# (Not) Another Green World



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I am quite greenish :tiphat: but only when it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of life 

I do think about these things: how to lessen useless waste of resources, how cities could be better (see the recent urban development thread), how space can be shared with other species so that all can survive, etc.

I was having an online conversation a while back with someone who was a rabid environmentalist. She was adamant about dismantling all social structures, such as cities and technological advances. Her idea of the only sustainable future for mankind was for us to live in small rural communes where we produce our own food and necessary materials, trading with nearby communes to supplement what we couldn't produce ourselves. Her scenario seemed like a quasi-primitive existence in a rural commune where all people are basically serfs working for the common good in order to permit the most marginal of existences for all, without any room for individuality or repose or pleasure.

Another common attack is against personal motorized transport. Don't misunderstand! I am a great fan of subways and trains and love taking them, but they only go where and when lots of people are going. If you have followed my posts over the past few years, you will have noticed that I greatly enjoy driving and riding my motorbike, and that I especially like to take afternoon recreational trips to natural parks and settings within a few hours of my home city and that I always come back home the same day. Now, when I listen to these rabid environmentalists, I get the impression that they would do away with my pleasure. Without a vehicle of some sort, there would be no way for me to leave the city whenever I care to do so, no way for me to go to a relatively remote and isolated location for a few hours and, even if I somehow managed to get there, it would take me so long to do so that there would be no way for me to get back home the same day. Actually, the same holds for a lot of the shopping trips I do in the city, as I regularly travel to all sectors of the city and this city is huge, with an area of 825 km[SUP]2[/SUP].

So, you can see that there is a conflict between what I think is normal, necessary and reasonable and what some radical environmentalists think is 'the way to live responsibly'.

What do you think? What changes are required in your life/in society in general to sustain the planet? Would you give up your freedom of movement? Would you give up other pleasures? Would you be comfortable regressing to the quasi-primitive state of a subsistence farmer in a communal 'city-state'? What would be the purpose of your life without your right and ability to follow your goals and ambitions? How do you envision a sustainable future? Or do you think that you'll no longer be here when things will, of necessity, change and you don't care how, because you won't be around to experience it?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Oh, what's the point of being a rabid environmentalist if the changes you're advocating don't involve suffering and displeasure to people such as yourself? Win-win is suspicious and not really satisfying from a psychological point of view. You'll have to suffer for a good cause. Otherwise it isn't much of a cause.

I'd be happy farming the dirt as long as I could also read some books from the commune's library by candlelight. Oh, what the heck - I'd be happy farming the dirt, even without the books. I am not a very adventurous person, more of a meditative person, and I connect to places - even very small ones. Moreover, I love routine, ritual and repeat. Give me a small portion of the communal garden to tend, a sack to wear and a stone church to go to.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I would not be interested in living in a quasi-primitive state of a subsistence farmer in a communal 'city-state.' That being said, I understand these things. You start thinking about how you can solve problem X, and eventually you conclude that the only solution is a radical transformation of everything. Nothing is separate from political structures.

Still, I'm a pragmatist. Ask for too much from people, and they give you nothing.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are two types of solutions to environmental problems - technical and behavioral. Whether one considers pollution, greenhouse gases, or resource scarcity both technical and behavioral actions can potentially produce significant change. I have worked for over 20 years on the technical side in transportation studying advanced vehicles (fuel cell, battery electric, hybrid) and fuels (hydrogen, electricity, biofuels, and natural gas). I also work with some who study and advocate behavioral change (environmental city design, telecommuting, mass transit, population control, etc.). 

I have seen large changes through technical solutions but I have not seen people making significant behavioral changes so I'm a bit skeptical of such change (though I'd love to see it happen). Obviously, a combination of technical and behavioral change would be most effective. It's hard to convince people of the need for major changes when they do not see clear problems and seem to live comfortably in the present world.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I've noticed a lot of environmentalists have this mentality: They are sick of wicked humanity, but trees, sky, ocean and animals aren't evil so they prefer to take care of those primarily with a "secondary" reason that it will eventually help humanity. Taking care of people is hard! The emotional besides physical requirements to produce a healthy human being are exhausting. It's a kind of escapism and way to take control of your life once again after something went awry. A psychological vent. Not to mention the enormous psychological stress created once you start putting _boundaries _on yourself to be a good citizen for the earth and finding yourself not really doing it.

The world will last one way or another, but people won't. They will disappear. While the environmentalists are concerned with what the earth is going to be like for our posterity 100 years from now (which ironically will be the descendants of the only people who are willing _now _to make the exhaustive, self-sacrificing demands to have children), I'm going to make sure my future family will actually have a good life _relationally_ as well as environmentally. I will support all environmentalists, but I will also support them _personally_, and not just support nature. A clean, healthy world with the self-absorption rates we currently have just isn't worth it to me. There are more ways to pollute the earth than one.

