EPTwhat about those terms and ideas confuses you?
Politics of Complexity: Politics of Sustainability - Page 2
| Blogs > Surili |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
what about those terms and ideas confuses you? | ||
|
EJK
United States1302 Posts
On September 25 2013 09:04 sam!zdat wrote: I'm not convinced that you ever knew what you were talking about what about those terms and ideas confuses you? I'm just confused from what perspective are you arguing from? edit: like what even counts as "societies resources"? Now that globalization exists, is it both imports/exports? Just things that are local/exported? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
what is globalization? What do we mean when we talk about this, and what sort of a process is it? | ||
|
EJK
United States1302 Posts
On September 25 2013 09:14 sam!zdat wrote: who cares about my perspective? Why don't you just think about what I am saying? Do you need a box into which to put someone, so that you can shoehorn them into your misconceptions, before you will listen to them? what is globalization? What do we mean when we talk about this, and what sort of a process is it? so i ask a question and you respond with a myriad of questions? what do YOU think globalization is? What do YOU mean when YOU talk about it, and what sort of process is it? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
if you don't want to define your terms, don't use them I want to know what this thing globalization is, and what it has to do with my proposition that the purpose of an economy is to manage society's resources, and that liberalism is grounded in the claim that society's resources can best be managed by means of the profit motive. if all of that is true (which it is), then what you said earlier about how the profit motive is bad at promoting efficiency (also true!) is a refutation of liberalism!  | ||
|
EJK
United States1302 Posts
On September 25 2013 09:38 sam!zdat wrote: you're the one who brought it up. I just want to know what you mean, because I am very ignorant and I don't know what globalization is. if you don't want to define your terms, don't use them I want to know what this thing globalization is, and what it has to do with my proposition that the purpose of an economy is to manage society's resources, and that liberalism is grounded in the claim that society's resources can best be managed by means of the profit motive. if all of that is true (which it is), then what you said earlier about how the profit motive is bad at promoting efficiency (also true!) is a refutation of liberalism! It is a term coined in the 1950s and is basically the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets. And so...what determines what is a part of "societys resources"? Is it society as the human society of earth? Or the society of the people of the united states? The society of each continent and the resources offered on each of them? edit: I cant answer the rest of your stuff until you define what societys resources is | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
There are some social and technological constraints on how we can deal with global warming. Most developed societies are unwilling to accept a large sudden reduction of energy consumption and the subsequent decrease of standards of living. Renewable energies are not yet economically viable and will require a rethinking of the whole energy infrastructure when they are. For all the damage it's caused fracking has been good for the environment on the world scale. CO2 emissions has decreased in the US as natural gas became a larger part of the energy mix, replacing oil and coal, which emit more CO2 per unit of energy produced. But that too is just one part of the whole puzzle. What enviromentalists understand, even while they argue for decisions that are likely to be damaging in the short term, is that there's in inherent risk of taking the lesser of two evils. If you're always willing to accept the lesser of two evils you'll keep getting presented the same kind of dilemma. Accepting fracking willingly underplays the seriousness of the situation. People seem to be willing to accept significant risks only because the alternative of increasing energy prices or relying on even dirtier (or potentially more risky) forms of energy is unthinkable. Not only that but they don't do this in order to solve global warming, only to buy a little more time to find a solution. All the while making absolutely no progress in understanding how exactly we got into this mess and what we can do to avoid it in the future. So, yes our world is so complex that no individual can understand it. For various reasons neither can cooperating communities, at least not very well. We are left with dealing with individual issues as they come up, hoping that there is a solution. For the most part we have been lucky so far. It could have been different. It was entirely possible that by the time we realized the ozone layer was thinning there would have been nothing we could do about it. Same with global warming. To me good politics is more than making the right decision on individual issues. Supporting fracking might be the right decision. But it's part of a very dangerous pattern. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 25 2013 08:44 Hryul wrote: 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 Are you talking about driving trucks that get 20 mpg or wasting 40% of the food supply or just living in American Suburban Castles? Yeah I can't imagine people giving that shit up either. Just way too good. | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
