EPTsoyons realistes demandons l'impossible!
Politics of Complexity: Politics of Sustainability - Page 3
| Blogs > Surili |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
soyons realistes demandons l'impossible! | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 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. We haven't put very much effort into the problem, is the only reason you think it's impossible. 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) Here's the thing, wealth, the collection of those things you listed such as housing, food medicine, etc, are the use of energy to do work that created those goods. The industrial revolution allowed us to apply non-human sources of energy to do work and increased human wealth by an enormous amount. We live in a society in which we have a huge amount of freedom to work in all sorts of fields because of the wealth of our society. In pre industrial revolution societies, a tiny amount of people lived lives of comfort (usually acquired by taking it from other people), and everyone else lived lives of sustenance. The fact that we can have universities in every city, staffed by a huge group of professors that do not produce work that increase wealth and most people in america are not required to go to work until their mid 20s, is a testament to the wealth that exists. The computers we type on, modern medicine, the opportunities to work almost any job anywhere you would like, etc are products of the energy use you apparently want to reduce. These are products of the use of energy! Now, you can say you want to go back to being poor, no modern tech, medicine, travel and opportunity, but you cannot believe these things can be had while denying the necessity of energy usage (well without denying physics). Energy consumption is work done, and work done provides the wealth that produces these "goods." I would appreciate it if you didn't respond in imprecise one liners and actually used terms in the way people use them. It would help me (and everyone in this thread) understand why you believe what you believe. See generally, http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/03/energy-use-and-economic-growth-some.html (demonstrating the energy=wealth relationship and arguing against energy efficiency = lower energy consumption) (Also, in response to the "our wealth comes from exploitation of the global poor nonsense," look at the growth of wages in developing countries as more and more investment comes into the country and they sell more and more goods. It rises. Japan, Korea, the ASEAN countries, China, India, etc are all developing, or successfully developed, by using the "exploitative" global capitalist system itself. Just as econ 101 suggests, wages are low because there is no demand for the worker's skills, factories come in and pay the workers extremely low wages to make goods. As more factories come into the country the skills of the workers grow and the relative scarcity of workers increases resulting in higher wages. Then suddenly you are China and entering the developed world. All the while the worker's freely chose to work in these factories instead of living in the desperate poverty of the countryside.) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
and have you ever seen a picture of the air quality in beijing? Now imagine that all the billions of chinese peasants achieve this mythical middle class lifestyle that you so disingenuously suggest will be the fruits of their entry into global capitalism I use language much more precisely than pretty much anyone you will ever meet on the internet, don't lecture me about that kid nowhere did I say that I want to give up modern technology, don't put words in my mouth. Lets explode your binary for a moment and maybe there are other possibilities than stone age vs. Profligate industrial modernity. I'm a bright green environmentalist, never claimed anything else. Wishing that modernity had never happened is a pointless endeavor in which I never engage so don't put words into my mouth edit: the fact that you can use energy to get things doesn't mean that you shouldn't use energy more efficiently to get more reasonable amounts of those things. Don't be a moron | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 26 2013 12:48 bumwithagun wrote: Here's the thing, wealth, the collection of those things you listed such as housing, food medicine, etc, are the use of energy to do work that created those goods. The industrial revolution allowed us to apply non-human sources of energy to do work and increased human wealth by an enormous amount. We live in a society in which we have a huge amount of freedom to work in all sorts of fields because of the wealth of our society. In pre industrial revolution societies, a tiny amount of people lived lives of comfort (usually acquired by taking it from other people), and everyone else lived lives of sustenance. The fact that we can have universities in every city, staffed by a huge group of professors that do not produce work that increase wealth and most people in america are not required to go to work until their mid 20s, is a testament to the wealth that exists. The computers we type on, modern medicine, the opportunities to work almost any job anywhere you would like, etc are products of the energy use you apparently want to reduce. These are products of the use of energy! Now, you can say you want to go back to being poor, no modern tech, medicine, travel and opportunity, but you cannot believe these things can be had while denying the necessity of energy usage (well without denying physics). Energy consumption is work done, and work done provides the wealth that produces these "goods." I would appreciate it if you didn't respond in imprecise one liners and actually used terms in the way people use them. It would help me (and everyone in this thread) understand why you believe what you believe. See generally, http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/03/energy-use-and-economic-growth-some.html (demonstrating the energy=wealth relationship and arguing against energy efficiency = lower energy consumption) (Also, in response to the "our wealth comes from exploitation of the global poor nonsense," look at the growth of wages in developing countries as more and more investment comes into the country and they sell more and more goods. It rises. Japan, Korea, the ASEAN countries, China, India, etc are all developing, or successfully developed, by using the "exploitative" global capitalist system itself. Just as econ 101 suggests, wages are low because there is no demand for the worker's skills, factories come in and pay the workers extremely low wages to make goods. As more factories come into the country the skills of the workers grow