Like they say...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Our solution to it all would need to come from a new source of energy that does not require burning fossil fuels nor have significant costs to the environment. *Antimatter* is this solution but I am no expert on this.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> There are two types of solutions to environmental problems - technical and behavioral.... Obviously, a combination of technical and behavioral change would be most effective. It's hard to convince people of the need for major changes when they do not see clear problems and seem to live comfortably in the present world.


I am waiting with great anticipation for the technical change to take place. The few things I have seen so far-electric cars, off-the-grid homes-are toys for the rich, but nobody is coughing up the money to make them part of the everyday for the rest of us 

What kind of behavioural change? Population reduction and control would seem to be critical. Eating less meat, I suppose, since protein from livestock uses more resources than protein from plants. Using mass transit when going somewhere-like work-where one is merely going to one location and returning directly home, without stopovers that require waiting around for connections or carrying huge amounts of cargo (groceries, etc.). Cities better designed to permit accomplishing necessary chores within walking distance from home. And?



Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...the enormous psychological stress created once you start putting _boundaries _on yourself to be a good citizen for the earth and finding yourself not really doing it.


But... What are these boundaries? Should these boundaries limit one's potentials, one's self-determination, one's happiness, etc.?



Huilunsoittaja said:


> The world will last one way or another, but people won't. They will disappear.... A clean, healthy world with the self-absorption rates we currently have just isn't worth it to me. There are more ways to pollute the earth than one.


That's very pessimistic  with a heavy dose of self-hatred and blame-casting  It is important to remember that everyone has different goals. It would seem that overpopulation has gotten us into this mess :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Our solution to it all would need to come from a new source of energy that does not require burning fossil fuels nor have significant costs to the environment. *Antimatter* is this solution but I am no expert on this.


Antimatter is extremely energy intensive and enormously difficult to contain (for transportation applications). Both hydrogen and electricity can have very low environmental impacts and are available commercially along with fuel cell and battery electric vehicles. So we don't necessarily need a _new_ source of energy.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Our solution to it all would need to come from a new source of energy that does not require burning fossil fuels nor have significant costs to the environment. *Antimatter* is this solution but I am no expert on this.


I agree with you there! I had great hopes for nuclear fusion, but we will have to wait decades for it  say the experts.



mmsbls said:


> Both hydrogen and electricity can have very low environmental impacts and are available commercially along with fuel cell and battery electric vehicles. So we don't necessarily need a _new_ source of energy.


That sounds optimistic


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I am waiting with great anticipation for the technical change to take place. The few things I have seen so far-electric cars, off-the-grid homes-are toys for the rich, but nobody is coughing up the money to make them part of the everyday for the rest of us


A good number of my friends have battery electric vehicles and none of them are rich; however, they are certainly above average in earnings. In California (US) both the federal and state governments are giving incentives for purchasing both electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. With these incentives the cost to own and operate electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles over the life of the vehicle can be very close to that of conventional vehicles.

I still think costs have to come down for these vehicles to make significant market penetration. There is reason to believe that costs will decline, but there's still a question about how low the battery costs can get.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Remember many years ago, it was a rite of passage to get your drivers license at sixteen. Today, this isn't happening. Young people here, in British Columbia, have a graduated license program. You can't drive yourself and your friends about anymore, not until you're eighteen. And with good public transit here in Vancouver, young people aren't driving as much. 

So yes, behaviours are nearly impossible to change for an individual, but behaviours can change over generations.

I'm of the belief that this world will do just fine in the future, it's the people who won't do so well.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I still think costs have to come down for these vehicles to make significant market penetration. There is reason to believe that costs will decline, but there's still a question about how low the battery costs can get.


I'll say! Even conventional cars are too expensive for me. I dread the thought of mine needing replacement 

But I think it's not just a matter of cost, but utility. It is my understanding that a charge only lasts for:

385 k (Tessla), the best of the top 10;
40 k (Smart), the worst of the top 10.

With the kind of recreational driving I do, not even the Tessla would give me security with a bit of leeway for an afternoon drive  and I don't even want to think about how long it would take to recharge it, nor where that could be done, aside from home.



senza sordino said:


> Remember many years ago, it was a rite of passage to get your drivers license at sixteen. Today, this isn't happening. Young people here, in British Columbia, have a graduated license program. You can't drive yourself and your friends about anymore, not until you're eighteen. And with good public transit here in Vancouver, young people aren't driving as much.
> 
> So yes, behaviours are nearly impossible to change for an individual, but behaviours can change over generations.
> 
> I'm of the belief that this world will do just fine in the future, it's the people who won't do so well.


For people who have no interest in doing anything except going shopping and hanging out in the city, I can see what you mean. When I was a young adult, I was the same. I wasn't interested in anywhere but even bigger cities than my own. I didn't have a clue about the area around my home city, except for the popular tourist spots. Now that I'm more mature, I enjoy cruising around and visiting little places and remote areas. I feel a sense of adventure when I _let the engine decide_ where we're going and it's always so heart-warming to come back home.

I think people will do well. We always have. We discovered all of the continents in our quest for spices, went to the moon, flew past Pluto... and we will always keep on _truckin'_


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> But I think it's not just a matter of cost, but utility. It is my understanding that a charge only lasts for:
> 
> 385 k (Tessla), the best of the top 10;
> 40 k (Smart), the worst of the top 10.
> ...


Battery electric vehicle ranges are limited. Even Tesla's relatively long range requires a very expensive battery pack. Many researchers view battery electric vehicles as having a niche with certain families - "hybrid" families with two cars and those like mine who drive relatively short distances. Hybrid families can have an electric vehicle for shorter trips and a conventional vehicle for longer trips. Studies show that almost all families with two cars can manage their yearly driving by occassionally switching cars so any trips too long for the battery electric vehicle can be accomodated. I hardly ever drive more than 100 miles in one day (or even 40 miles). On those extreme days I could rent a car if necessary.

Battery energy densities (energy stored per weight or volume of the battery) have been rising steadily. Higher energy densities will allow longer ranges although I still doubt batteries could allow ranges near conventional vehicles in 50 years or so. Fuel cell vehicles presently can get 400 miles range and refuel in similar times to conventional vehicles. Essentially all electric vehicles accelerate faster and more smoothly than conventional vehicles. I personally believe fuel cell vehicles will eventually dominate the vehicle market, but I really don't know when.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> On those extreme days I could rent a car if necessary.


Oh, gee  More cost and delay. I'd never get anywhere before sunset and I'd have to rent a car while owning one  They really need to think that one over, since that's not viable.



mmsbls said:


> Battery energy densities (energy stored per weight or volume of the battery) have been rising steadily. Higher energy densities will allow longer ranges although I still doubt batteries could allow ranges near conventional vehicles in 50 years or so. Fuel cell vehicles presently can get 400 miles range and refuel in similar times to conventional vehicles. Essentially all electric vehicles accelerate faster and more smoothly than conventional vehicles. I personally believe fuel cell vehicles will eventually dominate the vehicle market, but I really don't know when.


That sounds promising, despite the 50-year downer  I've always been an eager early adopter and I'd like to be given one to try out to help rev up the general interest.

I read an article a while back about hydrogen. I was totally convinced-that's how well the article argued for it. I haven't heard much mention of hydrogen for some time, though


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> Oh, gee  More cost and delay. I'd never get anywhere before sunset and I'd have to rent a car while owning one  They really need to think that one over, since that's not viable.


For those like you it's not a good option, but for those like me it's a potential option. You would want a fuel cell vehicle rather than a battery electric one.



brotagonist said:


> I read an article a while back about hydrogen. I was totally convinced-that's how well the article argued for it. I haven't heard much mention of hydrogen for some time, though


Many people expected fuel cell cars to be commercialized before now, but competing with internal combustion vehicles is quite difficult. Recently automakers have focused much more on hybrids and lately battery electrics so the public emphasis has shifted away from hydrogen. One huge difference is that there is essentially no hydrogen infrastructure (fueling stations). Almost all electric cars can recharge at home (and public charging stations), but fuel cell vehicles will require hydrogen feling stations. Until both automakers and energy companies believe fuel cell cars will become major players, hydrogen fueling stations will only be built in specific regions.

US automakers have chosen to meet the regulations with battery electrics; whereas, Japanese automakers seem more bullish on fuel cells. It will be very interesting to see how all the potential technologies shake out over the next 20 years or so. I believe fuel cells will play a bigger role, but others think battery electrics will.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I've noticed a lot of environmentalists have this mentality: They are sick of wicked humanity, but trees, sky, ocean and animals aren't evil so they prefer to take care of those primarily with a "secondary" reason that it will eventually help humanity. Taking care of people is hard! The emotional besides physical requirements to produce a healthy human being are exhausting. It's a kind of escapism and way to take control of your life once again after something went awry. A psychological vent. Not to mention the enormous psychological stress created once you start putting _boundaries _on yourself to be a good citizen for the earth and finding yourself not really doing it.


