A Green Revolution cannot occur under capitalism

[Technocrat]

This paper explains why capitalism requires growth (ie increasing consumption of resources), and why it is impossible to achieve a sustainable society with capitalism.

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue53/Smith53.pdf

[LC89]

I think that what they called a "growth fetish". A market that thrive on continuous growth till the it reach the peak production.

[AK]

it is impossible to achieve a sustainable society with capitalism.
This is news?

[Technocrat]

This is news?


Of course, this isn't news to anyone on this site. However, this is like criticizing those in the social sciences for discovering things that "we already knew anyway." This is called hindsight bias.

The point is that now we have empirical data to back up those claims, so that if someone still doesn't believe it, we can just point to the data.

[Technocrat]

I think that what they called a "growth fetish". A market that thrive on continuous growth till the it reach the peak production.

Yep - except there is no "peak production" in a capitalist sense, because corporations have a built in mandate to grow continuously. Smaller corporations are swallowed up by the larger ones, creating an imperative for growth. If we look at history, the percentage of people who own the majority of the wealth continues to shrink. This is because the corporations become larger and less numerous, resulting in fewer owners with more money. Corporations will never stop growing until they have consumed all the resources and we all starve to death.

[RED DAVE]

Yep - except there is no "peak production" in a capitalist sense, because corporations have a built in mandate to grow continuously. Smaller corporations are swallowed up by the larger ones, creating an imperative for growth. If we look at history, the percentage of people who own the majority of the wealth continues to shrink. This is because the corporations become larger and less numerous, resulting in fewer owners with more money. Corporations will never stop growing until they have consumed all the resources and we all starve to death.Now, you're talkin'! :D

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Yep - except there is no "peak production" in a capitalist sense, because corporations have a built in mandate to grow continuously. Smaller corporations are swallowed up by the larger ones, creating an imperative for growth. If we look at history, the percentage of people who own the majority of the wealth continues to shrink. This is because the corporations become larger and less numerous, resulting in fewer owners with more money. Corporations will never stop growing until they have consumed all the resources and we all starve to death.

I think that corporations always would need some sort of consumers. In the case that humans are supplanted with machines in the productive process, the state and the corporations will probably prop up and expand some kind of "consumer" class built around small, unproductive companies in Information Technology, Marketing, Fashion, Sustainability, "Self Help Courses" or Alternative Medicine, while the rest are starving.

[Wolf Larson]

Of course, this isn't news to anyone on this site. However, this is like criticizing those in the social sciences for discovering things that "we already knew anyway." This is called hindsight bias.

The point is that now we have empirical data to back up those claims, so that if someone still doesn't believe it, we can just point to the data.
^ trolling. pointless post. you may as well have said capitalism or "the price system", as you call it, is the boogyman. of course any sort of revoloution cannot happen within the confines of capitalism.

funny seeing you dont advocate any sort of revoloution. before you lie and say you do think about it....all i have to do is quote your own words.

[Wolf Larson]

I think that corporations always would need some sort of consumers. In the case that humans are supplanted with machines in the productive process, the state and the corporations will probably prop up and expand some kind of "consumer" class built around small, unproductive companies in Information Technology, Marketing, Fashion, Sustainability, "Self Help Courses" or Alternative Medicine, while the rest are starving.
what do you think happened in america? perhaps technocracy will save the day?

[Dimentio]

what do you think happened in america? perhaps technocracy will save the day?

And this has what to do with the topic?

[Wolf Larson]

And this has what to do with the topic?
what does technocracy have to do with revoloutionary socialism? the real question is why are you moderating here and why isnt the OP restricted?
reformistleft. the new name for this site.

refleft

[Dimentio]

what does technocracy have to do with revoloutionary socialism? the real question is why are you moderating here and why isnt the OP restricted?
reformistleft. the new name for this site.

refleft

^^

I'm afraid the one of us two who's going to disappear won't change with you barking like an angry dog. In fact, I'm having the courtesy to warn you - you're stepping way out of line man. ^^

[MarxSchmarx]

Yep - except there is no "peak production" in a capitalist sense, because corporations have a built in mandate to grow continuously. Smaller corporations are swallowed up by the larger ones, creating an imperative for growth. If we look at history, the percentage of people who own the majority of the wealth continues to shrink. This is because the corporations become larger and less numerous, resulting in fewer owners with more money. Corporations will never stop growing until they have consumed all the resources and we all starve to death.


On the other hand, we need to appreciate that anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws have managed to keep capitalism alive far past its shelf life. And the capitalist class, as a class, is keenly aware of this fact. A good example is microsoft. They basically subsidized apple for decades just to avoid being broken up. This was good business both for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. So, I doubt the development is as linear as envisioned in the article.


what does technocracy have to do with revoloutionary socialism? the real question is why are you moderating here and why isnt the OP restricted?
reformistleft. the new name for this site.

refleft

you know, I really think some perspective is in order. This is a multi-tendency forum and, with relatively few, clearly demarcated exceptions, we need to be able to give tendencies which we may find problematic and even counter-productive some breathing room.

As much as I think you have a legitimate gripe about technocracy, you've made your point abundantly clear elsewhere. There are certain people I think should be restricted here as well, but aren't. It is frustrating. I've made my peace with it. But I think you should as well. Honestly you are tilting at windmills.

[AK]

[...]and we all starve to death.
Oh how cheery.

[LC89]

Yep - except there is no "peak production" in a capitalist sense, because corporations have a built in mandate to grow continuously. Smaller corporations are swallowed up by the larger ones, creating an imperative for growth. If we look at history, the percentage of people who own the majority of the wealth continues to shrink. This is because the corporations become larger and less numerous, resulting in fewer owners with more money. Corporations will never stop growing until they have consumed all the resources and we all starve to death.

Also the peak production is not visible since they will keep searching for a new source. People believe in ignorant is bliss. If the consumers never see the damage first-hand they probably believe nothing is going wrong.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On the other hand, we need to appreciate that anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws have managed to keep capitalism alive far past its shelf life. And the capitalist class, as a class, is keenly aware of this fact. A good example is microsoft. They basically subsidized apple for decades just to avoid being broken up. This was good business both for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. So, I doubt the development is as linear as envisioned in the article.

Unless the capitalist price system makes a leap into space, capitalism is going to eventually run out of steam due to resource limitations no matter what delaying tactics they employ.

[MarxSchmarx]

On the other hand, we need to appreciate that anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws have managed to keep capitalism alive far past its shelf life. And the capitalist class, as a class, is keenly aware of this fact. A good example is microsoft. They basically subsidized apple for decades just to avoid being broken up. This was good business both for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. So, I doubt the development is as linear as envisioned in the article. Unless the capitalist price system makes a leap into space, capitalism is going to eventually run out of steam due to resource limitations no matter what delaying tactics they employ.

It may, however, be an issue of growth rates. That is, as long as growth rates are marginally positive, capitalism can delay the inevitable, possibly until it "makes a leap into space" or is replaced by socialism. For example, in times of economic uncertainty, capitalists seek refuge in relatively safe investments even at the risk of reduced long term profits. If the prospects for long term profits evaporate, bet hedging or reducing growth rates is a viable strategy to keep capitalism wimpering along viz. its relationship to resources. Already we are seeing such phenomena in certain industries, e.g., the shift of speculative capital away from the previously immensely profitable primary and secondary sectors to less consistently profitable tertiary sectors. Thus, it is an inherently tricky proposition to put a shelf-life on capitalism no longer being able to generate positive profits, although I happily concede the rate of profit generation should decline in the long term, controlling for technological innovation.

