunting trips. Sorry that real life doesn't fit your agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Reality Check" is more than a saying. Reality matters. Whereas you can become a unicorn or Pegasus in virtual reality and fly among the clouds. In there real world we need to live, breath, make babies, drink clean water, not kill or hurt one another over stupid things.
While I think virtual reality is great in many ways for expanding the human experience and improving our communication and imaginations and has great potential.
If we get to the point where we care more about our virtual worlds than the real
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Progress is perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!
Re: (Score:1)
I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!
Maybe you'd be happier watching TV.
Re: (Score:1)
To enter out into that silence that was the city at eight o'clock of a misty evening in November, to put your feet upon that buckling concrete walk, to step over grassy seams and make your way, hands in pockets, through the silences, that was what Mr Leonard Mead most dearly loved to do. He would stand upon the corner of an intersection and peer down long moonlit avenues of sidewalk in four directions, deciding which way to go, but it really made no difference; he was alone in this world of 2053 A.D., or as good as alone, and with a final decision made, a path selected, he would stride off, sending patterns of frosty air before him like the smoke of a cigar.
There is a saying in talk.bizarre, you asshat, used if you quote someone else's work: "ATTRIBUTION, DAMNIT"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian
Re: (Score:1)
That needed a car that was working, a price of fuel and a wage to cover the costs of fun and driving.
Now that same discretionary money from a living wage is under pressure. For the decades of costs of food, health care, transport, heating, cooling, internet, rent/loan payments, city/state/federal taxes, a hobby, a
Re: (Score:1)
You do understand that inner city crime has been steadily going down for the last 30 years, yes?
Re:This is Bullshit!!! (Score:4, Informative)
One British Thermal Unit is the energy released when burning 1/114,000 [wikipedia.org] of a gallon of gasoline. That's 1392 micro hogsheads [traditionaloven.com]