|
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
|
I'm not convinced that you ever knew what you were talking about
what about those terms and ideas confuses you?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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! 
|
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
|
|
|
I very much agree with the sentiment of accepting the complexity of our current world and basing political decision on that complex world rather than focusing on some narrow aspects of it.
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.
|
On September 25 2013 08:44 Hryul 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. 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.
|
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.
|
On September 25 2013 17:00 bumwithagun 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. 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.
|
On September 25 2013 17:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 17:00 bumwithagun wrote: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. 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.
|
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)
|
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.
|
that's ok, I don't talk to people who say 'citation needed'
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!
|
On September 26 2013 01:17 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 17:25 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2013 17:00 bumwithagun wrote: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. 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.
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?
|
On September 26 2013 04:51 IgnE wrote:
citation needed
citation needed!
|
i guess i stepped into the hornets nest with "citation needed". I didn't meant that he searched for real academic research (althugh I wouldn't mind it) but that he should give some example (one of the richest men) or evidence (not enough effort) for these claims. Because they are far from obvious!
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.
|
google earthship. Awesome science in the service of energy efficiency. Anyway, you're wrong, using less energy is a cultural challenge not scientific.. I know because I use much less energy than I used to, and I do it with culture, not science.
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.
|
@Hryul
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?
|
when people use the word 'unrealistic', what they mean is 'not status quo preserving.' but the status quo is unrealistic. And so...
soyons realistes demandons l'impossible!
|
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.)
|
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
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
|
On September 26 2013 12:48 bumwithagun wrote:Show nested 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
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.)
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
|
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).
|
did you go tour the foxconn facility while imbibing chinese rags to riches mythology?
|
Ahh, those one liners that you do not use. I was interested in a discussion, if you are not willing to engage in one that is absolutely your choice.
|
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
|
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:
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.
|
it's more of a naivete thing, the 'kid'
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.
|
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: Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
You assert: increase energy efficiency will result in reduced consumption. Nothing else to back that up. Voila magic, i guess?
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.
|
so tax consumption
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
|
On September 26 2013 14:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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. 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.
|
by definition wealth=energy. How do you get absurd ideas like this. And you accuse me of idiosyncratic definitions. k
|
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
|
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.
|
yeah and it's a stupid question begging claim..
what's yr question smurfett
|
On September 26 2013 14:11 bumwithagun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:01 IgnE wrote: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: 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. 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.
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.
|
On September 25 2013 09:50 Smurfett3 wrote:Show nested quote +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
On September 25 2013 09:51 sam!zdat wrote:
good questions!
|
oh, that. I thought you were on to something! They were good questions! I wanted you to think about them for homework!
since liberalism grounds private property and profit motive on being the best way to manage society's resources, and you brought up the excellent point that globalization blurs the definition of 'society', I wanted to know what you thought about this! When you go in and impose liberal economics on, say, iraq, which society's resources are you claiming will be best managed by this strategy?
you are the one defending liberalism so I want to know what you mean by society, since this is an integral term in grounding that economic theory! Why do you want ME to answer the question?? You are the liberal!!
|
On September 26 2013 14:42 sam!zdat wrote:
oh, that. I thought you were on to something! They were good questions! I wanted you to think about them for homework!
since liberalism grounds private property and profit motive on being the best way to manage society's resources, and you brought up the excellent point that globalization blurs the definition of 'society', I wanted to know what you thought about this! When you go in and impose liberal economics on, say, iraq, which society's resources are you claiming will be best managed by this strategy?
you are the one defending liberalism so I want to know what you mean by society, since this is an integral term in grounding that economic theory! Why do you want ME to answer the question?? You are the liberal!!
Liberal economics can only be imposed only where it is accepted. To be specific, a country such as iraq does not have a culture nor government that liberal economics will flourish.