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. Hey sam!zat, I've seen you around these boards alot and I think you are an interesting dude, but I do not understand this sort of thinking. I'm going to assume you believe something like: "people should be happy and be allowed to purse their desires" as some sort of general good for society (maybe not, I'm not sure, this just seems like something most people could agree with). I think there is a powerful empirical argument that A) people desire material goods and the comfort the industrial revolution made available to the masses B) That increasing intensiveness of energy usage is correlated (and some argue required) for the material advantage the ind. rev. provided. If you believe those two things, I do not think you can defend reducing energy use and energy consumption. Now I won't deny that further energy efficiencies can be made, but it appears that if you reduce consumption and energy use, it will destine much of the world to poverty and reduce standards of living in the developed world. Furthermore, unless you make a law preventing the increase of energy utilization by putting a hard cap at some amount of energy usage, the market will develop clean alternatives and it appears technologically feasible to make these alternatives actually produce more energy than is currently consumed at a similar price. Solar/nuke/fusion + efficiency improvements suggest that without someone to stop it, even if taxes are levied on dirty energy, our use of energy will grow (and the global reduction of poverty will continue). Now why do you desire to stop that? The current world economic trajectory is of reduced poverty: the old 3rd and 2nd world appear to be entering the first world and millions of the global poor are entering the global middle class. p.s. rich=stable population. So more energy use+efficiency = the end of a population problem. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 25 2013 17:00 bumwithagun wrote: Hey sam!zat, I've seen you around these boards alot and I think you are an interesting dude, but I do not understand this sort of thinking. I'm going to assume you believe something like: "people should be happy and be allowed to purse their desires" as some sort of general good for society (maybe not, I'm not sure, this just seems like something most people could agree with). I think there is a powerful empirical argument that A) people desire material goods and the comfort the industrial revolution made available to the masses B) That increasing intensiveness of energy usage is correlated (and some argue required) for the material advantage the ind. rev. provided. If you believe those two things, I do not think you can defend reducing energy use and energy consumption. Now I won't deny that further energy efficiencies can be made, but it appears that if you reduce consumption and energy use, it will destine much of the world to poverty and reduce standards of living in the developed world. Furthermore, unless you make a law preventing the increase of energy utilization by putting a hard cap at some amount of energy usage, the market will develop clean alternatives and it appears technologically feasible to make these alternatives actually produce more energy than is currently consumed at a similar price. Solar/nuke/fusion + efficiency improvements suggest that without someone to stop it, even if taxes are levied on dirty energy, our use of energy will grow (and the global reduction of poverty will continue). Now why do you desire to stop that? The current world economic trajectory is of reduced poverty: the old 3rd and 2nd world appear to be entering the first world and millions of the global poor are entering the global middle class. p.s. rich=stable population. So more energy use+efficiency = the end of a population problem. Sam doesn't believe those two things. Neither should you. I find the bolded part to be especially egregious. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 25 2013 17:25 IgnE wrote: Sam doesn't believe those two things. Neither should you. I find the bolded part to be especially egregious. But this is a very valid argument: by far most energy consumption doesn't come from waste but from need. Take for example the production of Aluminium. the industry doesn't use the energy because they are evil and want to pollute the world but because the need it. they would gladly reduce their energy consumption because it would make their product cheaper and thus more competetive. But they simply haven't found a way yet. Another point is that sometimes to safe energy you need to spend energy. One example is the light bulb. EU has banned the "classical" light bulb from sales and has replaced it with a version that consumes less energy when on. This is (atm) a very questionable move b/c the new one is a "high tech" product which consumes much more energy to make and to recycle than the old one. the numbers I've seen suggest that the overall energy consumption of the new one is higher than from the old one. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
people can try to be happy but they shouldn't be allowed to be assholes about it. Most people are assholes about it. And what most people want to be 'happy' is shallow stupid consumer trash the only way most of the world will ever get out of poverty is extremely efficient energy usage. The third world cannot follow our path to prosperity through profligacy, it simply isn't possible (in large part because we've done this by exploiting THEM) | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On September 26 2013 01:20 sam!zdat wrote: it's possible to use very little energy and to be one of the richest human beings who ever lived. citation needed, define rich if you don't mean "money" On September 26 2013 01:20 sam!zdat wrote: We haven't put very much effort into the problem, is the only reason you think it's impossible. citation needed. where exactly do you think effort is needed. what is "the problem"? On September 26 2013 01:20 sam!zdat wrote: people can try to be happy but they shouldn't be allowed to be assholes about it. Most people are assholes about it. And what most people want to be 'happy' is shallow stupid consumer trash so the wise samisdat is here to show us a happy non-shallow life. and people how not to be assholes. On September 26 2013 01:20 sam!zdat wrote: the only way most of the world will ever get out of poverty is extremely efficient energy usage. The third world cannot follow our path to prosperity through profligacy, it simply isn't possible (in large part because we've done this by exploiting THEM) and I thought the way is a developed infrastructure, an efficient gvmt., an efficient farming sector and a thrieving industry. silly me. alright, I'm done with you. If you want to be "thought provoking" without saying anything, this leads to nothing. I'll come back to you if you put more effort into content. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