[Technocrat]

It may, however, be an issue of growth rates. That is, as long as growth rates are marginally positive, capitalism can delay the inevitable, possibly until it "makes a leap into space" or is replaced by socialism. For example, in times of economic uncertainty, capitalists seek refuge in relatively safe investments even at the risk of reduced long term profits. If the prospects for long term profits evaporate, bet hedging or reducing growth rates is a viable strategy to keep capitalism wimpering along viz. its relationship to resources. Already we are seeing such phenomena in certain industries, e.g., the shift of speculative capital away from the previously immensely profitable primary and secondary sectors to less consistently profitable tertiary sectors. Thus, it is an inherently tricky proposition to put a shelf-life on capitalism no longer being able to generate positive profits, although I happily concede the rate of profit generation should decline in the long term, controlling for technological innovation.

I don't think the paper was trying to put an exact date on the collapse of capitalism - that would be impossible because of the number of variables involved. The paper just points out how corporations have a built in mandate for growth, and that this growth is ultimately of a physical nature that involves the increased consumption of resources. Thus, capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable. There are a lot of tricks the capitalists have to prolong the game, but they can't escape the basic problem of resources forever.

[MarxSchmarx]

The paper just points out how corporations have a built in mandate for growth, and that this growth is ultimately of a physical nature that involves the increased consumption of resources. Thus, capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable. There are a lot of tricks the capitalists have to prolong the game, but they can't escape the basic problem of resources forever.

This is actually a separate point. Having read through the paper, I must confess that I am not entirely convinced. For example, what prevents capitalism from developing an industry around, say, recycled material? To a lesser extent this is already occurring, when e.g., the mining of a precious metal is more expensive and in fact less profitable than turning over existing reserves. To be sure, energy consumption is finite, but with the advent of infinitely renewable energy such as, say, nuclear fusion or microorganism based biofuels, these physical limits are so abstract and so beyond the practical capacities of capitalism, or, I suspect, human technology.

Indeed, it seems doubtful Capitalism will fully "saturate". Under such conditions, it seems that an (environmentally) sustainable capitalism of sorts is perfectly plausible, simply because the relentless pursuit of increasingly scarcer goods will no longer be profitable, and alternative mechanisms to generating profit become more attractive.

[NGNM85]

I don't think it's impossible for capitalism, or the present permutation, thereof, to be environmentally friendly, at least if you factor in theoretical future technologies, like nanotechnology, however, it would almost certainly be an unintended side-effect, as this sort of economic system is driven entirely by profit motive. That is, unless something changed to incentivise conservation, or environmentally friendly practices.

[Technocrat]

This is actually a separate point. Having read through the paper, I must confess that I am not entirely convinced. For example, what prevents capitalism from developing an industry around, say, recycled material?

Larger corporations swallow smaller corporations. As you point out, we have already introduced more efficient production methods and recycling techniques in many areas. However, total consumption continues to increase despite increasing efficiency of production. This is called Jevon's paradox - in a capitalist system, increasing efficiency does not result in lower consumption but rather has the opposite effect by making production more available. Recycling will not help so long as corporations have a built in mandate for growth. The basic problem is growth, not technology. Nothing can grow forever.


To a lesser extent this is already occurring, when e.g., the mining of a precious metal is more expensive and in fact less profitable than turning over existing reserves. To be sure, energy consumption is finite, but with the advent of infinitely renewable energy such as, say, nuclear fusion or microorganism based biofuels, these physical limits are so abstract and so beyond the practical capacities of capitalism, or, I suspect, human technology.Renewable resources are still limited - there is only so much water you can draw from the well at any given time, even though the well is constantly replenished by nature. Thus, renewable resources and/or recycling will not solve the problem of capitalism requiring growth.


Indeed, it seems doubtful Capitalism will fully "saturate". Under such conditions, it seems that an (environmentally) sustainable capitalism of sorts is perfectly plausible, simply because the relentless pursuit of increasingly scarcer goods will no longer be profitable, and alternative mechanisms to generating profit become more attractive.This is akin to the argument that capitalism can continue to grow qualitatively instead of quantitatively, but the paper explains that such qualitative growth winds up being quantitative because of the fundamental nature of corporations: they grow continuously so long as they have the resources to do so. People who discuss "sustainable capitalism" talk about it in abstract terms, but haven't yet described in a concrete way how it could actually function.

[MarxSchmarx]

I agree with the premise that capitalism is unsustainable, and that it requires growth to survive. It is simply that to the extent that material growth requires the production and accumulation of material commodities, it can be slowed considerably within the existing capitalist infrastructure, and still return sufficient rates of profit from other segments of the economy to sustain itself quite longer (millennia, I'd say, rather than decades, absent a change to socialism).



This is actually a separate point. Having read through the paper, I must confess that I am not entirely convinced. For example, what prevents capitalism from developing an industry around, say, recycled material? Larger corporations swallow smaller corporations. As you point out, we have already introduced more efficient production methods and recycling techniques in many areas. However, total consumption continues to increase despite increasing efficiency of production. This is called Jevon's paradox - in a capitalist system, increasing efficiency does not result in lower consumption but rather has the opposite effect by making production more available. Recycling will not help so long as corporations have a built in mandate for growth. The basic problem is growth, not technology. Nothing can grow forever.

I guess where I fall off the wagon is the assumption that the engine of capitalist growth need necessarily be in material commodities and not services. The development of novel financial instruments and the tertiary sector, and the rapid slowdown of the rate of material production's contribution to profit generated in advanced countries all seem to be a case in point of the phenomena that capitalism can grow in quite different directions. To the extent that there will be continued manufacturing, a combination of recycling and government policies to reflect the price of material accumulation may be sufficient to at least drastically slow the rate of material consumption by capitalism. Things like cap 'n trade, for example, seem to be pointing in this direction.


To a lesser extent this is already occurring, when e.g., the mining of a precious metal is more expensive and in fact less profitable than turning over existing reserves. To be sure, energy consumption is finite, but with the advent of infinitely renewable energy such as, say, nuclear fusion or microorganism based biofuels, these physical limits are so abstract and so beyond the practical capacities of capitalism, or, I suspect, human technology. Renewable resources are still limited - there is only so much water you can draw from the well at any given time, even though the well is constantly replenished by nature. Thus, renewable resources and/or recycling will not solve the problem of capitalism requiring growth.

Sure. The point is that capitalism is quite adept at delaying the inevitable, and I'd venture to say there is quite a bit more "slack" in terms of how efficient it can become with recycling and renewable resources.


Indeed, it seems doubtful Capitalism will fully "saturate". Under such conditions, it seems that an (environmentally) sustainable capitalism of sorts is perfectly plausible, simply because the relentless pursuit of increasingly scarcer goods will no longer be profitable, and alternative mechanisms to generating profit become more attractive. This is akin to the argument that capitalism can continue to grow qualitatively instead of quantitatively, but the paper explains that such qualitative growth winds up being quantitative because of the fundamental nature of corporations: they grow continuously so long as they have the resources to do so.

The analogy doesn't work, because my argument is that capitalism can (and will) grow quantitatively. Maybe we have two different definitions of growth :confused: I'm thinking of basically the M-C-C'-M' chain with M'>M. Perhaps you have something different by the "growth of capitalism" in mind?


