|
Occasionally truisms do deserve repeating and re-evaluating. One that has been on my mind recently is that “we live in a complex world”. It seems simple enough, we all know that the different interdependent systems that make up the world are entirely too complex for any one person to understand them completely. A meteorologist will tell you that there are just too many variables to accurately predict weather on a micro scale. The field of quantum physics is infamous for Richard Feynman’s claim that “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. However far our understanding has come since then, it reinforces the notion that the period of human existence where one person can have an intimate knowledge of many fields of study has been behind us for some time. That is not to say that people who have multiple specialisms do not exist, they do, and they are of tantamount importance in bringing together new technologies and discoveries, the point I am trying to drive home is that a surface level understanding of any one topic never encapsulates the more nuanced problems of our society. If we cannot grasp the true nature of the problems, then how can we be expected to make good decisions in order to create cross cutting solutions. Moreover, this nature makes coming up with solutions always feel like a slightly futile gesture. The problems all seem too big for any small change at home to make a difference.
Then let us revel in the complexity, and accept that the only way we can understand these problems is through collaboration. And then once we have reached a communal understanding of the problems let us again accept a second level of complexity. That our actions do not take place within a vacuum. Our actions coincide with the actions of literally millions of other communities, some who are rationally making decisions as a group, but more whose localities are organically changing, growing and adapting, through the actions of the individuals.
Why is this important? Because I am tired of seeing the world painted black and white in its political decisions, especially as they pertain to the environment. I am tired of simplistic and moralistic arguments. Fracking is bad. Renewables are good. GM is bad. Organic farming is good. These aren’t arguments, they are noise. Yes, hydraulic fracturing has caused the destruction of many ecosystems, it has polluted water sources, and even recently in Texas caused thousands of cattle to die due to the water table being overused and drained, leading to local farmers being unable to give water to their animals. However, as Keele’s Prof. Peter Styles recently pointed out, currently 1% of all the gas that arrives via pipelines from Russia that we currently rely upon leaks, and this 1% acts as a more powerful greenhouse gas than the other 99% that gets burned once it reaches the UK. So by producing our own gas, via fracking, we could drastically reduce the effective power of the GhGs that we release into the atmosphere. So which should we choose? Local environmental destruction or wider climate destabilisation? Except that our addiction to fossil fuels must be ended to actually solve the climate problem.
Any way that we choose to prolong it through further drilling simply makes the cost effectiveness of the renewable solutions harder to obtain. Now instead of a black and white decision what we have is a set of options distinguishable by priorities. What are the repercussions of either choice? The idea that we might have rolling blackouts in the UK is unthinkable to the average person, but a sudden switch to renewables could potentially lead to that.
Decisions are hard. But hard decisions are considerably more interesting. When decisions are painted as black and white they are boring, and it doesn’t interest the average person, but once you present them as decisions that are complex and varied, and explain the processes behind the solutions, people become engaged.
Let me give one more example of a technology that will be critical to Britain’s survival in the 21st century. Wind Turbines. For me wind turbines are beautiful, because they portray a vision of the future where we as a species try our best to do the least damage that we possibly can to the world around us. We’ve realised that the fuel on the ground is too limited in its production to equip us with enough energy in the world today.
That said, As a hiker, I understand reservations about covering the Lake District with wind turbines. The Lakes are a place where the natural beauty of this land is so apparent, I can empathise with the opinion that they would be marred by human edifices. Already, on a purely surface level reading of the of wind turbines we have two opposing positions. After all, what is the point of protecting the environment if we destroy its beauty and wonder in the process? My favourite solutions are those that enhance my feeling of wonder. Like the research of the last few years that claims that wind turbines in the sea actually create little pockets of calm in the ocean. These pockets give rise to new ecosystems. The base of the turbine creates oases of warmth and stability that life clings to and crowds around. The plants that take hold here create the necessary food and shelter for other marine life, sheltering crabs, fish and anemones. In a world where overfishing is increasingly causing the collapse of the fisheries, maybe our method of creating energy can go part of the way to resolving these catastrophes. Neatly we take two problems and turn them into one solution.
Are offshore wind turbines expensive? Yes. Do they likely do some damage when they are built. Of course. Are they necessary as we run out of fossil fuels? Absolutely.