and the relative scarcity of workers increases resulting in higher wages. Then suddenly you are China and entering the developed world. All the while the worker's freely chose to work in these factories instead of living in the desperate poverty of the countryside.) China, India, Brazil, etc. are all countries with rapidly rising inequality, in which the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few by exploiting their own people, rather than outsiders doing all the exploitation. There is a net transfer of wealth from the world's poor masses to the capital holders. It just so happens that there are now some very rich capitalists in India and in China who are also sucking up wealth. It cannot go on forever. Some minor points: "go back to being poor" is a nonsense argument. Even you don't know what you mean by that. no one ever said we had to abandon modern medicine to reduce energy consumption, that's ridiculous this isn't a luddite argument about forsaking the fruits of modernity, you are jumping to erroneous conclusions food as it is currently produced is problematic (over-reliance on oil for transport and fertilizer, monocultures, monsanto extracting wealth while weakening the overall robustness of the system, etc.), but there are other, more sustainable ways to meet the world's food production needs also note that the "developing" countries you cite rely on the first world for demand, they are not independent economies that are growing up within their borders and selling to their own capitalist consumers, mostly because their own citizens are too poor to buy the nike shoes they are shipping back to the united states, pointing to foreign "investment" works against you more than it works for you in terms of suggesting that the first world doesn't exploit the rest of the world | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
On September 26 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote: china is not entering the developed world, the new chinese bourgeoisie is entering the developed world. They do this by exploiting other chinese people. When you are looking at those gdp figures you are treating CHINA and INDIA as one big homogenous thing which is obviously stupid and have you ever seen a picture of the air quality in beijing? Now imagine that all the billions of chinese peasants achieve this mythical middle class lifestyle that you so disingenuously suggest will be the fruits of their entry into global capitalism So you deny the huge reduction of poverty that has occurred in China over the last three decades? And yes, I lived in China for a year and experienced the awful air pollution, but I also saw the rapid development going around me and heard many, many stories of people getting out of subsistence level poverty. We obviously are not going to agree about how economic growth works (as how you see it all as some sort of exploitation) which is fine. But it is there, and it has improved people's lives. On September 26 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote: I use language much more precisely than pretty much anyone you will ever meet on the internet, don't lecture me about that kid LOL@kid. This quote: 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. We haven't put very much effort into the problem, is the only reason you think it's impossible. 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 ...is not being precise about what you mean. You are using your own idiosyncratic definition of "rich" and throwing out a angry, incomprehensible sentence about consumerism. On September 26 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote: nowhere did I say that I want to give up modern technology, don't put words in my mouth. Lets explode your binary for a moment and maybe there are other possibilities than stone age vs. Profligate industrial modernity. I'm a bright green environmentalist, never claimed anything else. Wishing that modernity had never happened is a pointless endeavor in which I never engage so don't put words into my mouth edit: the fact that you can use energy to get things doesn't mean that you shouldn't use energy more efficiently to get more reasonable amounts of those things. Don't be a moron Efficiency simply lowers the cost of an amount of work and increases consumption - and this is exactly how wealth is built. If the energy is green, I do not see what harm you could possibly find in that? It means new technology, inventions, and prosperity. Why do you prefer lowering energy consumption to making energy clean? Especially when considering the necessity of putting some morally dubious and invasive controls on people to do so (as efficiency does not seem to lower consumption when people make the choice themselves). | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
we had rags to riches mythology in this country too. You just spout that stuff about china and expect me to think you are anything but a koolaid drinker? Your anecdotal evidence about being in the metropole talking to people who made it out says nothing about patterns of exploitation in chinese economy. You think they let you see the really bad stuff? Please edit: nothing idiosyncratic when I say 'richest human beings in history'. You just have no perspective | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
And you didn't answer whether you deny the poverty reduction as a result of economic growth in china. And you didn't answer my central question that started this all: On September 26 2013 13:32 bumwithagun wrote: Efficiency simply lowers the cost of an amount of work and increases consumption - and this is exactly how wealth is built. If the energy is green, I do not see what harm you could possibly find in that? It means new technology, inventions, and prosperity. Why do you prefer lowering energy consumption to making energy clean? Especially when considering the necessity of putting some morally dubious and invasive controls on people to do so (as efficiency does not seem to lower consumption when people make the choice themselves). Notice how I nicely answer your question while you dodge mine? PS- How old are you? I'm guessing we are of similar age (though I may be being generous considering your emotional outbursts). No need to continually call me kid. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