[QUOTE]
People who discuss "sustainable capitalism" talk about it in abstract terms, but haven't yet described in a concrete way how it could actually function.Well, if they did, they'd be rich or working on prototypes instead of writing articles of rebuttal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I guess where I fall off the wagon is the assumption that the engine of capitalist growth need necessarily be in material commodities and not services. The development of novel financial instruments and the tertiary sector, and the rapid slowdown of the rate of material production's contribution to profit generated in advanced countries all seem to be a case in point of the phenomena that capitalism can grow in quite different directions.

That may be true for a short while, but the current economic dire straits illustrate the limits of expansion via a bloated and parasitical "industry" that provides totally bogus services that don't actually do anything in the real world.


To the extent that there will be continued manufacturing, a combination of recycling and government policies to reflect the price of material accumulation may be sufficient to at least drastically slow the rate of material consumption by capitalism. Things like cap 'n trade, for example, seem to be pointing in this direction.

I don't think that is sustainable either, given the inherent need for growth within capitalism.

[Technocrat]

The analogy doesn't work, because my argument is that capitalism can (and will) grow quantitatively. Maybe we have two different definitions of growth :confused: I'm thinking of basically the M-C-C'-M' chain with M'>M. Perhaps you have something different by the "growth of capitalism" in mind?


Not even the "ecological economists" claim that capitalism can continue to grow quantitatively. The only ones who subscribe to this view are resource cornucopians. Ecological economists argue that capitalism could continue to grow qualitatively, much in the same way that a person stops growing during puberty but continues to develop internally.

However, this qualitative growth is actually quantitative. If Company A adopts more efficient production techniques this compels Company B to do the same, and so on. Now all companies are producing more efficiently which means they need fewer employees. Now you need to come up with more work for these newly unemployed people - which means you need more growth. Qualitative growth is quantitative. On top of this, now all the companies are using the same production techniques which compels them all to find even better production techniques (so they can out-compete each other), which causes the whole cycle to repeat itself. Qualitative growth is quantitative. There is no qualitative growth. Corporations can increase profits by reducing wages, adopting more efficient technology, or expanding production. Wages can't be lowered below subsistence levels, and other corporations can adopt the same efficient technology. So, both of these avenues have limits. The only other option is expanded production.

Cap n trade works the same way - it would result in the unemployment of millions of people who would then push for more growth so that they could have more jobs.

A corporation cannot simply volunteer to limit its production in order to be environmentally friendly. A corporation is legally obligated to provide a profit to its shareholders - if you can legally demonstrate that a corporation has acted in a way to obstruct profits, then the corporation has acted illegally. Since "profit" invariably requires the consumption of limited resources, and corporations are required to make a profit, the corporate/capitalist model is fundamentally unsustainable. Corporations are required to consume resources, even if doing so does nothing to enhance our quality of life. This is borne out by happiness studies dating back 70 years: per-capita happiness peaked around 1957, declined slightly, and has remained consistent ever since then, despite steadily rising per-capita income. In America, we were happiest in 1957 when per capita income was less than $10,000/year (adjusted for inflation).

I think you are overestimating the amount of time left that capitalism could possibly operate. Studies of nonrenewable resource scarcity indicate that we will run short of every non-renewable resource that we require for "the American way of life" by 2050, and many of these resources will fall short before then. The thing is, we would only need to run short of one or two key resources (like oil for example) to cause the entire system to collapse.

[DEPAVER]

Joel Kovel really did the pioneering work on this subject in his work (http://www.ecolibris.net/enemy_of_nature.asp) The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or The End of The World.

I haven't given up on the idea of a steady state economy quiet yet, although any sort of economy must be rigidly governed by biological and geophysical reality and limits if it's to come anywhere close to being sustainable.

I'm beginning to believe there's no stopping the train, however. That capitalism and perhaps even humanity will simply have to run its course until something better can come in its place.

A sustainable economy might look something like what the Manitos (http://books.google.com/books?id=GGKYtC_klzkC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=enchantment+and+new+mexico+manitos&source=bl&ots=I30zM6Fl86&sig=x_lJL019F9HSP9d3T8wTZM8NSeQ&hl=en&ei=oJ1eTI2hKMGclgfdwsiZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) of Northern New Mexico had, a subsistence (democratic and socialist) economy that worked quite well, at least until the advent of the cash economy which signaled the downfall of their community.

[Pavlov's House Party]

A sustainable economy might look something like what the Manitos (http://books.google.com/books?id=GGKYtC_klzkC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=enchantment+and+new+mexico+manitos&source=bl&ots=I30zM6Fl86&sig=x_lJL019F9HSP9d3T8wTZM8NSeQ&hl=en&ei=oJ1eTI2hKMGclgfdwsiZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) of Northern New Mexico had, a subsistence (democratic and socialist) economy that worked quite well, at least until the advent of the cash economy which signaled the downfall of their community.

Subsistence economies are just about the worst example you can give for a sustainable economy. People in subsistence economies live in constant fear of starvation, drought, etc. You are constantly at the mercy of the elements and have no safety nets if your corn doesn't grow, your prey moves away etc.

The most sustainable economy is a highly industrialized, democratically planned socialist economy.

[DEPAVER]

Subsistence economies are just about the worst example you can give for a sustainable economy. People in subsistence economies live in constant fear of starvation, drought, etc. You are constantly at the mercy of the elements and have no safety nets if your corn doesn't grow, your prey moves away etc.

The most sustainable economy is a highly industrialized, democratically planned socialist economy.

Highly industrialized economies aren't sustainable because they're primarily based on usage of finite resources.
There are many examples of subsistence economies that worked well for hundreds of years. Even the Manitos.
The best option is some mixture of both. Wise use of industrial practices within a steady state economy, where biology and geophysical reality is taken into consideration.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Highly industrialized economies aren't sustainable because they're primarily based on usage of finite resources.

Not necessarily true. Energy can be proved by nuclear and renewables, and materials can be recycled or grown pretty much indefinately.


There are many examples of subsistence economies that worked well for hundreds of years. Even the Manitos.

I don't think one can equate "surviving" with "working well". Standards have gone up these days.


The best option is some mixture of both. Wise use of industrial practices within a steady state economy, where biology and geophysical reality is taken into consideration.

A steady state economy doesn't have to mean we all have to live in little houses and scratch dirt for a living. Remember we don't just live on a planet with finite resources - the planet sits in a universe with practically infinite resources. If we want to enrich the lives of future generations, we have to work to unlock the bounty that nature has provided for us. We can't do that if all or most of us are farmers growing food for ourselves.

[DEPAVER]

Not necessarily true. Energy can be proved by nuclear and renewables, and materials can be recycled or grown pretty much indefinately.

I've reached my own conclusions about life after years of study and living. Nearly 50 years on this whirling mudball. You've reached your own conclusions, perhaps equally or even more thoroughly researched than my own.

Maybe not as well researched. Who knows. But I suspect you're a pretty smart fellow, just a fellow with a different view of things.

What we're offering is little more than "our opinions" but at least we care enough to spend the time researching, writing, debating and practicing life ways in an attempt to craft a better world.

My own experience and study suggests man would benefit from forming a society that takes the best from the past and combine it with the best from the present. Then "advance" further, if that's possible.

As for nuclear (http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-Caldicott/dp/1595580670), I'm not a fan. It's not, in my humble opinion, appreciably better than coal. At least in the long run. In the short run, maybe. And it also seems clear, at least to me, that oil isn't a finite resource, either. I think you and I have perhaps been around the horn on that one before....no point in beating a dead horse, as they say.


