|
On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:
[quote]
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it.
Yes, there are investments which would pay off for the polity but which private capital can't invest in.
For example, private capital can't invest in 3d printing very well because the logical conclusion of that technology renders the people who make it obsolete. But it would be good for everybody if we had it.
|
On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction. our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste. a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible. Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources?
I agree that the monetary system is shit, and I think most people on this thread would too. But the solution to that isnt futuristic day dreams about a post scarcity world. Socialists have been writing about that for hundreds of years, its a fantasy.
You want to fix the monetary problems of the world? Just take force out of the equation. Dont force people to use fiat currency with legal tender laws and dont force new born babys to repay government debt. You dont need some socialistic technocracy.
|
On May 07 2012 06:00 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction. our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste. a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible. Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources? I agree that the monetary system is shit, and I think most people on this thread would too. But the solution to that isnt futuristic day dreams about a post scarcity world. Socialists have been writing about that for hundreds of years, its a fantasy.
A great deal of the scarcity we have now is artificial.
|
On May 07 2012 06:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:00 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction. our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste. a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible. Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources? I agree that the monetary system is shit, and I think most people on this thread would too. But the solution to that isnt futuristic day dreams about a post scarcity world. Socialists have been writing about that for hundreds of years, its a fantasy. A great deal of the scarcity we have now is artificial.
Often asserted, rarely proved.
The few cases are always the cause of the government forcing people to do things they wouldnt normally do, eg; burning their crops, holding things off the market, selling at controlled prices etc...
|
On May 07 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Yes, there are investments which would pay off for the polity but which private capital can't invest in. For example, private capital can't invest in 3d printing very well because the logical conclusion of that technology renders the people who make it obsolete. But it would be good for everybody if we had it.
There are publicly traded companies that make 3d printers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DDD
|
On May 07 2012 06:00 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction. our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste. a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible. Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources? I agree that the monetary system is shit, and I think most people on this thread would too. But the solution to that isnt futuristic day dreams about a post scarcity world. Socialists have been writing about that for hundreds of years, its a fantasy.
Yet we produce food for 10 billion people every year. and we have discared billions of cell phones and computers. We are already there with an inefficent scarcity driven system. how do you think a system set on creating abundance and shifting values to needing over wanting. With built in recycling into each product so it can easily be updated and the material re used.
What is fiction ? so because we cant make diamond statues of each other we cant realy be "past a scarcity world". It is funny to because i belive Canada will be the first country to go into a RBE.
|
On May 07 2012 06:04 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:01 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 06:00 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction. our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste. a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible. Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources? I agree that the monetary system is shit, and I think most people on this thread would too. But the solution to that isnt futuristic day dreams about a post scarcity world. Socialists have been writing about that for hundreds of years, its a fantasy. A great deal of the scarcity we have now is artificial. Often asserted, rarely proved.
What is all this talk about "proof"? What do people mean by this? Do you guys know what "proofs" are? You can't do them with this!
Look around you! We spend an enormous amount of energy convincing people they need more things than they do! We have to manufacture demand because the truth is that the basic requirements of life are very cheap. Most things people "need" are just ideological illusions deliberately manufactured by capital.
This is just how consumerism works!
|
On May 07 2012 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
How is that different from what China tried?
Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Yes, there are investments which would pay off for the polity but which private capital can't invest in. For example, private capital can't invest in 3d printing very well because the logical conclusion of that technology renders the people who make it obsolete. But it would be good for everybody if we had it. There are publicly traded companies that make 3d printers. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DDD
Didn't say it couldn't invest in it at all, just not very well. We spend way more gdp making useless iphone apps.
|
On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources.
Alright I can't take you seriously when you don't even read about the technologies you're listing.
The highest recorded speed of a maglev train is 581 km/h (361 mph), achieved in Japan by the CJR's MLX01 superconducting maglev in 2003,[5] 6 km/h (3.7 mph) faster than the conventional wheel-rail speed record set by the TGV.[citation needed]
Explain to me how 361 mph=thousands of miles per hour?
. In April 2004, Shanghai began commercial operations of the high-speed Transrapid system. Beginning March 2005, the Japanese began operation of the HSST "Linimo" line in time for the 2005 World Expo. In its first three months, the Linimo line carried over 10 million passengers. The Koreans and the Chinese are both building low speed maglev lines of their own design, one in Beijing and the other at Seoul's Incheon Airport.