efficiency makes more consumption? This begs too many questions to even begin, really. How can you say such a banal thing and then act upset when I don't respond. edit: 'how can you prefer efficiency to making energy clean'???? There's no such thing as free energy kid, good grief. You can't just 'make energy green' and then not worry about your energy usage. Fool edit: what's morally dubious is global apitalism and the culutre of consumption. Don't lecture me about morality you don't know the first thing about it, your whole ideology is designed to avoid ever thinking about morality, that's why you say I can't make moral judgments about profligate consumption. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 26 2013 13:48 bumwithagun wrote: Actually seeing how people feel about hard jobs in an industrializing economy (and their thoughts on why they take them) is important when considering the value of economic growth. And you didn't answer whether you deny the poverty reduction as a result of economic growth in china. And you didn't answer my central question that started this all: Notice how I nicely answer your question while you dodge mine? PS- How old are you? I'm guessing we are of similar age (though I may be being generous considering your emotional outbursts). No need to continually call me kid. I have no problem with energy consumption per se. If tomorrow cold fusion came online and we could supply the world's energy for the next 1000 years cleanly and cheaply I would welcome it. The problem is that the vast majority of the energy expenditure on the planet is through burning fossil fuels, which are both disrupting the climate and finite. The global capitalist system depends on cheap energy in order to continue growing, which is a requirement in order to avoid default and total societal collapse. It will continue to burn the cheapest available source (taking into account lobbyist-backed government subsidies) with little regard for the climate or the temporary nature of the solution. A society that used less energy could be sustainable and ethical, while increasing the living standards of people across the globe. It would of course be more expensive and require redistribution of resources from the capitalists to the world's impoverished wage slaves, but it could be done. | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
I say, contrary to this assertion, it is empirically fact that increasing efficiency increases consumption. http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2013/03/energy-use-and-economic-growth-some.html (this is a convenient blog showing the relationship, do a google search or a google scholar search and you will see many, many other similar graphs/studies). I will even provide a simple model of how it works: 1Energy->1wealthproduct. A new energy efficiency breakthrough results in: .5energy->1wealth. X sees this and goes, "hey, i can buy 2wealth products for 1energy. Yay!" You see it with gas prices and miles driven. You see it with bandwidth. You see it in all sorts of places. And you see it with energy consumption. See that? I actually provide you with some reasoning behind why i believe increased efficiency WILL NOT reduce consumption without doing it by edict. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: your point that efficiency increases consumption is trivial and completely obvious. Of course I know this. This is the complete backwards point. BAH, why do I spend my time arguing with fools. More beer | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
On September 26 2013 14:01 IgnE wrote: I have no problem with energy consumption per se. If tomorrow cold fusion came online and we could supply the world's energy for the next 1000 years cleanly and cheaply I would welcome it. The problem is that the vast majority of the energy expenditure on the planet is through burning fossil fuels, which are both disrupting the climate and finite. The global capitalist system depends on cheap energy in order to continue growing, which is a requirement in order to avoid default and total societal collapse. It will continue to burn the cheapest available source (taking into account lobbyist-backed government subsidies) with little regard for the climate or the temporary nature of the solution. A society that used less energy could be sustainable and ethical, while increasing the living standards of people across the globe. It would of course be more expensive and require redistribution of resources from the capitalists to the world's impoverished wage slaves, but it could be done. See that's the crux of the issue, Energy consumption and GDP growth have always gone hand in hand. There is no reason to think increasing efficiency will break that correlation. Maybe it'll reduce the need for energy growth, but the growth will occur as by definition wealth=energy. The amount of energy that is required to go into the wealth allows for more wealth (or less energy if you want to tax it or ban more use). So I say, lets figure out how to make it green so we don't make anyone poor. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
EJK
United States1302 Posts
On September 26 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote: answer the question kid we had rags to riches mythology in this country too. You just spout that stuff about china and expect me to think you are anything but a koolaid drinker? Your anecdotal evidence about being in the metropole talking to people who made it out says nothing about patterns of exploitation in chinese economy. You think they let you see the really bad stuff? Please edit: nothing idiosyncratic when I say 'richest human beings in history'. You just have no perspective really. REALLY. Ive been waiting almost an entire day for you to answer mine | ||
|
bumwithagun
United States153 Posts
On September 26 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote: by definition wealth=energy. How do you get absurd ideas like this. And you accuse me of idiosyncratic definitions. k If you can't figure that one out i cannot help you. Its been a theme throughout all my posts tonight. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
what's yr question smurfett | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 26 2013 14:11 bumwithagun wrote: See that's the crux of the issue, Energy consumption and GDP growth have always gone hand in hand. There is no reason to think increasing efficiency will break that correlation. Maybe it'll reduce the need for energy growth, but the growth will occur as by definition wealth=energy. The amount of energy that is required to go into the wealth allows for more wealth (or less energy if you want to tax it or ban more use). So I say, lets figure out how to make it green so we don't make anyone poor. What the fuck, dude? This isn't fucking about efficiency. No one here is talking about getting 45 mpg instead of 35 mpg. Are you even paying attention? It's like you invent your own argument and then hammer the same irrelevant point home again and again. | ||
|
EJK
United States1302 Posts
On September 25 2013 09:50 Smurfett3 wrote: 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 On September 25 2013 09:51 sam!zdat wrote: good questions! | ||
| ||