I don't think one can equate "surviving" with "working well". Standards have gone up these days.

I'm sure the Sioux might disagree. "Standards" aren't universal or ubiquitous. Everyone has their own view of what sort of standards are acceptable and if the price you pay to achieve such "standards" is in fact worth it.


A steady state economy doesn't have to mean we all have to live in little houses and scratch dirt for a living.

No one said anything about living like luddites or in cracker box huts. Me, I'll take a little rancher with an L-shaped porch, a couple of rocking chairs, a garden, books, a rifle and plenty of ammo. Couple of horses, too. Chickens, and in close proximity to a decent town. Point of use wind and solar. I'll even turn on the natural gas from time to time. I don't need much to be happy.

All you techno-lovers can have your cities. Me, I'm headed to the hills. With a gun, so when techno-pillagers come a callin', we can give 'em a proper greeting. (I tried peace and non-violence but gave up when I learned the wealthy just keep coming.)



Remember we don't just live on a planet with finite resources - the planet sits in a universe with practically infinite resources.

Resources obtained at what cost? Have you ever seen hydro-fracturing in the American West? Have you been on the ridgeline in the Smokies and see the air that's produced by coal-fired plants? Have you been to Cancer Alley in Baton Rouge? Been to the Gulf of Mexico lately? It's pretty f-ing gruesome. Pisses me off. Make me want to put my f-ing boot on an oil executive's f-ing neck.


If we want to enrich the lives of future generations, we have to work to unlock the bounty that nature has provided for us. We can't do that if all or most of us are farmers growing food for ourselves.

I'll agree we should unlock in ways that don't jeopardize future generations. We can be smarter and have rational combinations of multiple energy types once we figure out how to do it without trashing the place.

Until then, the hammer is cocked.

Cheers,

Cactus Jack

[Ele'ill]

I think we've had conversations surrounding this several times and I don't want to drag this down the same path- or in other words- troll.



Not necessarily true. Energy can be proved by nuclear and renewables, and materials can be recycled or grown pretty much indefinately.

How is nuclear sustainable? What of the waste?

I won't agree with the second part until I see it happen- I mean this as encouragement from a skeptic but also a 'comrade'. In order to discuss this concept we'd have to break down each individual industry and then do it by location- and then on top of that compare a solution to how it's already being done. I know you've done this research- I have as well- but it begs for a long drawn-out discussion.






I don't think one can equate "surviving" with "working well". Standards have gone up these days.

I have 'post-civ' tendencies but I don't think this would mean 'small scale' or 'scratching in the dirt'. I think to a degree technocracy and post-civ and even primitivism meet up at a certain point. Neighborhood gardens turn into city gardens which turn into larger 'mega-structure' gardens- all of which would be sustainable.




A steady state economy doesn't have to mean we all have to live in little houses and scratch dirt for a living.

I think we all have to live in much smaller houses than we do now- at least from a United States perspective. We need to occupy less space- it doesn't serve a purpose to individually occupy a large space without doing anything with it-



Remember we don't just live on a planet with finite resources - the planet sits in a universe with practically infinite resources. If we want to enrich the lives of future generations, we have to work to unlock the bounty that nature has provided for us. We can't do that if all or most of us are farmers growing food for ourselves.

I don't believe that we have infinite resources given the demands for petty 'wants' for things like oil (gasoline)- lumber from the forests- mines etc..

[progressive_lefty]

So true, I think deep down Obama knows this, but from with-in the extremely narrow spectrum in the US, he realises that he can't do anything but use the market to drive environmental consideration.
The uneducated masses are hostile to the long term as capitalism is. They don't realise that we would have to have experience some suffering in the short term to create a sustainable society for the future.

[bailey_187]

I hope you environmentalist hippies dont have your "green revolution" in socialism either.

[bailey_187]

How is nuclear sustainable? What of the waste?

Bury it under the sea in concrete and led containers.





I think we all have to live in much smaller houses than we do now- at least from a United States perspective. We need to occupy less space- it doesn't serve a purpose to individually occupy a large space without doing anything with it-

Everyone in the world could have an average size house and garden and all live within the state of Texas. I prefer living in a flat, but if people want nice size houses in Communism and we got the resources, why not?



I don't believe that we have infinite resources given the demands for petty 'wants' for things like oil (gasoline)- lumber from the forests- mines etc..

Maybe not infinate, but we atleast larger supplies than we can ever think of needing. For example Tar Sands are estimated to be able to provide oil for another 5000 years. Whether we want to use oil for another 5000 years though is another question. I have faith in humans to always be able to find alternatives.

[bailey_187]

Highly industrialized economies aren't sustainable because they're primarily based on usage of finite resources.

Highly industrialised economies use these finite resources much more efficently. The few people who, due to lack of industrialisation, are forced to burn wood, charcoal and dried dung in stoves to heat themselves and cook, creating "black carbon" contribute to 18% global warming.


There are many examples of subsistence economies that worked well for hundreds of years. Even the Manitos.

Whats the life expectancy for these economes? Infant mortality rate?

The most valuable resource on the planet is human labour time. Subsistance economies are the most inefficent users of human labour time. An industrialised society uses less labour to create more, allowing for even more humans and even more labour time. A non-industrialised economy needs massive labour time for tiny amounts of produce, allowing for less humans and thus less labour time - making labour time a finite resource. So non-industrialised societies are the biggest squanderers of resources.

[bricolage]

Maybe not infinate, but we atleast larger supplies than we can ever think of needing. For example Tar Sands are estimated to be able to provide oil for another 5000 years.
The Tar Sands is simply not sustainable as a source of oil, avoiding the massive illnesses is leaves on First Nation inhabitants nearby, extracting oil from it produces somewhere between three and five times more greenhouse gasses than conventional oil reserves, beyond this it is the second fastest source of deforestation in the world; deforestation in itself responsible for about 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
The ecological impact of digging in the tar sands is simply too big to simply dismiss as 'environmentlist' and 'hippie'.
Additionally to argue otherwise puts you on the same side as BP and Shell, something I'm sure noone really wants to be on.


Whether we want to use oil for another 5000 years though is another question. I have faith in humans to always be able to find alternatives.Well I'd say there are alternatives here and now that we could wean ourselves off oil with, not that it will happen but it could.

[bailey_187]

Yeah, im not saying we should use tar sands, but the point i was making is, the idea that there are finite resources that will in the near future run out is false. We will stop using oil, but not because oil will run out.

Unless ecological impacts have a real, severe direct, unavoidable impact on people, i dont care about them. That doesnt put me on the same side as BP and Shell, because i advocate their employees overthrowing them.

[DEPAVER]

Highly industrialised economies use these finite resources much more efficently. The few people who, due to lack of industrialisation, are forced to burn wood, charcoal and dried dung in stoves to heat themselves and cook, creating "black carbon" contribute to 18% global warming.



Whats the life expectancy for these economes? Infant mortality rate?

The most valuable resource on the planet is human labour time. Subsistance economies are the most inefficent users of human labour time. An industrialised society uses less labour to create more, allowing for even more humans and even more labour time. A non-industrialised economy needs massive labour time for tiny amounts of produce, allowing for less humans and thus less labour time - making labour time a finite resource. So non-industrialised societies are the biggest squanderers of resources.