No one's supressing this technology, governemtns are currently working on it. They're just not sure if it's feasable/workable on a massive school.
See their pros/cons section
+ Show Spoiler +Each implementation of the magnetic levitation principle for train-type travel involves advantages and disadvantages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Pros Cons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMS[28][29] (Electromagnetic suspension) Magnetic fields inside and outside the vehicle are less than EDS; proven, commercially available technology that can attain very high speeds (500 km/h (310 mph)); no wheels or secondary propulsion system needed. The separation between the vehicle and the guideway must be constantly monitored and corrected by computer systems to avoid collision due to the unstable nature of electromagnetic attraction; due to the system's inherent instability and the required constant corrections by outside systems, vibration issues may occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDS[30][31]
(Electrodynamic suspension) Onboard magnets and large margin between rail and train enable highest recorded train speeds (581 km/h (361 mph)) and heavy load capacity; has demonstrated (December 2005) successful operations using high-temperature superconductors in its onboard magnets, cooled with inexpensive liquid nitrogen. Strong magnetic fields onboard the train would make the train inaccessible to passengers with pacemakers or magnetic data storage media such as hard drives and credit cards, necessitating the use of magnetic shielding; limitations on guideway inductivity limit the maximum speed of the vehicle; vehicle must be wheeled for travel at low speeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inductrack System[32][33] (Permanent Magnet EDS) Failsafe Suspension—no power required to activate magnets; Magnetic field is localized below the car; can generate enough force at low speeds (around 5 km/h (3.1 mph)) to levitate maglev train; in case of power failure cars slow down on their own safely; Halbach arrays of permanent magnets may prove more cost-effective than electromagnets. Requires either wheels or track segments that move for when the vehicle is stopped. New technology that is still under development (as of 2008) and as yet has no commercial version or full scale system prototype.
The Geothermal Energy is based on speculation, and is not being pursued currently at such a level because of the enviourmental aspects. They tried a massive operation based around it in NZ, and it lead to earthquakes. It's still being used substantially, but there would significant consequences if used at the level you suggest.
+ Show Spoiler +
Krafla Geothermal Station in northeast IcelandFluids drawn from the deep earth carry a mixture of gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methane (CH4), and ammonia (NH3). These pollutants contribute to global warming, acid rain, and noxious smells if released. Existing geothermal electric plants emit an average of 400 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MW·h) of electricity, a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel plants.[5] Plants that experience high levels of acids and volatile chemicals are usually equipped with emission-control systems to reduce the exhaust. Geothermal plants could theoretically inject these gases back into the earth, as a form of carbon capture and storage.
In addition to dissolved gases, hot water from geothermal sources may hold in solution trace amounts of toxic chemicals, such as mercury, arsenic, boron, antimony, and salt.[31] These chemicals come out of solution as the water cools, and can cause environmental damage if released. The modern practice of injecting geothermal fluids back into the Earth to stimulate production has the side benefit of reducing this environmental risk.
Plant construction can adversely affect land stability. Subsidence has occurred in the Wairakei field in New Zealand.[32] Enhanced geothermal systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing. The project in Basel, Switzerland was suspended because more than 10,000 seismic events measuring up to 3.4 on the Richter Scale occurred over the first 6 days of water injection.[33] The risk of geothermal drilling leading to uplift has been experienced in Staufen im Breisgau.
Geothermal has minimal land and freshwater requirements. Geothermal plants use 404 square meters per GWh versus 3,632 and 1,335 square kilometres for coal facilities and wind farms respectively.[32] They use 20 litres of freshwater per MW·h versus over 1000 litres per MW·h for nuclear, coal, or oil.[32]
I looked at the car sonar link, and theres not much information there. Tried googling it and didn't come up with a whole lot either. If you can provide a better link, I could discuss that one in further depth.
|
On May 07 2012 06:04 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:01 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 06:00 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction. our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste. a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible. Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources? I agree that the monetary system is shit, and I think most people on this thread would too. But the solution to that isnt futuristic day dreams about a post scarcity world. Socialists have been writing about that for hundreds of years, its a fantasy. A great deal of the scarcity we have now is artificial. The few cases are always the cause of the government forcing people to do things they wouldnt normally do, eg; burning their crops, holding things off the market, selling at controlled prices etc...