Our problems as a society are hard enough to grasp cognitively let alone grapple with physically. But the solutions to these problems can only come through education and deliberation, through debate and discussion. Next time someone tells you that this or that is bad, ask them why, and then think of the repercussions. Think of the priorities that inform those repercussions. Rarely is good or bad an adequate description. Remember your ability to google. I hope that James Martin is right about our generation:
“Today’s youth are more informed and educated. They understand the complexity of 21st-century problems, and they do not seek simplistic answers. Indeed, the challenge of the problems excites and animates them.”
+ Show Spoiler +I write a blog elsewhere now, but TL was the first place i started writing blogs, and it is also the place with the most intelligent positive audience i know, so I'd like to keep posting them here too.
If you want to find the place I write for now, google 2ndrenaissance and it will appear, but I won't provide a direct link from TL.
|
Nice blog, it's so rare finding people, who actually think in depth about stuff and not just following one or another opinion. And as you mentioned TL is such a place.
|
On September 24 2013 18:08 Surili wrote:
Let me give one more example of a technology that will be critical to Britain’s survival in the 21st century. Wind Turbines. For me wind turbines are beautiful, because they portray a vision of the future where we as a species try our best to do the least damage that we possibly can to the world around us. We’ve realised that the fuel on the ground is too limited in its production to equip us with enough energy in the world today.
So since you are against black/white thinking, I give you two examples that seem public consent but might be worth discussing which are inherent to your quote.
First: The oil reserves are so scarce that we need to prepare now to maintain our lifestyle. This is not as obvious as it seems. Since the Club of Rome report the term "peak oil" was like a ghost, scaring people. The problem is: it just didn't come. And the reason for this is simple: neither the CoR nor we know how the technology will advance, but the discovery of fracking shows you that there are large ressources now inaccessable but will be accessable in the future simply due to advancements in mining techniques.
Another example are bacteries which can be used (on a small scale) to catalyze plants into oil. If this tech goes large scale, we might never quit oil as a ressource altogether.
Second: Windmills are a future technology. I call BS on that one. we already have them with quite good conversion rates. The construction of a jet engine is complex. Windmills are rather easy and unless there is a large unforeseen change in the laws of physics their (inner) form is set. Advancements might come in the form of better materials for larger mills, but the energy transported in the wind is a datum no tech can change.
I say the real challange is not the windmill but the storage technology. We might forecast the weather but this doesn't help us in dealing with the power outage. I can't remember the year but I know that there has been no wind in Germany for 11 days(!!). this takes the challange to the next level.
|
windmills are a future technology because there currently isn't an effective infrastructure to incorporate massive amounts of windmills needed to induce a significant enough impact in the current energy grid.
|
On September 25 2013 02:54 Smurfett3 wrote:
windmills are a future technology because there currently isn't an effective infrastructure to incorporate massive amounts of windmills needed to induce a significant enough impact in the current energy grid.
so the infrastructure is the challenge then?
|
On September 25 2013 02:57 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 02:54 Smurfett3 wrote:
windmills are a future technology because there currently isn't an effective infrastructure to incorporate massive amounts of windmills needed to induce a significant enough impact in the current energy grid.
so the infrastructure is the challenge then?
No it isn't. It is the oil lobby 
|
On September 25 2013 03:30 Vete wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 02:57 Hryul wrote:On September 25 2013 02:54 Smurfett3 wrote:
windmills are a future technology because there currently isn't an effective infrastructure to incorporate massive amounts of windmills needed to induce a significant enough impact in the current energy grid.
so the infrastructure is the challenge then? No it isn't. It is the oil lobby
What I am saying is that there is no current economic infrastructure in place to utilize a massive amount of wind-turbine technology. Whereas, there is significant existing infrastructure in oil, natural gas, and coal that is currently being used today. There are so many oil refineries that are operating and making a profit whereas windmills are far and few in between.
|
On September 25 2013 03:34 Smurfett3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 03:30 Vete wrote:On September 25 2013 02:57 Hryul wrote:On September 25 2013 02:54 Smurfett3 wrote:
windmills are a future technology because there currently isn't an effective infrastructure to incorporate massive amounts of windmills needed to induce a significant enough impact in the current energy grid.
so the infrastructure is the challenge then? No it isn't. It is the oil lobby What I am saying is that there is no current economic infrastructure in place to utilize a massive amount of wind-turbine technology. Whereas, there is significant existing infrastructure in oil, natural gas, and coal that is currently being used today. There are so many oil refineries that are operating and making a profit whereas windmills are far and few in between.