Who said anything about doing away with industrialization? Who wants to go back to heating houses with wood and coal, especially on a planet with billions of humans? But who wants a hyper-industrial society that uses resources faster than they can be replenished? Apparently, a few of you of do.
A sustainable human society is balanced. We've yet to achieve that, and frankly, I don't believe it's possible with so many featherless bipeds roaming around.

[DEPAVER]

Yeah, im not saying we should use tar sands, but the point i was making is, the idea that there are finite resources that will in the near future run out is false. We will stop using oil, but not because oil will run out.

Unless ecological impacts have a real, severe direct, unavoidable impact on people, i dont care about them. That doesnt put me on the same side as BP and Shell, because i advocate their employees overthrowing them.

Who said oil or any resource is "running out?" Not me.

But we do know that the fossil fuel that's easy to get to and refine into a usable product at an affordable price point is nearly at the end. Eventually, you have a negative EROEI. It's much harder to get to, which requires more energy that the energy gained, and the difficulty in finding it and refining it makes it phenomenally expensive.
Cheap, easily refined fossil fuels are not infinitely obtained.

[DEPAVER]

I have faith in humans to always be able to find alternatives.

There's no alternative to fossil fuel. Nothing delivers the same energy at a comparable price point.

[bailey_187]

Using other forms of energy will become cheaper as technology is increased, and the cheapness of fossil fuels will reduce once reserves become harder to reach.

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah, im not saying we should use tar sands, but the point i was making is, the idea that there are finite resources that will in the near future run out is false. We will stop using oil, but not because oil will run out.

Agreed. Our dependence on oil is already decreasing due to technological innovation, particularly in the field of nuclear energy, despite the lackluster support given to it by governments throughout the West.
The stone age did not end due to a lack of stone, and the 'oil age' will not end due to a lack of oil. There is no need to adopt the habitual doom-mongering being promoted on a daily basis by environmentalists (especially those like the OP, who sees humanity as a plague as it is).

[Ele'ill]

Bury it under the sea in concrete and led containers.

What are the chances of it leaking?

How deep/how would we get it down there?

This isn't a sustainable solution as at some point we will run out of room.






Everyone in the world could have an average size house and garden and all live within the state of Texas. I prefer living in a flat, but if people want nice size houses in Communism and we got the resources, why not?

Where would the materials for such houses come from? Would it be made from wood?

Do you have a research link that indicates everyone in the world living in an average sized house within texas's borders? This sounds extremely far fetched to me.



Maybe not infinate, but we atleast larger supplies than we can ever think of needing. For example Tar Sands are estimated to be able to provide oil for another 5000 years.

Tar Sands have a horrific environmental impact. How would this be done in a sustainable manner.



Whether we want to use oil for another 5000 years though is another question. I have faith in humans to always be able to find alternatives.

And yet here we are

[bailey_187]

What are the chances of it leaking?

How deep/how would we get it down there?

This isn't a sustainable solution as at some point we will run out of room.

Of course its not going to be possible forever, but its possible for the time being. We can also bury underground in uninhabitable areas. And if space does run out in whatever years, by then space technology will probably be reliable enough to send it into space. And no, there isnt much chance of leaks. Concrete and led dont leak.





Where would the materials for such houses come from? Would it be made from wood?

Concrete, wood, bricks, whatever.



Do you have a research link that indicates everyone in the world living in an average sized house within texas's borders? This sounds extremely far fetched to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM




Tar Sands have a horrific environmental impact. How would this be done in a sustainable manner.


We would probably use better resources if a more efficent way of getting oil from Tar Sands is not found. But the point is the doomsday scenerio of NO MOAR OIL, is false.





And yet here we are

Yeah, despite repeated doomsday scenrios since 1914 when the American Bureu of Mines said all US oil would be gone by 1924, and in 1939 when the Interior Department said the world had 13 years of oil left, we are still here, using oil, producing more food and goods than ever before.

[Technocrat]

I think we all have to live in much smaller houses than we do now- at least from a United States perspective. We need to occupy less space- it doesn't serve a purpose to individually occupy a large space without doing anything with it-

Actually, the average dwelling size could be made the same size as or even larger than the average suburban house today, if we just stacked the living units in six to eight story buildings. This would achieve an optimum urban efficiency and maintain a human scaled environment. The megastructure proposals of Technocracy are just that, proposals. There is ample evidence suggesting that we could achieve the same degree of efficiency with low, mid, or high rise architecture. The two components of urban efficiency are shared walls between living units and car-free lifestyle.

[Technocrat]

Yeah, im not saying we should use tar sands, but the point i was making is, the idea that there are finite resources that will in the near future run out is false. We will stop using oil, but not because oil will run out.

Unless ecological impacts have a real, severe direct, unavoidable impact on people, i dont care about them. That doesnt put me on the same side as BP and Shell, because i advocate their employees overthrowing them.

Tar Sands are not anywhere close to being economically equivalent to conventional oil. It's about as efficient as melting the roads back into tar and getting oil that way. It is barely net-positive in terms of energy investment. Thus, it cannot be used to sustain current patterns of living. On top of that, it's an ecological disaster.

[Technocrat]

Agreed. Our dependence on oil is already decreasing due to technological innovation, particularly in the field of nuclear energy, despite the lackluster support given to it by governments throughout the West.
The stone age did not end due to a lack of stone, and the 'oil age' will not end due to a lack of oil. There is no need to adopt the habitual doom-mongering being promoted on a daily basis by environmentalists (especially those like the OP, who sees humanity as a plague as it is).

This is one of the most idiotic sayings I've ever heard. People living in the stone age did not consume stone as a source of energy. The fact that this saying is most often repeated by free-market resource corncucopians seems to have escaped you.

Most people on this forum are well-acquainted with your warped views regarding the environment and capitalism. No need for me to elaborate on this.

Check it:

Economists frequently state that a growth rate (interest rate) of around 3% per year is required to maintain economic vitality. With a growth rate of 3% per year, this yields an approximate doubling time of 23.3 years. In other words, the economy will double in size roughly every 23.3 years with a "healthy" growth rate. As anyone with a rudimentary grasp of mathematics can readily point out, this is exponential growth. No type of growth can continue forever - this statement has nothing to do with values; it's a law of nature. This is even more true of exponential growth - after only a few doublings, quantities reach impossible proportions. This is a simple mathematical fact.

In theory, capitalism is unsustainable on a number of levels - not just physical, but also the emotional ritual of it. To elaborate on this point would require more time and effort than I care to expend right now, but I may start a separate topic on this later.

[Ele'ill]

Of course its not going to be possible forever, but its possible for the time being. We can also bury underground in uninhabitable areas. And if space does run out in whatever years, by then space technology will probably be reliable enough to send it into space. And no, there isnt much chance of leaks. Concrete and led dont leak.

I don't like the 'what-ifs' involved here- they remind me too much of current times.


In the event that they don't leak but there's a disaster of some sort (of the BP type) the consequences would be for a lack of a better word- unlivable. And they would exist for quite some time.

How about a push for an alternative to nuclear?









Concrete, wood, bricks, whatever.

If the resource extraction was sustainable- and say- even the Redwoods had doubled and regrown new forests- I'd only have a problem with the amount of space being taken up by us- which I see in another post down below is addressed- I still would like to see less cityish environments-

Unless they resembled the city from Dinotopia- which was a post-civ blending of sustainable tech and simple life. :thumbup1:









We would probably use better resources if a more efficent way of getting oil from Tar Sands is not found. But the point is the doomsday scenerio of NO MOAR OIL, is false.

My version of the doomsday scenario is something like "But the point is the doomsday scenerio of NO MOAR OIL, is false." :lol:

[Technocrat]

To Mari3L:

I don't think that the "small is beautiful" philosophy that you're describing is necessarily incompatible with Technocratic communism. If anything, those that wanted to live in the woods (or whatever) could do so, so long as they were not consuming more resources than they would be if they were living in a city. The problem is not rural living per se, but the patterns of rural life that we have developed.

[Ele'ill]

To Mari3L:

I don't think that the "small is beautiful" philosophy that you're describing is necessarily incompatible with Technocratic communism. If anything, those that wanted to live in the woods (or whatever) could do so, so long as they were not consuming more resources than they would be if they were living in a city. The problem is not rural living per se, but the patterns of rural life that we have developed.

I meant in regards to urban sprawl. It's not pretty.

[Technocrat]

I meant in regards to urban sprawl. It's not pretty.

I wasn't disagreeing with that at all - that's what I meant above when I said that it's not rural living itself that is unsustainable, it's specific pattern of rural life that we have developed in this country (such as urban sprawl).

[bricolage]

Yeah, im not saying we should use tar sands, but the point i was making is, the idea that there are finite resources that will in the near future run out is false. We will stop using oil, but not because oil will run out.
Yeah but if the costs of accessing those resources are too great for us to actually do it isn't that just the same as them essentially not being there? If there is oil but getting the oil will cause irreversible damage, damage that we refuse to bring about, then we are in the same position as if there was no oil to start with.


Unless ecological impacts have a real, severe direct, unavoidable impact on people, i dont care about them.
Yeah well they are doing that right now.


That doesnt put me on the same side as BP and Shell, because i advocate their employees overthrowing them.
In there here and now though arguing for the exploitation of the tar sands (or the potentiality of it) does put you on the same side as them.

[DEPAVER]

Using other forms of energy will become cheaper as technology is increased, and the cheapness of fossil fuels will reduce once reserves become harder to reach.

huh?

[DEPAVER]

Tar sands? I can't imagine getting much gas from tar sands. It very tightly packed and holds its hydrocarbons close.

A lot of these U.S. fields are way the hell out in the boonies, requiring helicopters and lots of road building and driving to get to and from. Develpoing these remote fields is damned expensive and that's the way it should be!

I don't know how much water it takes to do this gas process. Depends on how they're fracturing the bore holes. I suspect this means hydraulic fracturing, which means using water in the arid west. Hmmm....doesn't sound sustainable.

And even Exxon does not predict that alternative sources like tar sands, shale and so on will replace it - they think that's way too expensive and uses too much energy. In 2005, conservative Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, Chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee testified before Congress and said "I have heard it takes six barrels of oil to get one net barrel of oil out of these tar sands and oil shale."

That's the truth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've reached my own conclusions about life after years of study and living. Nearly 50 years on this whirling mudball. You've reached your own conclusions, perhaps equally or even more thoroughly researched than my own.

Maybe not as well researched. Who knows. But I suspect you're a pretty smart fellow, just a fellow with a different view of things.

What we're offering is little more than "our opinions" but at least we care enough to spend the time researching, writing, debating and practicing life ways in an attempt to craft a better world.

My own experience and study suggests man would benefit from forming a society that takes the best from the past and combine it with the best from the present. Then "advance" further, if that's possible.

It depends on what you want to take from the past. Some miss the days when most people were ignorant peasants at the mercy of nature and the local aristocracy, both equally capricious. Some miss the days when religion dominated our worldviews compared to today; still others think we need to get "closer to nature" (read: abandon civilisation and technology).

I'm not sure what it is you want from the past; but feel free to surprise me.


As for nuclear (http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-Caldicott/dp/1595580670), I'm not a fan. It's not, in my humble opinion, appreciably better than coal. At least in the long run. In the short run, maybe. And it also seems clear, at least to me, that oil isn't a finite resource, either. I think you and I have perhaps been around the horn on that one before....no point in beating a dead horse, as they say.

No single energy source is "the answer"; diversity of sources is important, if we are to learn anything from the 20th century. But environmental types are too quick to dismiss nuclear because of the influence of the technoskeptical sections of the environmental movement.


I'm sure the Sioux might disagree. "Standards" aren't universal or ubiquitous. Everyone has their own view of what sort of standards are acceptable and if the price you pay to achieve such "standards" is in fact worth it.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the Sioux - haven't they been near enough wiped out like other native Americans?

Besides, it's a rare human being that refuses to increase their standards of living when given the opportunity.


No one said anything about living like luddites or in cracker box huts. Me, I'll take a little rancher with an L-shaped porch, a couple of rocking chairs, a garden, books, a rifle and plenty of ammo. Couple of horses, too. Chickens, and in close proximity to a decent town. Point of use wind and solar. I'll even turn on the natural gas from time to time. I don't need much to be happy.

Sounds like you'll need quite a lot of land. I wonder if 6 billion people and counting could live your idyllic Little House on the Prairie dream. I'm somewhat skeptical, to be honest.


All you techno-lovers can have your cities. Me, I'm headed to the hills. With a gun, so when techno-pillagers come a callin', we can give 'em a proper greeting.

The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few. Cities can support large amounts of people in a relatively small area to a high degree of comfort.


Resources obtained at what cost? Have you ever seen hydro-fracturing in the American West? Have you been on the ridgeline in the Smokies and see the air that's produced by coal-fired plants? Have you been to Cancer Alley in Baton Rouge? Been to the Gulf of Mexico lately? It's pretty f-ing gruesome. Pisses me off. Make me want to put my f-ing boot on an oil executive's f-ing neck.

The resources needed don't need to be obtained using the bad old ways. Instead of hydrofracturing, water from sub-optimal sources can be distilled using the waste heat from nuclear plants and other industrial processes. I've already voiced my opposition to fossil fuels, so I don't see why you feel it necessary to mention their negative effects, which vastly outweigh those of nuclear.


I'll agree we should unlock in ways that don't jeopardize future generations. We can be smarter and have rational combinations of multiple energy types once we figure out how to do it without trashing the place.

Until then, the hammer is cocked.

What is that supposed to mean?


I think we've had conversations surrounding this several times and I don't want to drag this down the same path- or in other words- troll.

Troll? So you think my advocacy of nuclear isn't genuine?


How is nuclear sustainable? What of the waste?

What of it? It can be reprocessed a number of times before vitrification (http://www.allbusiness.com/nonmetallic-mineral/glass-glass-manufacturing/722088-1.html) of the leftovers ensures relatively easy and safe disposal.


I won't agree with the second part until I see it happen- I mean this as encouragement from a skeptic but also a 'comrade'. In order to discuss this concept we'd have to break down each individual industry and then do it by location- and then on top of that compare a solution to how it's already being done. I know you've done this research- I have as well- but it begs for a long drawn-out discussion.

I'm not entirely sure about plastics, but metals can certainly be recovered and recycled an indefinate amount of times - unless you think atoms "wear out" or something.


I have 'post-civ' tendencies but I don't think this would mean 'small scale' or 'scratching in the dirt'. I think to a degree technocracy and post-civ and even primitivism meet up at a certain point. Neighborhood gardens turn into city gardens which turn into larger 'mega-structure' gardens- all of which would be sustainable.

I think we all have to live in much smaller houses than we do now- at least from a United States perspective. We need to occupy less space- it doesn't serve a purpose to individually occupy a large space without doing anything with it-

The thing is, I get the impression that certain "post-civ" types seem to worship smallness for smallness' sake; in other words, their advocacy is based on a quasi-romanticist ideological imperative rather than an optimal utilisation of available resources in order to provide the highest quality of life for the greatest amount of people.


I don't believe that we have infinite resources given the demands for petty 'wants' for things like oil (gasoline)- lumber from the forests- mines etc..

Oil/gasoline isn't important in itself, it's a means to an end - transportation. But there is no cast-iron law of physics that states that the energy needed for transportation needs to come from fossil fuels. A nuclear-electric transportation network would meet our transportation needs without undue social or environmental damage.

[DEPAVER]

More than anything, this forum convinces me that people really aren't interested in discussing things. They're mainly interested in arguing and defending their views and feeding their own egos.

The lines in the sand are drawn, which makes me think peaceful solutions are little more than a pipe dream.

The final denouement of things, the gloaming of industrial society, will most likely be drenched in blood. Sad, but an unfortunate, apparently inescapable reality.

You have the technocrats, clawing and scratching like desperate animals, doing everything they can to keep the industrial, growth ad infinitum dream alive. On the other hand, you have the greens trying to move human society back to some sustainable, sensible "middle way." And in the middle are all the poor fucks that haven't a clue about what's happening. As long as they're fed and there's gas in the SUV, they don't give a flying fuck. They'll choose violence out of desperation, not from any ideology.
You can all go do whatever the hell you like. Just stay the hell away from me. I'm headed to hills to live out my final days in peace, but will have my lever action rifle ready in case someone decides to disturb it.

"Better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees"-Zapata

[Technocrat]

You have the technocrats, clawing and scratching like desperate animals, doing everything they can to keep the industrial, growth ad infinitum dream alive.

That is not the goal of any Technocrats. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding on your part rather than an intentional mischaracterization.

Technocracy Incorporated was probably one of the first organizations in North America to write articles about limits to growth and environmental problems.

[DEPAVER]

That is not the goal of any Technocrats. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding on your part rather than an intentional mischaracterization.

Technocracy Incorporated was probably one of the first organizations in North America to write articles about limits to growth and environmental problems.

I talking in a general sense about people that keep looking to technology as a way to keep the growth machine functioning. Instead of looking to reduction and wise use, this group seems to think "technology will save us" and we can keep on plundering the earth's resources like there's no tomorrow.

Not any formal group, per se.

There's no free lunch. Mother Nature bats last.

[Ele'ill]

Troll? So you think my advocacy of nuclear isn't genuine?

What I meant was that I didn't want to continue joining 'techno' threads and debating with you. It could appear that I was harassing you and the others on this board that have those similar beliefs. That would have made me sad as it would not have been my intention. It happened twice in OI 'in reactionary chatter no less. They just left. I didn't feel bad about that though.








The thing is, I get the impression that certain "post-civ" types seem to worship smallness for smallness' sake; in other words, their advocacy is based on a quasi-romanticist ideological imperative rather than an optimal utilisation of available resources in order to provide the highest quality of life for the greatest amount of people.

I'm sure to a degree the actual purpose gets lost on some people and it simply becomes imagery but I am not one of those people. I think a completely sustainable post-civ Philadelphia would be pretty neat. Especially if the technocrats can bring back dinosaurs! (because there isn't anything the tech can't do).






Oil/gasoline isn't important in itself, it's a means to an end - transportation. But there is no cast-iron law of physics that states that the energy needed for transportation needs to come from fossil fuels. A nuclear-electric transportation network would meet our transportation needs without undue social or environmental damage.

I'd have to read up on the nuclear 'reuse' and waste disposal methods you mentioned in order to make an educated reply to much of your post.

[Salyut]

How is nuclear sustainable? What of the waste?


Reprocess. Feed into breeders. Put into a glass state. Do whatever you want with it.

With reprocessing of waste we have something on the order of a few thousand years (if I remember correctly) of uranium. Thorium, on the other hand, well... We will have fusion and orbital solar by the time thorium runs out, or the human race will be extinct.

[Technocrat]

(because there isn't anything the tech can't do).

That is the view of a resource cornucopian, not a Technocrat. Vastly different crowd.

[DEPAVER]

Concerning nuclear waste....

Waste isn't really the core issue. There are five types of containers for waste, labeled V1 to V5. The production, filling, handling and transport of waste from V2 to V4 is estimated to use, per ton, almost as much energy as the specific construction energy of the reactor itself. About 20 petajoules, I believe.

Looking at the total energetic costs of the nuclear fuel cycle, just from mining the ore through the reactor construction to dismantling of the reactor, even without counting the the energy costs of storage and transportation of radioactive waste, the total energy DEBT comes to almost 240 petajoules (24 million billion joules).

It's highly fuel intensive to transport the waste over long distances and then it has to be guarded and supervised for something like 240,000 years.

And then, in order for nuclear to make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gases, the following would have to happen:

1. replace all present day plants, 441, with new ones
2. Half of the electricity growth would have to be provided by nukes
3. Half of the world's coal fired plants would have to be replaced by nukes

This equates to 2,000 to 3,000 new plants of 1,000 megawatt size. One per week for fifty years. There's not enough money and certainly not enough qualified engineers to even do a quarter of this, and remember, it takes eight to ten years to construct a new reactor.

The only solution to our energy conundrum is to use less, which starts with population control and living in balance with the land.

[Salyut]

and living in balance with the land.

Can you define this for me?

[DEPAVER]

Can you define this for me?

In means not using resources faster than they can be replenished by biological and geophysical processes.

[La Comédie Noire]

I go for a conservation + innovation approach, a demand and supply side solution. It isn't that hard, seriously.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

More than anything, this forum convinces me that people really aren't interested in discussing things. They're mainly interested in arguing and defending their views and feeding their own egos.

The lines in the sand are drawn, which makes me think peaceful solutions are little more than a pipe dream.

A debate (or even an argument) with no chance of physical confrontation is a peaceful solution. It sure beats shooting each other, and who said peaceful folk had to agree with each other on everything?


The final denouement of things, the gloaming of industrial society, will most likely be drenched in blood. Sad, but an unfortunate, apparently inescapable reality.

You have the technocrats, clawing and scratching like desperate animals, doing everything they can to keep the industrial, growth ad infinitum dream alive. On the other hand, you have the greens trying to move human society back to some sustainable, sensible "middle way." And in the middle are all the poor fucks that haven't a clue about what's happening. As long as they're fed and there's gas in the SUV, they don't give a flying fuck. They'll choose violence out of desperation, not from any ideology.
You can all go do whatever the hell you like. Just stay the hell away from me. I'm headed to hills to live out my final days in peace, but will have my lever action rifle ready in case someone decides to disturb it.

I'm sorry that you feel running away is the only way to deal with the problem. I hope you change your mind.


That is not the goal of any Technocrats. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding on your part rather than an intentional mischaracterization.

Technocracy Incorporated was probably one of the first organizations in North America to write articles about limits to growth and environmental problems.

I feel I must clarify here and state that any growth I advocate is of a different rate and character to the "growth" that we experience under the capitalist price system - a growth driven by fundamental human needs instead of profit, a growth that is carefully planned and executed with a view to the very long term future of the species, rather than a parasitic growth of industries the sole basis of which is profit.