These are things that the government does in order to keep capitalism working...
The idea that government is somehow antithetical to capitalism is strange to me. Capitalism requires the government in order to function. A totally "free" market would collapse rapidly - some degree of government regulation is in the interest of the capitalist class. There are of course different factions in the capitalist class which war against each other in the theater of policy.
edit: and this is really tangential to my point, which has to do with advertising.
|
On May 07 2012 06:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption...
I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me
edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Yes, there are investments which would pay off for the polity but which private capital can't invest in. For example, private capital can't invest in 3d printing very well because the logical conclusion of that technology renders the people who make it obsolete. But it would be good for everybody if we had it. There are publicly traded companies that make 3d printers. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DDD Didn't say it couldn't invest in it at all, just not very well. We spend way more gdp making useless iphone apps.
You can invest in it as much as you want. So you want us to invest more in capital goods than consumer goods?
... so that in the future we can make more consumer goods?
Then convince people to stop buying stuff and invest more in the capital markets.
|
On May 07 2012 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:08 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 06:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Yes, there are investments which would pay off for the polity but which private capital can't invest in. For example, private capital can't invest in 3d printing very well because the logical conclusion of that technology renders the people who make it obsolete. But it would be good for everybody if we had it. There are publicly traded companies that make 3d printers. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=DDD Didn't say it couldn't invest in it at all, just not very well. We spend way more gdp making useless iphone apps. You can invest in it as much as you want. So you want us to invest more in capital goods than consumer goods? ... so that in the future we can make more consumer goods? Then convince people to stop buying stuff and invest more in the capital markets.
Yes, at this point we have to ask ourselves what the point of it all actually is. Is the point just to keep producing more consumer goods? Is that all there is to life? I don't really think so.
As I said, the hardest problems are cultural and political.
I think we should be investing primarily in education, research, the arts, long term investments in infrastructure, sustainability, exploration of space, things of that nature.
edit: you can't "invest in it as much as you want." You can invest in it as much as you have spare capital lying around, which most people don't.
|
Clap clap just that you missed a few things. If you see the link it says evacuated tubes you see it ?Good that means there is vaccum in the tubes with basicly no resistence you took an above ground maglev that isent running on that effiency in a friction full enviroment. there is a reason why i didnt bring up those examples.
Geothermal energy basicly uses water to create energy through the heat creating steam. i have difficulties seing how this causes earthquakes.
Care to try again ?
|
How are we even talking about this?
It's a beautiful concept. So is communism.
Only the difference is, this doesn't work for a multitude of reasons, whereas communism doesn't work because people are people and some feel superior to others. The moment you start asking any questions the whole thing falls apart.
Let's imagine a world in the future where there are factories that produce an infinity of specific things until the end of time, no maintenance required.
Now we build enough of each of these factories to supply all the needs of all the people,
all of them.
Now that we enter this (although I can not prove it) impossible scenario..... What will people do?
Everyone has everything they ever wanted, materially wise. How will people behave?
There are a ton of answers to these questions, but I present the first that popped into my mind:
Will there still be a government? If not, will anyone care? If no one cares, what's to stop the bad people from harming the good people? Can anyone just get a rifle if they want it? If not, who decides this? If your answer is "we won't need weapons", do you think everyone in the whole world will agree? If there is a single person who doesn't agree, how do you propose to handle that? What about 10 people? Or 10 million?
I have infinite questions, and as one question lead into the next it just got worse and worse.
Here's some questions that I haven't gone down yet, and won't bother seeing as it's quite pointless:
1. What about education? Will only people who want to teach, teach? Will anyone decide on what you can teach and what you can't?
2. What about progress? Will only the people interested in progress work towards it? How many would that be compared to now? How would you implement any progress without tampering with the "infinite supply of stuff" factories? If people are allowed to tamper with the factories, are there risks?
3. Aliens? I'm not even kidding. What if we meet aliens?
4. etc etc etc
|
On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:
[quote]
Universal civil service?
And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it.
Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things.
So no they are not being suppressed. Try again.
|
On May 07 2012 06:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things. So no they are not being suppressed. Try again.
Well, this assumes that the market is perfectly efficient and rational.
Which I think is pretty obviously not the case.
|
On May 07 2012 06:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc.
Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible.
In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc.
the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried? Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things. So no they are not being suppressed. Try again.