I would consider "society" as all 7 continents of earth, all of the known world and civilizations and all of the resources that are found on this planet. A society of humans beings. Under this society, an american and their oil would be considered the same as a russian and their oil. The same, but that doesn't mean the resources are divided up evenly
|
we imposed liberal economics in iraq. Bremer wrote their constitution. That was the whole point
|
On September 26 2013 15:07 sam!zdat wrote:
we imposed liberal economics in iraq. Bremer wrote their constitution. That was the whole point
but look how well that ended up. Liberal economics did not flourish. Therefore it can be safe to say that it was not the right measure of action to take
|
ok so you've just undermined, like, all of US foreign policy. What are we arguing about again?
|
On September 26 2013 15:18 sam!zdat wrote:
ok so you've just undermined, like, all of US foreign policy. What are we arguing about again?
I never supported it in the first place. Well not ALL of it, there are shades of grey here. What we are arguing about simply prooves the complexity of politics
|
you presupposed 'globalization' as a natural inevitable process in yr previous post. Iraq war a part of globalization. We invaded them mostly because saddam hussein was going to denominate oil in euros.
there's really not that much shades of grey
|
On September 26 2013 15:33 sam!zdat wrote:
you presupposed 'globalization' as a natural inevitable process in yr previous post. Iraq war a part of globalization. We invaded them mostly because saddam hussein was going to denominate oil in euros.
there's really not that much shades of grey
At least 50 of them.
|
On September 26 2013 06:13 sam!zdat wrote:
google earthship. Awesome science in the service of energy efficiency. Anyway, you're wrong, using less energy is a cultural challenge not scientific.. I know because I use much less energy than I used to, and I do it with culture, not science.
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.
continuing where I left: I'm not wrong. As I already pointed out, saving energy is a scientific/economic challenge. I believe that saving energy is an inherent goal for all companies in a "healthy" competition (which is to say: no cartel/monopoly etc.) because using less energy makes your product cheaper and thus gives you an edge.
This ofc is also in effect at private househoulds, but the mechanism there is somewhat corrupted because energy is so cheap. most people don't have to choose between watching TV every day or buying a pack of cigarettes but can do both. Which leads to the next point: I don't think people who have to choose between telly and cigs are actually happy about it. They want both, and not because they are corrupted, but because they enjoy both. (It's just an example, one could also go with buying a 2 seated sports car vs a family car for your 3 kids or w/e floats your mind).
But you are right that technology can't solve interpersonal struggle or make people happy. It can give us joy though (rollercoasters are awesome!) or avoid pain (curing athlete's foot).
You can make it a moral and political issue though. But this leads to a very dangerous path I'm not willing to follow. Because it leads to the question of "what do we really need?" and cut off all the unnecessary "stuff". We don't need to fly to vacation on Ibiza. We don't need travelling to Paris to see the Eiffel tower. We don't need soccer matches in the evening. let's turn off the flood light and let them play at broad daylight. We don't need street lightning after 12, not enough people pass by. We don't need Shakira's show, she should just sing. We don't need electric gituars, acoustic ones are fine.
where do we start and where do we stop? do you want to install commitees who rule what we people need and what is a waste of energy. Or do you want to make it a moral agenda so people who don't (want to) fit into the scheme are mobbed and socially stigmatized?
I know I'm making a bit of a leap here, but I consider myself a humanist and I think the ultimate goal should be to bring the most possible wealth to the maximum amount of people. And I don't see how this is possible if we actually decrease the wealth of people by forcing them into decisions they wouldn't have to make otherwise. If I become a vegetarian, the meat I don't eat doesn't feed the hungry in Namibia. (And I'm well aware that the path to a wealthy Namibia is not easy. doesn't change the original argument though)
@Igne: There is no "status quo" in the strict sense. Every minute there is a scientific experiment that furthers our knowledge and enables our progress.
