Will the internet survive energy contraction?

TFian said:
No, but they did take out large chunks of populations, and allowed certain objectives to be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
1918 influenza pandemic: What objectives? Please be precise.

I think it's inevitable, no matter what the force is. Whether it's a plague, famine, nuclear war, or constructed genocide, it's going to happen anyway sometime in the future, so it doesn't really bother me.
Click to expand...
Plague, famine, nuclear war and genocide don't bother you?

Well, fine. If I see any I'll send 'em your way.

Either they'll be an agricultural die off, or we'll do what William Stanton suggests, and start killing off the elderly and retarded, and other drains of resources.
Click to expand...
Whatever sinks your boat, dude.
 
PixyMisa said:
Worst pandemic of modern times, killed more people than the Great War, hardly cause civilisation to bobble,
Click to expand...

I didn't say it caused civilization to collapse.

PixyMisa said:
The indigenous people weren't wiped out. Their society was drastically altered by an encounter with a far more technologically advanced civilisation. Which is outside the context of this discussion, really.
Click to expand...

Not completely, but most of their cultures were wiped out, and their population drastically reduced. In many ways it was a holocaust, but those are normal in history, and part of the cycle.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
1918 influenza pandemic: What objectives? Please be precise.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting there was any plan with that pandemic, it wasn't engineered at all (I'm not sure if any pandemic yet has been?) But planned genocide often has objectives, such as removing burdensome elements in your society, or preserving a culture.


PixyMisa said:
Plague, famine, nuclear war and genocide don't bother you?
Click to expand...

Why should they?
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Sounds like skillfully constructed and delightfully irreverent literature. I take it Tepper's not seriously arguing that her scenarios are a goal to pursue as written, though.
Click to expand...
From the blurbs on the back covers of the books I haven't bought, I wouldn't count on it.
 
ben m said:
Meh. Yes, if energy becomes more expensive then all energy-using activity will become more expensive. Running a server, boiling a teapot, driving a car, kiln-drying a 2x4. When energy starts getting more expensive, some energy-intensive businesses (and this includes internet businesses) will go under. Not all of them, just the ones that can't raise prices (or whatever) to cover their costs.
Click to expand...

There are far too many ways that aren't even remotely viable economically (i.e. capitalistically) to even dream of there being a problem.

And given a number of quasi-infinite sources, like the sun or geothermal, it's all a matter of investment to get there -- with cheaper energy than now.

If we ever have a true, long-term energy crisis, look to government, nothing else, as the cause. Pay no attention to the Chicken Littles -- they've always been wrong.



Not really related, but in California, can you remove your limit discs if you use processed seawater (or some other source that isn't underground or the Colorado river?) Seems like that would be a good way to help encourage that sort of thing, not to mention removing taxes on it. Or sprinkler bans.
 
Last edited:
ThatSoundAgain said:
(My bolding. ) That's nothing compared to how many would starve without civilization. The shaky foundations of the rest of your statement there are immediately apparent ("giving them their land back", really).
Click to expand...

What, they shouldn't be given their land back?

ThatSoundAgain said:
But my point with quoting this is that you've lost all right to appeal to human suffering and death, given that you want most people to die anyway.
Click to expand...

It's either that or extinction. I prefer the former.

ThatSoundAgain said:
You seem to call on the meaninglessness of words whenever you've said something particularly egregious. I.e., words are meaningless where it's convenient for you, otherwise you're happy to use them as though they have meaning. What a cowardly tactic.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you really understand what I was saying...

Do you think sociopath is an objective term, that crosses all cultures and moral systems?

ThatSoundAgain said:
You come in here and say: "I wish you would all die." Then, when called on this, all words are suddenly so relative that we can't fault you?
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever said that.

ThatSoundAgain said:
Your scenario is not only demonstrably false, and only held by someone intellectually lazy enough to not care about the facts. Wishing for such a violent fantasy to happen is downright evil.
Click to expand...

Why evil?
 
TFian said:
Cities are not only energy inefficient, but they produce no resources! Every single resource the require must be imported, wasting even more energy! They are the MOST unsustainable part of our civilization!
Click to expand...


Weren't you listening before? Cities produce chainsaws and tractors.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
TFian said:
Why assume I'm a he? Anyway...

I don't really enjoy it, I just find it inevitable.
Click to expand...

It was intended as a generic pronoun, but I'm happy to use (s)/he as a clumsy alternative, if you prefer. Or you could tell me if you're male or female.

The reason I say you seem to be taking a perverse pleasure in writing about all these deaths is that you do so repeatedly, in lieu of providing any convincing evidence for your. . .well, I was going to say fears, but that doesn't really seem appropriate, given what you've written. Hopes would be a bit harsh, so I'll go with expectations.
 
Mashuna said:
It was intended as a generic pronoun, but I'm happy to use (s)/he as a clumsy alternative, if you prefer. Or you could tell me if you're male or female.
Click to expand...

Well I just curious why the use of "he", but I guess it's kind of a cultural default.

Mashuna said:
The reason I say you seem to be taking a perverse pleasure in writing about all these deaths is that you do so repeatedly, in lieu of providing any convincing evidence for your. . .well, I was going to say fears, but that doesn't really seem appropriate, given what you've written. Hopes would be a bit harsh, so I'll go with expectations.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not "hoping" for anything, but again, I find it inevitable. I'm less sure now though it'll be from solely natural causes. I'm thinking humans could adapt around it with policies like eliminating burdensome and unfit humans, and using the military to curtail unsustainable population growth in the third world.
 
TFian said:
Well I'm not "hoping" for anything, but again, I find it inevitable. I'm less sure now though it'll be from solely natural causes. I'm thinking humans could adapt around it with policies like eliminating burdensome and unfit humans, and using the military to curtail unsustainable population growth in the third world.
Click to expand...
Or, hey, we could solve the problem.

Just a thought.
 
TFian said:
It's either that or extinction.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem: You have shown no evidence for this whatsoever.

We can either give up and have billions of people die, or we can solve the problems - mostly using already proven technology - and not have billions of people die.

Extinction simply doesn't enter into it.

Most of us believe that not having billions of people die is a worthy goal to pursue. From utilitarian principles, from simple self-interest, I prefer a world that isn't going through plague, famine, nuclear war and genocide, and I'm prepared to devote considerable effort toward this goal.

Do you think sociopath is an objective term, that crosses all cultures and moral systems?
Click to expand...
All cultures, certainly. If you don't care whether society as a whole lives or dies, you are a sociopath, by the definition of any society.
 
excaza said:
You mean playing whack-a-mole for 18 pages isn't listening?
Click to expand...

whacamole.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom