Jay wrote:
Ty wrote:
It is a Malthusian argument, very much so. Are you going to argue against it or just dismiss it?
Would you trade your lifestyle with that of someone living 150 years ago? I wouldn't. Ignoring the obvious things like transportation, entertainment, communication etc, I simply wouldn't want to work the long hours that were required in order to put food on my table.
The green philosophy is essentially a war on the industrial revolution. They've pinpointed one parcel of history and defined it as ideal: the agrarian state. Why? I don't know. They've romanticized it to the point of absurdity. They conveniently ignore the reality that if the farms crops failed, the people on the farm starved. They couldn't just throw up their hands and then drive to the supermarket. Failure was real and it didn't have a happy ending...
Wrong wrong wrong, total absolute bullshit. This is an argument from sectors that don't want to run the risk of becoming sunset industries and it is completely false. The real philsophy is one of progress not going backwards. As it stands we are developing technologies and systems that phase out things that can be potentially damaging but this is being met with resistance from organisations that stand to lose out if the status quo were to be changed. It has nothing
at all to do with going backwards or neglecting technologies, it is about simply a shift towards improving existing practises so they can be more sustainable, in extreme cases even replacing them as technology improves. My point is all of this is aimed at progressing not regressing and certainly not stagnating just because a few sectors are comfortable where they are thank you very much.
You're right though, we're not running short of anything to any great degree, not even oil when you consider undersea reserves. It will get more and more difficult to get to of course and as a result more and more expensive. And I too have faith that humanity will adapt to any obstacle that comes up. What I'm saying is that this need to adapt is either going to hit us when we're ready for it or when we're not ready for it. Why wait until it's a necessity - especially because we're smarter than that and don't
have to wait.
Jay wrote:
Anyone who currently promotes green energy is a fool. Solar and wind are dead end, expensive technologies. There is a reason we abandoned them at the first opportunity.
Funny because I'm pretty sure they've said the same thing about most new technologies. Don't quote me but it's the sort of thing I could see being said about the Internet, computers, television, powered flight and the internal combustion engine. Technology regarding solar and wind power is improving, it has taken significant steps in the last decade or so alone. I'm not saying it's the answer, not yet anyway, but it's certainly not something that should be ignored either. C'mon dude, you're the one accusing me of abandoning technological advancements and you say something like this?
Wind energy by the way can be incredibly effective if the right circumstances are there. Solar too I'm sure but I have this as an example: In the city I live in, Wellington the capital of New Zealand, every household is powered by wind energy from a local wind farm. That's not bad you know, it's not a replacement for coal fired power but it's a damn good start. We're lucky here see, the next stop south from us is Antarctica meaning we get sustained wind that can get strong in isolated areas - like where the wind farm is located. This sort of thing isn't going to work for everywhere but then a lot of things aren't in certain places. Nuclear energy here for example. I actually like nuclear power, it's effective generation where the major byproduct is
steam. But nuclear generation wouldn't work so well here. For one we get a lot of earthquakes and you can see there can be some problems with that when you look at Fukushima. For two we're small and isolated and we don't really have the capacity to store nuclear waste, we'd have to export it which would add to the cost of energy production and when all the costs are taken into account there would be no benefit. My point is just because wind energy isn't particularly effective in the US doesn't mean it's a dead-end technology just like nuclear generation isn't a dead-end just because it wouldn't be effective here.
@ Shocking: I dont think I'm referring to the commonly cited 'solutions' more just the fact that solutions can and are being found. You're right though, 'efficiency' may not have been the right word to use.