With nature it is always give and take. You take care of trees, water and animals, and in return receive from them peace of mind, gratitude and simple understanding that without nature man cannot live. When you try to take care of people, you open yourself to all kinds of psychological abuse. They will take and take and take, and the only thing you receive in return is a heap of their problems they will pile up on you in order to make you feel as bad as they do. I think this is called emotional vampirism in psychology. Even older people who one would expect to be wiser, are often full of hate. Personally I prefer to be around people who do not need others to take care of them, who can participate in the mutual give and take. My children would be the exception of course.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> There are two types of solutions to environmental problems - technical and behavioral. Whether one considers pollution, greenhouse gases, or resource scarcity both technical and behavioral actions can potentially produce significant change. I have worked for over 20 years on the technical side in transportation studying advanced vehicles (fuel cell, battery electric, hybrid) and fuels (hydrogen, electricity, biofuels, and natural gas). I also work with some who study and advocate behavioral change (environmental city design, telecommuting, mass transit, population control, etc.).
> 
> I have seen large changes through technical solutions but I have not seen people making significant behavioral changes so I'm a bit skeptical of such change (though I'd love to see it happen).* Obviously, a combination of technical and behavioral change would be most effective. It's hard to convince people of the need for major changes when they do not see clear problems and seem to live comfortably in the present world.*


And that is the problem precisely. There won't be the political will to invest in technological solutions to energy scarcity and environmental degradation until there is a crisis so bad that any sort of effective government action is impossible- and that's if there even is a technological fix for these problems. I suspect there isn't, and people who look forward to it are simply looking for an excuse to carry on with an unsustainable lifestyle. Not that they need an excuse: it's their life and they are entitled to take an optimistic view of the future if it seems reasonable to them to do so. Any Green types who try to guilt trip people into living simpler lives are very silly- that's a psychological tactic that almost never works. It's better to appeal to people's self interest and ask them how they might cope if food, fuel and other essentials became unaffordable and society began to break down. (If their response is along the lines of 'the government will surely help us' or 'it's all the fault of [some stigmatised minority]' then forget about talking to that person, obviously.)

I believe that voluntary downshifting and living on less cash with less technology and being as little dependent on the economy as possible, are all a good idea. It insulates one somewhat from certain practical, social and economic risks, although the 'preppers' who believe that all risks can be mitigated against as long as you have a remote enough retreat and sufficient food and ammunition- well, that's a very American mindset! Gotta admire their 'can do' attitude and self reliance, but no man is an island. I would feel safest in a rural location in a socially stable European country, surrounded by neighbours with a self sufficient yet cooperative mindset. Well, I can dream, can't I? And perhaps more- I will hopefully be leaving behind the financially precarious position of a tenant in crowded, hostile England within the next few months and living the self sufficient dream, or some cut price version of it. We'll see whether I can actually walk the walk.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> What do you think? What changes are required in your life/in society in general to sustain the planet?


It would be a good start if people stopped being pigs and throwing their trash everywhere they go.



> Would you give up your freedom of movement?


As long as there are trains, subways, buses, airplanes and bikes, it's not going to be endangered by the absence of a car.



> Would you give up other pleasures?


Like ceasing to eat meat at the insistence of militant vegans? No way.



> Would you be comfortable regressing to the quasi-primitive state of a subsistence farmer in a communal 'city-state'?


I would love to live the rest of my life in a small house in a small Bavarian village surrounded by majestic nature, with my man, music collection, books and animals. If I had all those things, I don't think I would wish for much more beyond that. But that is very different from the kind of life you describe.



> What would be the purpose of your life without your right and ability to follow your goals and ambitions?


My goals and ambitions are not dependent on having a car either. Where I live (and where I'm planning to live) a car is an unnecessary for most people and money-draining status symbol that I could not care less about.



> How do you envision a sustainable future? Or do you think that you'll no longer be here when things will, of necessity, change and you don't care how, because you won't be around to experience it.


I am really bad at predicting the future.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I would feel safest in a rural location in a socially stable European country, surrounded by neighbours with a self sufficient yet cooperative mindset. Well, I can dream, can't I?


Hey, we could be neighbors! In the Bavarian village, that is


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Hey, we could be neighbors! In the Bavarian village, that is


*checks map to find out where Bavaria is* Probably not quite neighbours unfortunately- that would have been great- though some of the houses we looked at in France were close-ish to the German border. Germany was actually my first choice for relocation, but they won't allow home education, so that was a deal breaker. (German state education is excellent from what I've seen, but I'm not sure that my kids could get the most out of it given their late start and lack of German.) Your ideal life actually sounds a lot like my ideal life- I can't wait to hear how you get on in Germany!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

With the endless influx of Muslim refugees, life in Germany is about to get 'interesting'.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I've noticed a lot of environmentalists have this mentality: They are sick of wicked humanity, but trees, sky, ocean and animals aren't evil so they prefer to take care of those primarily with a "secondary" reason that it will eventually help humanity. Taking care of people is hard! The emotional besides physical requirements to produce a healthy human being are exhausting. It's a kind of escapism and way to take control of your life once again after something went awry. A psychological vent. Not to mention the enormous psychological stress created once you start putting _boundaries _on yourself to be a good citizen for the earth and finding yourself not really doing it.
> 
> The world will last one way or another, but people won't. They will disappear. While the environmentalists are concerned with what the earth is going to be like for our posterity 100 years from now (which ironically will be the descendants of the only people who are willing _now _to make the exhaustive, self-sacrificing demands to have children), I'm going to make sure my future family will actually have a good life _relationally_ as well as environmentally. I will support all environmentalists, but I will also support them _personally_, and not just support nature. A clean, healthy world with the self-absorption rates we currently have just isn't worth it to me. There are more ways to pollute the earth than one.
> 
> Like they say...