They are not the same thing. http://www.amazon.com/The-Best-That-Money-Cant/dp/0964880679
|
On May 07 2012 06:19 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Clap clap just that you missed a few things. If you see the link it says evacuated tubes you see it ?Good that means there is vaccum in the tubes with basicly no resistence you took an above ground maglev that isent running on that effiency in a friction full enviroment. there is a reason why i didnt bring up those examples.
Geothermal energy basicly uses water to create energy through the heat creating steam. i have difficulties seing how this causes earthquakes.
Care to try again ?
Yeah no, you linked a 6 page long wiki when in reality you were talking about a very specific part of that technology. Here is the link you were looking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
And the reason they aren't doing this yet is because we lack the drilling technology. They're still working on it though, so you're point doesn't really stand.
Researchers at Southwest Jiaotong University in China are developing (in 2010) a vactrain to reach speeds of 1,000 km/h (620 mph). They say the technology can be put into operation in 10 years.
As for geothermal energy, YOU LINKED IT TO ME DUDE
Enhanced geothermal systems can trigger earthquakes as part of hydraulic fracturing. The project in Basel, Switzerland was suspended because more than 10,000 seismic events measuring up to 3.4 on the Richter Scale occurred over the first 6 days of water injection.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
Seriously? Do you honestly read anything before you spew it out of your mouth? This is only making your case look even worse.
|
On May 07 2012 06:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 06:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 05:44 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:28 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 05:22 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 04:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
How is that different from what China tried?
Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption... I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that. What will you replace current, highly advanced and proven to work supply chain / industrial engineering mathematical formulas, that all use market prices with ones that do not? What are those formulas? a more advanced system that send information of what resources are needed at what area when they are running low thus stocking it up. meassuring supply and demand. it is even possible to have infrastructure that allocates these resources inbetween factories automaticly without need for manual transport because they are all connected. The technologies out there some stretches beyond what most of us can imagine just waiting to be put into use. If they were out there, they would have already been put into use sorry. Either by benevolent or greedy people. No one is going to leave something like that sitting around. If you can provide a link to such a technology not being used, I'd probably refute such a statement, but you need evidence before you can say something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev#Evacuated_tubes construction of this all across the world will allow to travel from New york to bejing in 30 minutes going several thousands of miles per hour this technology and blueprints + tested miniature versions where tested in MIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_electricityA study done by MIT showed that there were several easily tapable sources of energy that would provide 2000 times our current energy usage world wide keyword being easily tapable. http://jtrader.hubpages.com/hub/how-car-sonar-helps-driversCar sonar could help drasticly reduce injuries in traffic and also make it safer for cars to drive themself because they cant run into each other. I remain sceptical but ive seen and heard about a motor that runs on the polar magnetic fields(Imagine the needle in a compass moving north) thats supposed to run on itself as long as your in an area that take advantage of the magnetic poles. This is only a few of what i remember at this moment my memory is not what it used to be. i also source wiki but there are of course more detailed sources. None of those 3 are being suppressed. They are through lack of resource allocation which is one of the strongest form of suppresion. The question should never be can we "afford to do it" it should be do we have to resources to do it. Again, "afford to do it" and "have the resources to do it" are the exact same things. So no they are not being suppressed. Try again. Well, this assumes that the market is perfectly efficient and rational. Which I think is pretty obviously not the case.
It doesn't need to be perfectly efficient and rational for it to be true.
Example: If I have $10Billion to invest in new energy plants, where am I going to invest it? In the lowest cost source of electricity generation. That's where my profit is. The difference between my low cost energy and the market rate.
So, if geothermal is a better (lower cost) technology than competing technologies I'll use that. It's that simple. And the cost is based on all the resources that go into its construction and use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
So if there's a surplus of a resource, as there is currently with natural gas, then the price of natural gas will fall (as it has in real life). This will make natural gas the low cost source of electricity and I'll produce natural gas power plants instead.
So, in the market system we have a supply of resources and a demand for them. That creates the price that is then used to make investment decisions. In other words when you say "expensive" you are saying that you are using a lot of scarce resources and when you say "cheap" you are using plentiful resources.
|
There's a lot of externalities in fossil fuels that aren't accounted for in the "price" of that energy. That's actually a perfect example.
edit: It would be nice if you would give me the benefit of the doubt that I understand very basic things like supply and demand. I think it's clear that I'm not an idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