And my reason "to melt more aluminium and consume more stuff" is that through that we also support reasearchers and engineers. So far "capitalism" is the most successful. There may be better ways but I don't know any realistic ones to replace the current system. I do know that currently things are not as bright as they could be and there are many things that need reforms or fixing but these are tweaks inside the system not radical new ideas.
Just to come back to one of my examples earlier: Flying on vacation with a plane may be waste of energy but through buying a plane ticket a tiny fraction goes to the development sector and maintains a stable set of engineers who improve and design new jet engines.
Edit: Upon rereading, I somehow feel that I have to state that there are ofc useful measures to protect the environment, like in the case of chemical waste. I'm just doubtful about recent green energy agendas like reducing energy usage or the "renewable" energy sources.
|
all possible actions in capitalism are good, because then you buy things and the money gets used for innovation and that's the only possible way that anything can be accomplished by human beings
edit: arguing with fundamentalists in two separate threads is making me angry and exhausted. I need a break from TL. Anyway, the semester is starting. Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking
|
On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
all possible actions in capitalism are good, because then you buy things and the money gets used for innovation and that's the only possible way that anything can be accomplished by human beings
edit: arguing with fundamentalists in two separate threads is making me angry and exhausted. I need a break from TL. Anyway, the semester is starting. Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking
poor samisdat. Can't be bothered to write more than two lines or even read carefully. Luckily the semester is starting were you get payed to think without anyone disturbing your circles.What a bright example of philosophical academia you are!
|
On September 27 2013 20:15 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
all possible actions in capitalism are good, because then you buy things and the money gets used for innovation and that's the only possible way that anything can be accomplished by human beings
edit: arguing with fundamentalists in two separate threads is making me angry and exhausted. I need a break from TL. Anyway, the semester is starting. Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking poor samisdat. Can't be bothered to write more than two lines or even read carefully. Luckily the semester is starting were you get payed to think without anyone disturbing your circles.What a bright example of philosophical academia you are!
You just don't get it. You are so far so far inside the box you can't even see the boundaries.
|
I typed all this shit on my little phone, just for you. Be grateful.
but if you just repeat free market mantras it's not worth it. Fundamentalists are infuriating. You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, because obviously 'capitalism!!' solves all problems and never creates any of its own. I'm not going to learn anything by talking to you, I can't change your mind because you don't listen to anything, so what's the point? The only possible purpose in talking to you is to make me angry so I can get some mod action.
|
On September 27 2013 23:43 IgnE wrote:
You just don't get it. You are so far so far inside the box you can't even see the boundaries.
How about some arguments from "your side"?
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
I typed all this shit on my little phone, just for you. [...]
Fundamentalists are infuriating.
oh the irony
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, because obviously 'capitalism!!' solves all problems and never creates any of its own. I'm not going to learn anything by talking to you, I can't change your mind because you don't listen to anything, so what's the point?
same things over again: I'm here to discuss things. not answer questions and not teaching you anything. And I can't refute any of your points because you don't say anything most of the time. And your assessment that saving energy is not a technological matter was refuted.
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
The only possible purpose in talking to you is to make me angry so I can get some mod action.
On September 25 2013 08:42 sam!zdat wrote:
simplistic thinking
On September 25 2013 09:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not convinced that you ever knew what you were talking about
On September 25 2013 09:14 sam!zdat wrote:
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?
On September 26 2013 01:56 sam!zdat wrote:
you are such a brusque and unthoughtful fellow!
On September 26 2013 06:13 sam!zdat wrote:
What buffoonery.
On September 26 2013 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:
kid
On September 26 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:
You just spout that stuff about china and expect me to think you are anything but a koolaid drinker? [...]
You just have no perspective
On September 26 2013 13:52 sam!zdat wrote:
Fool
On September 26 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
BAH, why do I spend my time arguing with fools.
On September 26 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
How do you get absurd ideas like this.
On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking
On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, [...]