Quite right; quite true . . . And from a Glazunov fanatic too.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> I am waiting with great anticipation for the technical change to take place. The few things I have seen so far-electric cars, off-the-grid homes-are toys for the rich, but nobody is coughing up the money to make them part of the everyday for the rest of us
> 
> What kind of behavioural change? Population reduction and control would seem to be critical. Eating less meat, I suppose, since protein from livestock uses more resources than protein from plants. Using mass transit when going somewhere-like work-where one is merely going to one location and returning directly home, without stopovers that require waiting around for connections or carrying huge amounts of cargo (groceries, etc.). Cities better designed to permit accomplishing necessary chores within walking distance from home. And?
> 
> ...


She's coming from a Christian perspective-the only correct perspective, far as I am concerned. If one isn't a Christian, this perspective doesn't make any sense because it requires that focuses on something other than himself and his personal 'fulfillment'.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

We happen to live in a brand new house, that is so well isolated that our PCs are enough to heat it up p we haven't gone through the winter yet  ), on the other side of the village there are 80 sun-collecting panes installed on farm sheds, that deliver unbelievable huge amounts of energy (so we'll probably go below zero with our electricity bill), lots of people in Holland ride electric bicycles that already have become dangerous due to their high speed (easily more than 20 km/hour, when you only let the electric motor do the work & still have a 70 km radius) and supermarkets are willing to deliver home all your daily needs on internet ordering. So what is the problem? The real urgent problem for the average Dutch is that he/she leads a sitting duck life, doesn't engage in physical exercise enough (this summer our island was visited by 12% more tourists; we didn't meet any of them during our daily walks in the woods & dunes; all of them crowd the beach terraces, sitting, sitting and not moving a limb except one finger over the smartphone).


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> We happen to live in a brand new house, that is so well isolated that our PCs are enough to heat it up p we haven't gone through the winter yet  ), on the other side of the village there are 80 sun-collecting panes installed on farm sheds, that deliver unbelievable huge amounts of energy (so we'll probably go below zero with our electricity bill), lots of people in Holland ride electric bicycles that already have become dangerous due to their high speed (easily more than 20 km/hour, when you only let the electric motor do the work & still have a 70 km radius) and supermarkets are willing to deliver home all your daily needs on internet ordering. So what is the problem? The real urgent problem for the average Dutch is that he/she leads a sitting duck life, doesn't engage in physical exercise enough (this summer our island was visited by 12% more tourists; we didn't meet any of them during our daily walks in the woods & dunes; all of them crowd the beach terraces, sitting, sitting and not moving a limb except one finger over the smartphone).


The Dutch are just as unhealthy as Americans. Swell.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I don't believe in any kind of technological solution, nor a bottom-up behavioral solution. I only believe in a top-down behavioral solution. While waiting for Lohengrin to appear, I still believe that the bottom-up behavioral solution is a very Kantian and proper thing to engage in - even if it makes no results whatsoever.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

I've read about people pining to return to a simpler life style, returning everyone to small communities and doing without many of the toys of technology that so many are so enamored with. What these people fail to understand is that without today's society many of them would be dead. Modern medicine, which keeps many people alive, myself included, depends on a large complex society as a base of support. Take away society and you loose modern medicine, you loose many of the life saving technologies that keep people alive when they get sick. Take away the modern technological society and you loose many of the medications that are produced by the large pharmaceutical companies, drugs that keep me alive, and I'm not ready to give them up, or the defibrillator in my chest. If someone wants to go out and live in the wild and take their chances with disease, let them go, but don't tell me that I need to do it as well. I'm here typing because I live in a large technological society that has developed the technologies that are keeping me alive, if those "natural" types believe that I shouldn't be here, well you know where they can go.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Medicine is always the last resort of the technology-defenders. But if it's a choice between keeping medicine AND every other aspect of a civilization driven by technology and the market, OR having to jettison all that and medicine with it (maybe the choice isn't like that?), I'd abandon medicine and perhaps doom myself and my loved ones to death. They did fine without modern medicine in antiquity, and we even got through the middle ages. I'm not sure all those people felt life was Hell.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

That's all well and good, but the life expectancy was much lower then without modern medicine, If you are ready to give up at 40 or 50, that is certainly your choice, but I would prefer to live to 80 or 90 if I can, even with technology to keep me going.


