The downside of dependence

[Sword_Of_Truth]

BTW, TFian... I left a comment in another thread that you appear to have abandoned. I'd be interested in hearing your comments on it. Especially since the topic of this thread is so close to the topic of your last thread that it appears to be redundant.

Reality is; hydro-carbon bonds are not freely available in nature in unlimited quantities.

Sucks I know.

The breaking of a hydro-carbon bond releases between 3 and 4 electron volts.

The fissioning of a U-233 or Pu-239 nuclei releases 60 million to 80 million electron volts.

Our supplies of Th-232 and U-238 effectively are unlimited.

It sucks, I know (only for you).

 

[Joey McGee]

BTW, TFian... I left a comment in another thread that you appear to have abandoned. I'd be interested in hearing your comments on it. Especially since the topic of this thread is so close to the topic of your last thread that it appears to be redundant.

Actually, I've been waiting for their answer to that post as well.

I do remember explaining that a large blog post or book from Greer does not constitute evidence or an argument but apparently, this has not sunk in either. Look, everyone is replying to the synopsis in the OP, there isn't even anything about that stuff in the article, that's just TFian's interpretation.

I don't know why I went and read all three articles, it should have been a tl;dr

 

[TFian]

Where does he imply this except for in your imagination? What he implies is that human nature shows us that we shouldn't collectively try and stop using oil because that will fail. Instead we need to do something much harder than "business as usual" and cooperate in ways we have never dreamed of before...

"in ways have never dreamed of before..." I think that answers your own question

He, and generally most sane scientists today, do not think the solutions he is suggesting are wildcards.

Well of course they don't think they are wildcards, but they are, as in essence, they're a "well let's hope it saves the day just in time" without any guarantees. Which is fine of course, they may just succeed, but I'm not going to hold my breathe.

He suggests working insanely hard on all of the helpful measures. The furthest thing away from "hope" possible.

What "helpful measures"? What are his guarantees, if he has no "hope"?

He doesn't do this. You're misunderstanding where he's coming from on both points.

Really? As you even put it never-before-seen level

Anyway, I refuse to spend anymore time trying to get you to understand mainstream environmentalism.

Oi, traitors them all!

Perhaps scientists are a better source of science than mystics?

Perhaps?

 

[TFian]

Look, everyone is replying to the synopsis in the OP, there isn't even anything about that stuff in the article, that's just TFian's interpretation.

Oh? I think it's an accurate interpretation. In what way is it inaccurate?

Let's dissect.

As I said in the synopsis "The American middle class is never going to come back and most people will be shut out of it forever."

From the article

He’s quite right, if "fixing the predicament" means enabling him to return to what has been, until now, a normal American middle class existence. Millions of Americans right now are finding themselves shut out of that existence, and few if any of them will ever find a way back into it.

Next "We need to get used to using much much less, and the future of America is that of a third world country on par with Brazil's 1970s era."

From the article

t means, rather, that in the decades ahead of us, something like half the American population will most likely end up in shantytowns on the model of Latin America’s favelas, without electricity, running water or sewers, caught up in a scramble for survival that many of them will inevitably lose.

Next "1970s appropriate style technology is the answer (to some of our problems)."

From the article

That latter choice is the one this blog has been advocating for most of a year now: using the proven appropriate-tech toolkit of the Seventies era to dramatically reduce individual, family, and community dependence on concentrated energy supplies, and make use of diffuse energy sources – primarily sunlight – that can be collected and used right where you are.

I think my interpretation is pretty sound.

 

[Joey McGee]

"in ways have never dreamed of before..." I think that answers your own question

Oh, I'm sorry to have given you the opportunity to make a weak joke on this serious subject. His actual quote "we need cooperation on a scale never achieved by humans before" Sorry Mr. Kay.

Well of course they don't think they are wildcards, but they are, as in essence, they're a "well let's hope it saves the day just in time" without any guarantees. Which is fine of course, they may just succeed, but I'm not going to hold my breathe.

Just doing you a favor here, constant mischaracterization of your opponents thoughts and viewpoints wins you nothing but disdain. He says "Solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, conservation, coal, oil, gas and nuclear" All together. So your "they are hoping for a wildcard" argument just evaporates. You have no point. Please admit you are wrong.

What "helpful measures"? What are his guarantees, if he has no "hope"

The list I just mentioned, didn't you read the article or did you accept your guru's interpretation? And what are you even talking about? He suggests rationalism and hard work. Irrelevant question.

Really? As you even put it never-before-seen level

Of cooperation. Being an antihumanist I'm sure you cringe at the sight of that word.

 

[TFian]

Just doing you a favor here, constant mischaracterization of your opponents thoughts and viewpoints wins you nothing but disdain. He says "Solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, conservation, coal, oil, gas and nuclear" All together.

Err, read below.

Of cooperation. Being an antihumanist I'm sure you cringe at the sight of that word.

Such unprecedented level of "cooperation" is simply unrealistic given human nature. Describing it a as a "wildcard" is generous!

True though, I'm a rugged individualist, so I despise cooperation, with a few exceptions (say for example, I need to raid someone's farm, I might need temporary help then)

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Next "1970s appropriate style technology is the answer (to some of our problems)."

Actually, you're right. Though not for the reasons you think.

One of the first large scale Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactors was built in the 1970s.