Yes, Yes, Yes. I'm part of the secret society of DOOM. Our main agenda is to provoke mod actions against you. Next on the list are fur coats made out of seal cubs.
|
yes yes, I'm rubber you're glue
you don't say anything other than 'we must keep growing, nobody is allowed to make moral claims other than 'it is immoral to make moral claims', and all problems can be solved by the profit motive.' you give some example about aluminum, ignore the question of what is the aluminum for in the first place, and then say that you've categorically proven that efficiency is a technological problem and not a cultural one. Everything you say is just obviously question begging.
you can't say things like 'the obvious logical solution is for [3rd world country] to get rich first...' and then complain that I call you an idiot and don't engage you, because that's an ignorant, idiotic thing to say.
|
Actually I wanted to go into a different direction. I wanted to point out that energy efficiency is at least a technological problem. That is not mutual exclusive to a moral problem. The whole fuzz I made was to show that there is already a natural process engraved in our system to save energy.
My question then is if we need to make it a moral issue. Because all the proposed "green" solutions have been corrupted, don't work on a large scale or only under certain conditions (your earthship house doesn't work in northern Europe). My very first post in this thread was questioning if windmills are a technology for a developed country, because without a storing technology it's just random energy.
So my real question is: do we really need to divert time, energy and resources to develop an agenda of energy saving? and what are the measures of energy saving we want to impose by what means on the people? Again: I'm not convinced the currently proposed measures are the way to go. (but i don't know all of them)
And my point about 3rd world countries was that it doesn't help them if we use less energy. And also throwing food at them doesn't help all too much. it is simply tampering with their problems instead of solving the core issue: they are poor. I never said it was an easy solution but I'm simply questioning your proposed solution.
|
I'm totally opposed to food aid but this is a completely different issue
I didn't claim that our energy efficiency would help poor countries (although it would, because they are going to see the brunt of fallout from global climatic disruption).
you've backed off on your claim if you say that it is not purely a technological problem. Obviously you can do tech things, but it's true that the primary problem is our disposable culture and huge externalities which distort markets in favor of waste. We can use technology to become more efficient, but your assumption that our patterns of consumption are god given and inviolate is dangerous and inane. We need to learn to be more efficient, but we also need to learn to need less. That is a cultural issue. Consumption is driven by an economic system which cannot sustain itself without endlessly producing new needs and desires, and that is an extremely dangerous dynamic which must be resisted. You want to avoid this problem and place all your faith in a techno-messianic solution where we can all magically live wasteful suburban lives and not choke to death on our own excrement. It's just not realistic, but you can't confront this problem because you cannot contemplate any fundamental change in the social order. So you avoid it with messianism.
you would have to design a different earthship for a different climate. Certainly in any climate you would have to do things differently. I have no doubt that it would be possible to design homes in northern europe far more efficient than those currently in use, but this is a question for someone else as I am not an engineer.
yes it matters, and yes it is a moral issue. Whatever mechanism in our system that promotes efficiency is far outweighed by mechanisms that promote waste.
|
On September 28 2013 03:33 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:43 IgnE wrote:
You just don't get it. You are so far so far inside the box you can't even see the boundaries. How about some arguments from "your side"? Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
I typed all this shit on my little phone, just for you. [...]
Fundamentalists are infuriating. oh the irony Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, because obviously 'capitalism!!' solves all problems and never creates any of its own. I'm not going to learn anything by talking to you, I can't change your mind because you don't listen to anything, so what's the point? same things over again: I'm here to discuss things. not answer questions and not teaching you anything. And I can't refute any of your points because you don't say anything most of the time. And your assessment that saving energy is not a technological matter was refuted. Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
The only possible purpose in talking to you is to make me angry so I can get some mod action. Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 09:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not convinced that you ever knew what you were talking about
Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 09:14 sam!zdat wrote:
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?
Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 01:56 sam!zdat wrote:
you are such a brusque and unthoughtful fellow! Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 13:40 sam!zdat wrote:
You just spout that stuff about china and expect me to think you are anything but a koolaid drinker? [...]
You just have no perspective Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
BAH, why do I spend my time arguing with fools. Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
How do you get absurd ideas like this. Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 10:00 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody else's turn to engage in sisyphean tasks of arguing with people who just repeat the same things over and over again and tell themselves they are thinking Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 00:03 sam!zdat wrote:
You have the same relationship towards capitalism that ironmansc has towards jesus, whenever presented with some question you can pump out massive paragraphs of doctrine that don't actually solve anything, but you tell yourself that you've refuted ignorant old sam, [...] Yes, Yes, Yes. I'm part of the secret society of DOOM. Our main agenda is to provoke mod actions against you. Next on the list are fur coats made out of seal cubs.
lol. koolaid drinker was my favorite quote
|
Wait, wait....
You are telling me I need to view the world as a series of trade offs instead of absolute goods and evils?
Ur.... ur crazy OP. Ur crazy. 5/5 for economics 101, we desperately need it.
On September 25 2013 08:51 sam!zdat wrote:
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.
There are countless moments when I agree with you, but for different reasons.
|
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!!
|
On September 28 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!!
You are coming off the hinges buddy. Relax, go meditate.
Besides, us liberals are a shrinking minority. We have already lost the war. It's a war between the socialists and the corporatists now, but I'm starting to realize more and more they are just two sides of the same coin, different representations of the clamoring for state power.
|
On September 28 2013 09:34 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!! You are coming off the hinges buddy. Relax, go meditate. Besides, us liberals are a shrinking minority. We have already lost the war. It's a war between the socialists and the corporatists now, but I'm starting to realize more and more they are just two sides of the same coin, different representations of the clamoring for state power.
I'm too tired to respond to samisdat, but him being a liberal is quite a stretch. he himself said he's an environmentalist. The environment won't be saved by less rules but by more. at least that is my experience with them.
|
On September 28 2013 10:02 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:34 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!! You are coming off the hinges buddy. Relax, go meditate. Besides, us liberals are a shrinking minority. We have already lost the war. It's a war between the socialists and the corporatists now, but I'm starting to realize more and more they are just two sides of the same coin, different representations of the clamoring for state power. I'm too tired to respond to samisdat, but him being a liberal is quite a stretch. he himself said he's an environmentalist. The environment won't be saved by less rules but by more. at least that is my experience with them.
Wasn't calling him a liberal. It's pretty clear by now that he can't stand liberals.
|
On September 29 2013 01:28 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:02 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!! You are coming off the hinges buddy. Relax, go meditate. Besides, us liberals are a shrinking minority. We have already lost the war. It's a war between the socialists and the corporatists now, but I'm starting to realize more and more they are just two sides of the same coin, different representations of the clamoring for state power. I'm too tired to respond to samisdat, but him being a liberal is quite a stretch. he himself said he's an environmentalist. The environment won't be saved by less rules but by more. at least that is my experience with them. Wasn't calling him a liberal. It's pretty clear by now that he can't stand liberals.
I'm sorry, I misread that. It was the combination of addressing him and then following it with "us" in the next paragraph.
Edit: This WE was quite a ride for me. But to briefly add something about what Samisdat said about waste: There are ofc 2 different kind of waste: toxic and non toxic. The toxic one needs to be adressed before being released "into nature".
Non toxic waste is a resource, which is reflected by the recycling done in all western worlds. So we are not "drowning" in waste b/c we can reuse some and bury the other. The only thing "gone" is nuclear fuel. Even Oil can be "reextracted from air".