as for the bit about about 'wise sam', yes, I'm a philosopher, that's my job. Get paid to do it, actually edit: it's amusing how you interpet 'the only way...' as 'the sufficient condition for...' you are such a brusque and unthoughtful fellow! | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 26 2013 01:17 Hryul wrote: But this is a very valid argument: by far most energy consumption doesn't come from waste but from need. citation needed: what's waste and what's need here? define your terms. break it down by industry. who are the biggest energy consumers? Take for example the production of Aluminium. the industry doesn't use the energy because they are evil and want to pollute the world but because the need it. they would gladly reduce their energy consumption because it would make their product cheaper and thus more competetive. But they simply haven't found a way yet. citation needed Another point is that sometimes to safe energy you need to spend energy. One example is the light bulb. EU has banned the "classical" light bulb from sales and has replaced it with a version that consumes less energy when on. This is (atm) a very questionable move b/c the new one is a "high tech" product which consumes much more energy to make and to recycle than the old one. the numbers I've seen suggest that the overall energy consumption of the new one is higher than from the old one. citation needed, even if true how is this relevant? and I thought the way is a developed infrastructure, an efficient gvmt., an efficient farming sector and a thrieving industry. silly me. citation needed, how is this possible without a fourth world for the third world to exploit? who will Bangladesh outsource their shoe-making to? who will buy anything in Namibia? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On September 26 2013 04:51 IgnE wrote: citation needed citation needed! | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
I choose the example of Aluminium because I thought it to be common knowledge that the production of Alu through electrolysis is very energy intense with 12,9–17,7 kWh/kg. german source, ph.d. thesis: http://sylvester.bth.rwth-aachen.de/dissertationen/2004/017/04_017.pdf So I thought this would be an obvious example of where there is a real, process-determined incentive to search for less energyconsuming technologies. I thought this would highlight that you can't simply go "herp derp consume less energy!!" since it is a real (scientific) challange to do so that can't be abbreviated by politics and regulations. The second example was to highlight that you have to be careful what "saving energy" really means since it can backfire. his last part is in my opinion an inversion of logic: if the first world consumes less energy the third world won't suddenly become rich since they still have an underdeveloped country and a corrupt gvmt. I think the logical way would be that namibia gets rich first and then through the increased demand of ressources there is more competition to use available ressources more effective. what bothers me most is that there was so less effort to actually bring arguments. I mean: "Sam doesn't believe those two things. Neither should you.". really? what kind of argument is that? at least give some basic example or anything. instead I get oneliners and "food for thought" without any facts presented. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
or you could, you know, use less aluminum. That would save energy. when I speak of richest humans, I am talking about historical standards. Roof, food, medicine, leisure: you're rich. We've been corrupted by unrealistic american dream stuff in our conception of what being rich is - go back and read your plato and epicurus and find out what the good life is. We already have it, and it doesn't cost anything at all. I am one of the richest humans who ever lived, and I am very poor by american standards. But I've been rich by american standards, and I was less happy then than I am now. 'the logical way is that namibia gets rich first' LOL you ever see that cartoon with 'then a miracle happens'. What buffoonery. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
So in your world "using less energy" means doing everything we already do now, just with less energy. "The real (scientific) challenge" that you've delineated is to maintain the status quo. You say "we need to consume more energy to keep everything going!" You make a great point about "green" consumer products, even if you didn't know that you were making such a point. Are they really environmentally conscious, sustainable products? Or are they a way of selling indulgences to consumers who participate in a capitalist scheme that remains fundamentally unchanged? A scheme that continues to rape, plunder, and burn its way to greater accumulation of capital. Of course we need to keep making aluminum, and more of it, till the end of time. Just like everything else we make it. Otherwise capitalism might cease to function, and how could people possibly be happy then? | ||
| ||
