06-02-2007, 01:17 AM
Hi,
This is not in reply to any one person or post, but rather some general observations on the whole topic.
It seems to me that many have adopted the idea that rejecting modern technology because it consumes energy is the solution to some vague 'problem'. The only 'problem' that that course is a solution to is 'progress', which I, at least, do not consider a problem. The whole advance in the standard of living of humanity has revolved around consuming energy other than one's own muscular output. From animals and slaves in antiquity, to motors and engines early last century and electronic devices more recently, the more that one can havevdone for him, the more freedom that he has to do what he wants. And the freedom to spend the one resource which cannot be renewed or substituted, the time allotted to our individual life, is perhaps the best measure of 'standard of living'.
Of course, the wealthy have always had the advantage of being able to afford more energy, whether it consisted of thousands of people to build their pyramids or a personal jet to avoide that two hour wait at the gate. The fairness of the wealth advantage is a good topic for debate, perhaps. As is the question of whether life is, or even should be, fair. However, in terms of overall progress and of overall energy consumpion, discussions centering on wealth are red herrings. The imbalance is always there, but it is the mean that bears consideration.
Now it seems to me that the real questions are two: first, how does one get the maximum standard of living at the minimum material and energy cost, and second, what do we do when a material or resource runs out. I'll admit to bias, but I think the answer to both questions is the same: research. As much as the naysayers and Chicken Little's ignore it, the effects of research are very much around us. Appliances do more and better with less. Comparison of washers, driers, dishwashers, refrigirators, etc., over the years show a constantly decreasing consumption of resources for a fixed result. Forty-five years ago, there was one easily available car in the USA that got 30 mpg. That was the VW, with its 32 hp engine, no fuel gauge, and spartan interior. I know, I drove one nearly a quarter of a million miles. Now there are a number of automobiles that beat the old VW in gas milage, performance, and creature comforts -- all at once. That, in my opinion, is progress.
On the other side of the coin is the reduction in natural resources. Much of this is a matter of perception. For instance, people want wood siding on their homes because wood siding is traditional in their region. This in spite of the fact that good wood siding is getting scarce, and hence expensive, and that there are man made materials that are much better. Better in that they cost less initially, require less maintenance, are better insulators, and last longer. The question of whether they look as good is, of course, a matter of taste and thus moot. Many other examples can be given, such as silk clothing and down insulation. Those that worry excessively that some resource will run out are showing little faith in the ability of the researchers to find or create an alternative in spite of nearly a century of evidence to the contrary.
So, while I'm not arguing that there are no concerns, I am saying that the concerns are being addressed. People are, and have been, considering, developing, and testing solutions to all the problems discussed in this thread for quite some time now. Technological solutions for many of these concerns, especially the energy issue, exist. They are not greatly implemented because the vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots (the history of nuclear power in the USA is prima facia evidence of this). They are too ignorant to understand the issues, too lazy to study them, and too impatient to accept any solution the doesn't work overnight. They get the question wrong, then accept a simple, easy to understand, wrong solution. Evidence of this runs throughout the thread, mostly supplied by the usual suspects.
People get what they deserve, and the roaches *will* inherit the earth if people don't get smarter.
--Pete
This is not in reply to any one person or post, but rather some general observations on the whole topic.
It seems to me that many have adopted the idea that rejecting modern technology because it consumes energy is the solution to some vague 'problem'. The only 'problem' that that course is a solution to is 'progress', which I, at least, do not consider a problem. The whole advance in the standard of living of humanity has revolved around consuming energy other than one's own muscular output. From animals and slaves in antiquity, to motors and engines early last century and electronic devices more recently, the more that one can havevdone for him, the more freedom that he has to do what he wants. And the freedom to spend the one resource which cannot be renewed or substituted, the time allotted to our individual life, is perhaps the best measure of 'standard of living'.
Of course, the wealthy have always had the advantage of being able to afford more energy, whether it consisted of thousands of people to build their pyramids or a personal jet to avoide that two hour wait at the gate. The fairness of the wealth advantage is a good topic for debate, perhaps. As is the question of whether life is, or even should be, fair. However, in terms of overall progress and of overall energy consumpion, discussions centering on wealth are red herrings. The imbalance is always there, but it is the mean that bears consideration.
Now it seems to me that the real questions are two: first, how does one get the maximum standard of living at the minimum material and energy cost, and second, what do we do when a material or resource runs out. I'll admit to bias, but I think the answer to both questions is the same: research. As much as the naysayers and Chicken Little's ignore it, the effects of research are very much around us. Appliances do more and better with less. Comparison of washers, driers, dishwashers, refrigirators, etc., over the years show a constantly decreasing consumption of resources for a fixed result. Forty-five years ago, there was one easily available car in the USA that got 30 mpg. That was the VW, with its 32 hp engine, no fuel gauge, and spartan interior. I know, I drove one nearly a quarter of a million miles. Now there are a number of automobiles that beat the old VW in gas milage, performance, and creature comforts -- all at once. That, in my opinion, is progress.
On the other side of the coin is the reduction in natural resources. Much of this is a matter of perception. For instance, people want wood siding on their homes because wood siding is traditional in their region. This in spite of the fact that good wood siding is getting scarce, and hence expensive, and that there are man made materials that are much better. Better in that they cost less initially, require less maintenance, are better insulators, and last longer. The question of whether they look as good is, of course, a matter of taste and thus moot. Many other examples can be given, such as silk clothing and down insulation. Those that worry excessively that some resource will run out are showing little faith in the ability of the researchers to find or create an alternative in spite of nearly a century of evidence to the contrary.
So, while I'm not arguing that there are no concerns, I am saying that the concerns are being addressed. People are, and have been, considering, developing, and testing solutions to all the problems discussed in this thread for quite some time now. Technological solutions for many of these concerns, especially the energy issue, exist. They are not greatly implemented because the vast bulk of the population are blithering idiots (the history of nuclear power in the USA is prima facia evidence of this). They are too ignorant to understand the issues, too lazy to study them, and too impatient to accept any solution the doesn't work overnight. They get the question wrong, then accept a simple, easy to understand, wrong solution. Evidence of this runs throughout the thread, mostly supplied by the usual suspects.
People get what they deserve, and the roaches *will* inherit the earth if people don't get smarter.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?