----------



## breakup (Jul 8, 2015)

Xaltotun said:


> Medicine is always the last resort of the technology-defenders. But if it's a choice between keeping medicine AND every other aspect of a civilization driven by technology and the market, OR having to jettison all that and medicine with it (maybe the choice isn't like that?), I'd abandon medicine and perhaps doom myself and my loved ones to death. They did fine without modern medicine in antiquity, and we even got through the middle ages. I'm not sure all those people felt life was Hell.


Just one question, do you enjoy music? How much of the music you enjoy is based on modern technology, either to make the music, or to allow you to listen to it whenever you want. Many modern instruments are made in large technologically advanced factories, and the recording and reproduction of those recordings are based on a large technological society.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I doubt the world will ever want to go back to the days of small villages, bartering, lousy transportation and early death. Extremists get dreamy of the prospect, but I notice that most of them don't really take that route although it's certainly available for them.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Antimatter is extremely energy intensive and enormously difficult to contain (for transportation applications). Both hydrogen and electricity can have very low environmental impacts and are available commercially along with fuel cell and battery electric vehicles. So we don't necessarily need a _new_ source of energy.


That's my understanding too. What you wrote is given our *current* level of technologies. We do need a new source of energy as the single most important problem to solve.

Harness the sun? Again, how do we do that? The sun is a giant energy free ball.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Almost all our power is sun-derived. It's the sun that evaporates seawater and creates rivers that give us hydropower. The sun nourished the vegetation that now gives us coal and oil. The sun heats the earth, making the wind blow through our generator farms. We also have some facilities for both thermal and photovoltaic solar power, but that is still very costly.

The best, and maybe only practical, way to reduce power consumption is to reduce population -- perhaps drastically. But right now good portion of the world wants nothing more than to use energy as prodigally as we in richer countries do.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I doubt the world will ever want to go back to the days of small villages, bartering, lousy transportation and early death. Extremists get dreamy of the prospect, but I notice that most of them don't really take that route although it's certainly available for them.


I think you're missing the point spectacularly there Bulldog, and Breakup is as well. It's not that anybody sensible *wants* to go back to the things you list, or to primitive medicine- it's that some kind of social collapse may well be inevitable, and one can choose to adapt to it voluntarily ahead of time, or not. That kind of apocalyptic scenario may or may not materialise in the near future, but think about it this way: it's in no way paranoid to prepare in some way for a significant and involuntary reduction in your standard of living. We have already entered a period of protracted decline in living standards in which modern comforts and even essentials are becoming unaffordable for an ever growing sector of the population: unless you are very rich or so elderly that you are unlikely to live for long, it's a good idea to take a view of how you might cope if and when the rot spreads to your particular stratum of society. If you have thought about this prospect and come to the conclusion that your own involuntary impoverishment is too unlikely a situation to be worth preparing for, or you simply have a 'live for the moment' philosophy, that's fine, obviously- nobody knows the future. I'm just making the point that doomers are simply trying to describe the world as they see it, rather than trying to claim the moral high ground while wagging their finger at you for your high consumption lifestyle. (Of course some people will do that, and it's unlikely they will win any converts. And those who don't practice what they preach are just embarrassing themselves and deserve a hefty dose of ridicule.)


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Almost all our power is sun-derived. It's the sun that evaporates seawater and creates rivers that give us hydropower. The sun nourished the vegetation that now gives us coal and oil. The sun heats the earth, making the wind blow through our generator farms. We also have some facilities for both thermal and photovoltaic solar power, but that is still very costly.
> *
> The best, and maybe only practical, way to reduce power consumption is to reduce population -- perhaps drastically.* But right now good portion of the world wants nothing more than to use energy as prodigally as we in richer countries do.


Shall I put you down for voluntary euthanasia, or just sterilisation? 

It irks me when people advocate population control (though you have not unambiguously done this, it's true)- without specifying who it is who must die, or forgo having children. It does not seem that they generally intend to do this themselves, but rather imply heavily that someone poorer than themselves, or living in a less developed country, must submit to these controls that nobody is volunteering for- and thus eugenics raises its ugly head yet again. Sadly, some kind of population dieback is probably inevitable, but no proposed 'solution' can be considered such unless it explicitly admits the equal right to life of all living humans.

I don't have a solution, and suspect that there isn't one. Voluntary adaptation at an individual or family level to a less complex society may be the only practical action that is feasible, and it's no guarantee of survival.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> Shall I put you down for voluntary euthanasia, or just sterilisation?


Sterilization at my age would be pointless, and euthanasia would buy very little.

With regard to the "dieback", it's the standard solution that nature provides. And there will be no fairness or "equal right to life" in that mass death, any more than there is in the world that precedes it.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Sterilization at my age would be pointless, and euthanasia would buy very little.
> 
> With regard to the "dieback", it's the standard solution that nature provides. And there will be no fairness or "equal right to life" in that mass death, any more than there is in the world that precedes it.