What I meant was that I didn't want to continue joining 'techno' threads and debating with you. It could appear that I was harassing you and the others on this board that have those similar beliefs. That would have made me sad as it would not have been my intention. It happened twice in OI 'in reactionary chatter no less. They just left. I didn't feel bad about that though.

Please don't ever feel that you are harassing me in any way shape or form by criticising me; criticism is the whetstone with which I hone my ideas.


I'm sure to a degree the actual purpose gets lost on some people and it simply becomes imagery but I am not one of those people. I think a completely sustainable post-civ Philadelphia would be pretty neat. Especially if the technocrats can bring back dinosaurs! (because there isn't anything the tech can't do).

The final statement remains to be seen. As for the rest, I can appreciate that, but it still doesn't tell me what such a society would look like.


Concerning nuclear waste....

Waste isn't really the core issue. There are five types of containers for waste, labeled V1 to V5. The production, filling, handling and transport of waste from V2 to V4 is estimated to use, per ton, almost as much energy as the specific construction energy of the reactor itself. About 20 petajoules, I believe.

Looking at the total energetic costs of the nuclear fuel cycle, just from mining the ore through the reactor construction to dismantling of the reactor, even without counting the the energy costs of storage and transportation of radioactive waste, the total energy DEBT comes to almost 240 petajoules (24 million billion joules).

It's highly fuel intensive to transport the waste over long distances and then it has to be guarded and supervised for something like 240,000 years.

Then don't transport it so damn far; have combined facilities that produce the energy, reprocess the leftovers and transform the leftover waste into a suitably inert form for indefinate storage on-site. A decent engineer could most probably come with a far better proposal than I; if transportation is the issue, then human ingenuity will provide ways to mitigate or overcome it if given the chance.


And then, in order for nuclear to make a substantial contribution to reducing greenhouse gases, the following would have to happen:

1. replace all present day plants, 441, with new ones
2. Half of the electricity growth would have to be provided by nukes
3. Half of the world's coal fired plants would have to be replaced by nukes

This equates to 2,000 to 3,000 new plants of 1,000 megawatt size. One per week for fifty years. There's not enough money and certainly not enough qualified engineers to even do a quarter of this, and remember, it takes eight to ten years to construct a new reactor.

Nuclear power has a long way to catch up to get anywhere even near the dominance that fossil fuels have, that is true. But once we commit to it as part of a diverse solution, phasing out old fossil fuel plants and reactors will become quicker and cheaper to replace thanks to the increasingly standardised designs and increased manpower that become available thanks to economies of scale.


The only solution to our energy conundrum is to use less, which starts with population control and living in balance with the land.

Or we could use the brains gifted to us by evolution and work smarter, not harder, for what we want. That means using the most powerful tools at our disposal, science and engineering, to reshape ourselves and our environment and thus our own collective destiny, rather than trusting in "Nature" to remain in balance.

[Lord Testicles]

The only solution to our energy conundrum is to use less, which starts with population control and living in balance with the land.

Population control? What do you mean by this?

[DEPAVER]

A debate (or even an argument) with no chance of physical confrontation is a peaceful solution. It sure beats shooting each other, and who said peaceful folk had to agree with each other on everything?

Well, that's certainly true. Violence is always ugly and leaves long lasting scars. We learned that from the American Civil War.

But I tend to think we're headed toward some sort of police state in the U.S. and with multiple waring factions as the economy and the environment continue to break down.

I hope we can work things out peacefully, but I'm having my doubts.




I'm sorry that you feel running away is the only way to deal with the problem. I hope you change your mind.

I'm getting old and tired. Been beating my head against the wall and trying to craft solutions for twenty-five years and don't see much improvement. I usually rally, though, and decide to keep working.
I'm just tired. Ready for some quiet time.





Then don't transport it so damn far; have combined facilities that produce the energy, reprocess the leftovers and transform the leftover waste into a suitably inert form for indefinate storage on-site. A decent engineer could most probably come with a far better proposal than I; if transportation is the issue, then human ingenuity will provide ways to mitigate or overcome it if given the chance.

Easier said than done, especially in the U.S. No one wants waste in their backyard, and we have a bunch of congress critters always trying to ship it to someone else's territory. Everyone seems out for themselves, or at least the ones with the most power.

We'll see what happens. I know there are people that will continue to push the nuclear option, but I just don't think they have the money, the engineers or the time to solve things with nuclear. I could be wrong, but I've yet to see sufficient evidence to convince me otherwise.

[DEPAVER]

Population control? What do you mean by this?

Stop having so many babies. I'm not advocating we sterilize people or anything like that.

Look at what's happening in China as their population grows. They're placing an extreme demand on resources and are in really bad shape from an environmental standpoint.

People need energy, and as it stands now, at least in my opinion, we're outstripping the earth's ability to meet the demand. Something has to change.

But, of course, people aren't going to stop having babies, especially in the U.S. where it's part of the Christian mantra. We're going to keep going until we hit the wall.

[Technocrat]

Stop having so many babies. I'm not advocating we sterilize people or anything like that.

Look at what's happening in China as their population grows. They're placing an extreme demand on resources and are in really bad shape from an environmental standpoint.

People need energy, and as it stands now, at least in my opinion, we're outstripping the earth's ability to meet the demand. Something has to change.

But, of course, people aren't going to stop having babies, especially in the U.S. where it's part of the Christian mantra. We're going to keep going until we hit the wall.

China has actually been very successful with their population control program. One of the reasons they didn't sign onto Kyoto was because they argued that they have already eliminated more CO2 then required by Kyoto simply by limiting the number of births (and thus the number of people using energy). During the last conference they offered an ultimatum to the world: either the rest of the world agrees to population control, or China continues to burn coal. Seems fair to me.

Transferable birth licenses could accomplish the desired population reduction in a single generation. We probably need to reduce the population of NA by at least 1/3rd, and world population probably needs to be reduced by 2/3rds. (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html)

[DEPAVER]

China has actually been very successful with their population control program. One of the reasons they didn't sign onto Kyoto was because they argued that they have already eliminated more CO2 then required by Kyoto simply by limiting the number of births (and thus the number of people using energy). During the last conference they offered an ultimatum to the world: either the rest of the world agrees to population control, or China continues to burn coal. Seems fair to me.

I'm not familiar with their birth statistics, but I am familiar with their environmental issues, which are tied to population issues.

Earth Policy Institute has a ton of information on China.

China is apparently working hard to halt the expansion of deserts and to reclaim the lost land, but at this point, the program is not close to being sufficient. Due to spreading deserts and growing water shortages as water tables fall and aquifers are depleted, China's grain harvest is falling. In each of the last three years, the country has experienced grain deficits of roughly 40 million tons.

Lakes are drying up, the air is awful and China has been opening an average of two coal-fired power plants a week for a long time. Emissions more than doubled since 1990, and they passed the U.S. faster than what was expected.

They're in dire straits, and what's terribly frightening to me is the fact that the U.S. is so incredibly in debt to China. I wonder when they'll decide to call in the loan and start taking grain.

[Lord Testicles]

Stop having so many babies. I'm not advocating we sterilize people or anything like that.

So how do you plan to achieve this? Asking people nicely if they would refrain from having more than one child? What happens if they have more than one?

[Technocrat]

So how do you plan to achieve this? Asking people nicely if they would refrain from having more than one child? What happens if they have more than one?

This might be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_credit