They are smaller, cheaper, easier to build than current reactors. They use 1% as much fuel as current reactors for the same amount of power generation, are self regulating and can't melt down.

If we started building LFTRs, we'd not just solve "some" of our problems. We'd have a bottomless ultra high density energy source that could put modern technological civilization into energy gobbling overdrive.

 

[Joey McGee]

Oh? I think it's an accurate interpretation...

The entire article is about these two other authors he hates and all of these metaphors and stories and arguments, like the yeast. Those two points are buried in the article. The middle class is ********** and we need to go uber-hippie 1970s to save the world! Is that the synopsis of the article? Because I thought that was the deranged belief-system behind the entire ideology.

 

[TFian]

The entire article is about these two other authors he hates and all of these metaphors and stories and arguments, like the yeast. Those two points are buried in the article. The middle class is ********** and we need to go uber-hippie 1970s to save the world! Is that the synopsis of the article? Because I thought that was the deranged belief-system behind the entire ideology.

Buried as they may be, they're the true point of the article. He simply uses the other two authors to justify and convey his point. As for "saving the world" Greer would never use that wording, as the *world* not only does not need saving, we couldn't save it anyway.

 

[Joey McGee]

Err, read below.



Such unprecedented level of "cooperation" is simply unrealistic given human nature. Describing it a as a "wildcard" is generous!

True though, I'm a rugged individualist, so I despise cooperation, with a few exceptions (say for example, I need to raid someone's farm, I might need temporary help then)

So the best you can do is try and twist "wildcard" into "cooperation"? So now your argument hinges on "the cooperation between humans necessary to avert global catastrophe is too unlikely to save the planet" Is that the best you got? Well, we can't depend on you to a) help out with this effort or b) think about it clearly since you hate the species so much. Can't see what sense arguing with you about it would be.

 

[TFian]

So the best you can do is try and twist "wildcard" into "cooperation"?

It is though, as for it's "never before seen" as you put it. I don't put my faith in untested unproven methods myself.

 

[Joey McGee]

Buried as they may be, they're the true point of the article. He simply uses the other two authors to justify and convey his point. As for "saving the world" Greer would never use that wording, as the *world* not only does not need saving, we couldn't save it anyway.

Do you have reason and evidence for this or is this just earth-religion/druid/Qabalist stuff that fits your world-view? Heh, I know which.

 

[TFian]

Do you have reason and evidence for this

Sure. Even if we wiped ourselves and 99% (or 100% for that matter) of life off this planet, the planet itself would still exist. Maybe there's a method we could blow up the core of this planet and have it implode, but it's not likely if even possible, anyone (with the power) would do that.

 

[Joey McGee]

Sure. Even if we wiped ourselves and 99% (or 100% for that matter) of life off this planet, the planet itself would still exist. Maybe there's a method we could blow up the core of this planet and have it implode, but it's not likely if even possible, anyone (with the power) would do that.

Sorry, your belief system is so foreign and unacceptable to me, I didn't realize by *world* you meant no humans. You don't think that the human race is worth saving. You don't think it's important. And even if it was you don't believe we can save us? No wait, don't explain all of these things to me, I don't want to know.

 

[TFian]

Sorry, your belief system is so foreign and unacceptable to me, I didn't realize by *world* you meant no humans.

True, I thought by "World" you meant planets. Plenty of them without humans. Humans aren't necessary for a planet!

You don't think that the human race is worth saving.

To be fair, I don't think it's going to go extinct anytime soon either.

And even if it was you don't believe we can save us?

No I don't. Everything has it's expiration date

 

[aggle-rithm]

There are a lot of self-correcting mechanisms in economics that doomsayers ignore. I remember a coworker who made the ominous prediction: "Soon, it will be so bad that no one will be able to afford a loaf of bread."

I replied, "Why would the people selling bread price it so high that no one can afford it?"

 

[Joey McGee]

True, I thought by "World" you meant planets. Plenty of them without humans. Humans aren't necessary for a planet!

Context is clearly an issue here. In "Saving the world" I was clearly talking about preventing the suffering among humans caused by climate change or chaos from energy concerns. You took the opportunity to pontificate religiously for some reason, I care about facts not what Greer's tarot cards showed him. I showed clearly that Greer is building a straw man with Kay, yes or no? Right or partly right?

Now respond to Sword of Truth's post, if you have any dignity

 

[TFian]

There are a lot of self-correcting mechanisms in economics that doomsayers ignore. I remember a coworker who made the ominous prediction: "Soon, it will be so bad that no one will be able to afford a loaf of bread."

I replied, "Why would the people selling bread price it so high that no one can afford it?"

Assuming the said loaf of bread remains abundant. Of course, once it becomes scarce, it's not like no one can afford it, just very few.

 

[TFian]

Context is clearly an issue here. In "Saving the world" I was clearly talking about preventing the suffering among humans caused by climate change or chaos from energy concerns.

But the human race, **** be upon it, is not the planet.

I showed clearly that Greer is building a straw man with Kay, yes or no? Right or partly right?

No.

 

[Joey McGee]

But the human race, **** be upon it, is not the planet

We are in control of the whole thing and will probably never lose it save for an unexpected natural disaster. My many descendants will walk the Earth proudly in stewardship. Too bad you don't get to share in this glory seeing as you're weeding yourself out of existence as part of a new age religion.

Come on, respond to the nuclear energy post, why are you here if not to debate? Picking the easily obfuscated stuff still?