Yes, that's my point about population controls. It potentially just adds another layer of manmade cruelty to nature's cruelty. No point proposing 'solutions' unless they are more humane than simply letting nature take its course. Also, any effective population controls would have to be imposed from the top down, and anything done in that fashion by the world's current government(s) is unlikely to serve the common good, whatever the ostensible reason behind it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Shall I put you down for voluntary euthanasia, or just sterilisation?
> 
> It irks me when people advocate population control (though you have not unambiguously done this, it's true)- without specifying who it is who must die, or forgo having children. It does not seem that they generally intend to do this themselves, but rather imply heavily that someone poorer than themselves, or living in a less developed country, must submit to these controls that nobody is volunteering for- and thus eugenics raises its ugly head yet again. Sadly, some kind of population dieback is probably inevitable, but no proposed 'solution' can be considered such unless it explicitly admits the equal right to life of all living humans.
> 
> I don't have a solution, and suspect that there isn't one. Voluntary adaptation at an individual or family level to a less complex society may be the only practical action that is feasible, and it's no guarantee of survival.


I imagine that simply* giving everyone in the world free access to contraception would have a significant impact on global population within a decade, without the need for eugenics or death camps. It's known that in industrialised societies, increasing wealth is associated with deliberate reduction in family size.

* It's not simple in reality, obviously...


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> I imagine that simply* giving everyone in the world free access to contraception would have a significant impact on global population within a decade, without the need for eugenics or death camps. It's known that in industrialised societies, increasing wealth is associated with deliberate reduction in family size.
> 
> * It's not simple in reality, obviously...


That's a fair point, but there are population pressures in countries which theoretically have free contraception, such as the UK, so that can't be a perfect solution, though it would be a good start of course. Its name escapes me, but I read a book by Danny Dorling which argues that the UK isn't overpopulated, and that the apparent crowding is caused by restrictive planning laws and, to an even greater extent, the extreme concentration of wealth (especially real estate) among an elite. He has a very good point too, but I wonder whether he is overstating his case somewhat, perhaps with the laudable intention of deflecting unjustified blame from recent immigrants. At any rate there's not much to be done to help the UK. I'm doing my bit, by leaving. 

Sorry about my abysmal punctuation today. Rushed off my feet, must tear self from screen....


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> I'm doing my bit, by leaving.


You mean you're going to become one of those ++++++ immigrants!!??


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> ...I read a book by Danny Dorling which argues that the UK isn't overpopulated, and that the apparent crowding is caused by restrictive planning laws and, to an even greater extent, the extreme concentration of wealth (especially real estate) among an elite.


I have read numerous 'defences' for the catastrophic increase in global population. We need to change the way we eat, the way we farm, the way we use resources, the way we live, etc., it is argued, in order to accommodate these extra mouths and bodies. The fact is that the population has increased by about 5¼ billion since 1900-1 billion in the last 15 years! The global pie is only so large and it can only mean a smaller piece for all of us-and that includes our forgotten cohabitants, the non-human populations. My own city has increased 5 or even 6 times since I was a child! I believe that the recent spate of economic woes the world has faced these past decades is due to the increased pressures of larger numbers of people trying to use a finite and dwindling pool of available resources... and the unequal concentration of wealth only worsens the plight of those who have less of it, which is about 99% of the population of just about every country on Earth!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I think you're missing the point spectacularly there Bulldog, and Breakup is as well. It's not that anybody sensible *wants* to go back to the things you list, or to primitive medicine- it's that some kind of social collapse may well be inevitable, and one can choose to adapt to it voluntarily ahead of time, or not.


I was thinking about the many strident folks who want to take all of us back to earlier times. As far as the necessity to take that route, we'll see what the future holds. Actually, given my age, I won't be seeing much of it. Have a good week.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I imagine that simply* giving everyone in the world free access to contraception would have a significant impact on global population within a decade, without the need for eugenics or death camps. It's known that in industrialised societies, increasing wealth is associated with deliberate reduction in family.


Just increasing educational opportunities for women goes a long way to reducing fertility rates. Of course, world population trends aren't going to change abruptly, even if behavior does.

As far as food goes, I'm no vegetarian, but just eating less or no meat (especially beef) makes a huge difference. It's so inefficient. So that's one if the first things that will happen, we won't be able to eat the same way we do now. Or perhaps a handful of us will, while others starve.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Morimur said:


> With the endless influx of Muslim refugees, life in Germany is about to get 'interesting'.