I'm sorry but I'm expecting arguments for using windmills in the future as (main) energy source. you bring up a reason against it. this confuses me.
|
On September 25 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 03:34 Smurfett3 wrote:On September 25 2013 03:30 Vete wrote:On September 25 2013 02:57 Hryul wrote:On September 25 2013 02:54 Smurfett3 wrote:
windmills are a future technology because there currently isn't an effective infrastructure to incorporate massive amounts of windmills needed to induce a significant enough impact in the current energy grid.
so the infrastructure is the challenge then? No it isn't. It is the oil lobby What I am saying is that there is no current economic infrastructure in place to utilize a massive amount of wind-turbine technology. Whereas, there is significant existing infrastructure in oil, natural gas, and coal that is currently being used today. There are so many oil refineries that are operating and making a profit whereas windmills are far and few in between. I'm sorry but I'm expecting arguments for using windmills in the future as (main) energy source. you bring up a reason against it. this confuses me.
Currently, the arguments for using non-renewable sources of energy are better than ones to use renewable energy. That said, renewable energy plays a role in the future (50-100 years), but will take decades of friendly government policies, technological advances, and a successful economic model before it becomes more widely used.
|
|
|
or we could, you know, make things less complicated and use less energy
your exclusive focus on supply side thinking is an example of the thing you claim not to be doing
usually when people wax eloquent about the 'complexity' of some situation, they are just using that as a way to avoid taking some problem seriously while appearing to be a deep thinker. That's what you are doing here
|
On September 25 2013 07:56 sam!zdat wrote:
or we could, you know, make things less complicated and use less energy
your exclusive focus on supply side thinking is an example of the thing you claim not to be doing
usually when people wax eloquent about the 'complexity' of some situation, they are just using that as a way to avoid taking some problem seriously while appearing to be a deep thinker. That's what you are doing here
rising population = more energy consumption. therefore it is inevitable
|
simplistic thinking. A) we must control our population b) current energy use based on unrealistic economics with huge negative externalities. solution lies in efficiency and reduced consumption not supply. Bad economics does not reflect true cost of energy and therefore subsidizes waste, does not properly incenticize efficiency.
|
On September 25 2013 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:
simplistic thinking. A) we must control our population b) current energy use based on unrealistic economics with huge negative externalities. solution lies in efficiency and reduced consumption not supply. Bad economics does not reflect true cost of energy and therefore subsidizes waste, does not properly incenticize efficiency.
since you are sprouting left wing oneliners, here's one for you: people in a democracy won't give up their living standard. your proposals are anti-democratic
|
On September 25 2013 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:
simplistic thinking. A) we must control our population b) current energy use based on unrealistic economics with huge negative externalities. solution lies in efficiency and reduced consumption not supply. Bad economics does not reflect true cost of energy and therefore subsidizes waste, does not properly incenticize efficiency.
woah, major assumption on "bad economics". The whole point of economics is to make a profit. The bigger the profit, the better the economic model is. increasing energy effeciency does not provide positive externalities for corporations and would create "bad economics".
How d byou define "true cost of energy"?
|
never claimed to be democratic. I'm deeply suspicious of what we call 'democracy' although I believe that our 'democracy' is a perversion of the term and does not deserve the name. It's nothing but the rule of special interests coupled with a vulgar populism
liberal democracy is collapsing. It's an obsolete social order. The only question is whether it takes us with it.
|
On September 25 2013 08:49 Smurfett3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:
simplistic thinking. A) we must control our population b) current energy use based on unrealistic economics with huge negative externalities. solution lies in efficiency and reduced consumption not supply. Bad economics does not reflect true cost of energy and therefore subsidizes waste, does not properly incenticize efficiency. woah, major assumption on "bad economics". The whole point of economics is to make a profit. The bigger the profit, the better the economic model is. increasing energy effeciency does not provide positive externalities for corporations and would create "bad economics". How d byou define "true cost of energy"?
wrong. The purpose of economics is to manage society's resources. Liberal theory is grounded on the claim that the profit motive accomplishes this (which is true and not true). If you claim that the profit motive relies only on itself the bottom falls out of liberal theory.
|
I don't even know what I am talking about anymore...liberal democracy is collapsing....liberal theory....."vulgar populism"?
So if not supportive of democracy do you then support.....Russia, the other major geopolitical force and their politics?
|
silly smurfette! the real new enemy is china, not russia.
|
On September 25 2013 09:00 Hryul wrote:silly smurfette! the real new enemy is china, not russia.
funny enough that is what most american's think, but most russians consider the USA public enemy #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