And one man's waste is another man's treasure: When people first encountered wolfram/tungsten, they thought it was waste, an unwanted byproduct of mining. Nowadays we need it for jet engines. And when we first realized it's use, we went right after all the "waste".
|
On September 29 2013 03:39 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:28 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 10:02 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!! You are coming off the hinges buddy. Relax, go meditate. Besides, us liberals are a shrinking minority. We have already lost the war. It's a war between the socialists and the corporatists now, but I'm starting to realize more and more they are just two sides of the same coin, different representations of the clamoring for state power. I'm too tired to respond to samisdat, but him being a liberal is quite a stretch. he himself said he's an environmentalist. The environment won't be saved by less rules but by more. at least that is my experience with them. Wasn't calling him a liberal. It's pretty clear by now that he can't stand liberals. I'm sorry, I misread that. It was the combination of addressing him and then following it with "us" in the next paragraph. Edit: This WE was quite a ride for me. But to briefly add something about what Samisdat said about waste: There are ofc 2 different kind of waste: toxic and non toxic. The toxic one needs to be adressed before being released "into nature". Non toxic waste is a resource, which is reflected by the recycling done in all western worlds. So we are not "drowning" in waste b/c we can reuse some and bury the other. The only thing "gone" is nuclear fuel. Even Oil can be "reextracted from air". And one man's waste is another man's treasure: When people first encountered wolfram/tungsten, they thought it was waste, an unwanted byproduct of mining. Nowadays we need it for jet engines. And when we first realized it's use, we went right after all the "waste".
That's preposterous. No one is concerned we are going to run out of material. The issue is energy and its associated cost.
|
On October 09 2013 16:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 03:39 Hryul wrote:On September 29 2013 01:28 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 10:02 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 28 2013 08:23 sam!zdat wrote:
don't be silly, the OP is about how you don't have to take tradeoffs seriously and how magic capitalist innovation will allow you to have infinite growth with finite resources and it doesn't matter because innovation. There are no real problems in the world because, you know, shades of gray, man. It's all kinda complicated so, like, damn the torpedos brah.
bah. Anyway, for realsies imma unsubscribe, have fun feeling sophisticated because you're not some silly environmentalist who doesn't understand about economics 101. Supply and demand! Rational actors! The market knows best! It's the hidden hand! Like, DUH!!! You are coming off the hinges buddy. Relax, go meditate. Besides, us liberals are a shrinking minority. We have already lost the war. It's a war between the socialists and the corporatists now, but I'm starting to realize more and more they are just two sides of the same coin, different representations of the clamoring for state power. I'm too tired to respond to samisdat, but him being a liberal is quite a stretch. he himself said he's an environmentalist. The environment won't be saved by less rules but by more. at least that is my experience with them. Wasn't calling him a liberal. It's pretty clear by now that he can't stand liberals. I'm sorry, I misread that. It was the combination of addressing him and then following it with "us" in the next paragraph. Edit: This WE was quite a ride for me. But to briefly add something about what Samisdat said about waste: There are ofc 2 different kind of waste: toxic and non toxic. The toxic one needs to be adressed before being released "into nature". Non toxic waste is a resource, which is reflected by the recycling done in all western worlds. So we are not "drowning" in waste b/c we can reuse some and bury the other. The only thing "gone" is nuclear fuel. Even Oil can be "reextracted from air". And one man's waste is another man's treasure: When people first encountered wolfram/tungsten, they thought it was waste, an unwanted byproduct of mining. Nowadays we need it for jet engines. And when we first realized it's use, we went right after all the "waste". That's preposterous. No one is concerned we are going to run out of material. The issue is energy and its associated cost.
that was not was sam said.
On September 28 2013 05:32 sam!zdat wrote:
You want to avoid this problem and place all your faith in a techno-messianic solution where we can all magically live wasteful suburban lives and not choke to death on our own excrement.
This sounds a lot like "material" is a problem for him.
And the "cost" for energy is energy and material.
But just to make it clear: I see that there are problems with energy supply, environmental pollution and living standards. I am simply questioning that the current proposed solutions like windmills or solar panels work w/o a suitable storage system. Also the "learning of abdication(? wording?)" sounds awful from a liberal standpoint because I'm giving up freedom for some unclear, mystical "protected" environment and it's not even clear if it has any positive effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