One: Germans have gone through much worse times before and still not gone off the map, so don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And two: it is not the pawns, but the chess players in Washington and Moscow who are the real problem.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

breakup said:


> Just one question, do you enjoy music? How much of the music you enjoy is based on modern technology, either to make the music, or to allow you to listen to it whenever you want. Many modern instruments are made in large technologically advanced factories, and the recording and reproduction of those recordings are based on a large technological society.


It's a good point, like your point about life expectancy was. (Still, the record of Popes shows that many of them lived 80+ years during the middle ages.) Again, there might be some middle ground here. Maybe Europe could support a single orchestra, and they could broadcast their performances in the radio? I certainly love music and a lot of the delights that the technological society gives us. It's not a matter of that. A drug addict loves the drugs he is given. But I believe I could shake that addiction off, and many others could do it as well. It's not a matter of what feels right but what is right, even if it hurts. I don't believe it's a scientific and practical dilemma, but a moral one, albeit partly practical and partly informed by science. It's a matter of deciding what man really is and what he should be. Maybe the Earth could support a technological civilization; maybe it's so fragile that it cannot support even simple farming and wearing sacks. The Earth is what it is, we must do what seems right to us.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I doubt the world will ever want to go back to the days of small villages, bartering, lousy transportation and early death. Extremists get dreamy of the prospect, but I notice that most of them don't really take that route although it's certainly available for them.


I'm a dreamy extremist and my least favourite quote in the world is this one by Gandhi: "Be the change you want to see in the world." It's so wrong on so many levels. Change must happen top-down, on the structural level. Individual action is beautiful for your soul but it cannot achieve anything.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

The problem with top-down change is that it is imposed by politicians without being determined by citizens. Notice the recent attempts to impose carbon taxes. All that is going to do is make living more expensive for those of us who are already struggling to make ends meet—and to limit the freedom of mobility to the rich.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> The problem with top-down change is that it is imposed by politicians without being determined by citizens. Notice the recent attempts to impose carbon taxes. All that is going to do is make living more expensive for those of us who are already struggling to make ends meet-and to limit the freedom of mobility to the rich.


Absolutely agree. And when the top-down changes that actually do get implemented aren't the kind that tend to benefit ordinary people, we are left with 'Be the change...' as the only viable course of action- for those of us who can still afford to have some choice in how we live.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> The problem with top-down change is that it is imposed by politicians without being determined by citizens. Notice the recent attempts to impose carbon taxes. All that is going to do is make living more expensive for those of us who are already struggling to make ends meet-and to limit the freedom of mobility to the rich.


Let me give you a different view. There is a region in the US near Los Angeles where there are 2 ports. Ships dock at the ports and deliver container vessels with products from other countries that are trucked to the nearby railhead for transport all over the US. The corridor between the ports and the railhead has an enormous amount of truck traffic, and consequently, the air quality is rather poor in that immediate region. The people who live there have significantly higher mortality rates (due to particulates mostly from diesel engines) and increased morbidity (mostly lung illness) due to both particulates and ozone (from pollution from vehicles).

The shipping, trucking, and rail companies that make money moving this freight pay for vehicles, fuel, and other business costs, but they do not pay for the death and illness in these communities caused by pollution from their actions. The costs from death and illness are known as externalities (costs from business activities born by third parties). As you might expect the residents of these communities are relatively poor. The California agency tasked with meeting the federal air quality standards is trying to develop a plan to reduce pollution to acceptable limits.

Without a top-down approach (either carbon taxes or mandating technologies such as zero emissions vehicles) I would expect a zero probability of reducing the pollution to meet the standards. In fact as far as I know every significant reduction of emissions in the US has come from companies complying with federal or state regulation (top-down). Without those standards our air quality would be perhaps as bad as China's air quality (1.2 million people/year are estimated to die in China due to pollution). With carbon taxes there could be some movement, but unless the taxes are so high that they essentially produce a mandate, I don't see much chance of meeting the standards in the timelines given.

From my perspective the top-down approach is essential if we want to meet health standards for air and water quality and to keep greenhouse gases within limits advocated by climate change scientists.

Obviously society shouldn't throw money at solutions without considering the economic effects, but somehow researchers, industry, policy makers, and other parties must attempt to find solutions that prevent serious harm to the environment keeping costs within acceptable boundaries.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The problem is that the tax is structured around income and royalties. The idea of carbon taxes should not be to further burden the populace with additional taxes, but change the structure such as to replace taxes on what is good (income) with taxes on what is bad (emissions). That provides financial incentive for companies to develop and implement cleaner technologies, because it improves their bottom line. It is also a much simpler system than trying to implement and enforce emission limits. To establish a viable limit you must consider the technologies and variables at play, across different projects built in different decades, which invariably leads to a very complex package of legislation nobody reads where a lot of exceptions, loopholes and grandfathering takes place. The government is also not motivated to actually enforce limits, as to shut-in production is to kill their own source of taxes and royalty revenue, leading to limp-wristed enforcement.


----------

