technology will solve all our problems -J Diamond

[ichneumon]

now, everyone is going to scream about primitivism. keep in mind that primitivism not only considers techonology as the source of most modern probelms, but also goes on to recommend that technology be somehow undone. never does Jared Diamond in this book take that approach. in fact, i think he would consider it ridiculous. what he is arguing is that prevention is better than technological cures for problems. his book shows how numerous "primitive" societies committed suicide - there is no idealization of the pre-technological.

" 'Technology will solve all our problems.' This is an expression of faith about the future, and therefore based on a supposed track record of technology having solved more problems than it created in the recent past. Underlying this expressiong of faith is the implicit assumption that, from tomorrow onwards, technology will function primarily to solve existing problems and will cease to create new problems. Those with such faith also assume that the new technologies now under discussion will succeed, and that they will do so quickly enought to make a big difference soon....But actual experience is the opposite of this assumed track record. Some dreamed-of new technologies will succeed, while others don't. Those that do succeed typically take a few decades to develop and phase in widely: think of gas heating, electric lighting...etc. New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problems that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems. Technological solutions to environmental problems are routinely far more expensive than preventive measures to avoid creating the problem in the first place...Most of all, advances in technology just increase our ability to do things, which may be either for the better or for the worse. All of our current problems are unitended negative consequences of our existing technology. The rapid advances of the 20th centure have been creating difficult new problems faster than they have been solving old problems: that's why we're in the situation in which we now find ourselves. What makes you think that, as of January 1, 2006[sic], for the first time in human history, technology will miraculously stope causing new unanticipated problems while it solves the problems that it previously produced?"

-Jared Diamond, Collapse, pg 504-505

[Severian]

Isn't this a straw man? Does anybody on this board assert technology will by itself solve humanity's problems?

Obviously social change is also needed. Many of humanity's problems are a conseuqence of social change failing to keep up with technological change.

Technological change drives social change, makes social change necessary. But due to the conservatism of the human mind and the self-defense of existing elites and institutions - social change is often delayed, unable to keep up with the consequences of technological progress.

[fashbash]

Tchnology will change nothing, only put more of the proletariat out of work, and allow the ruling classes (the makers of technology and software) to better control every aspect of our lives. I am proud to be a semi-luddite.

[Dimentio]

With a technocratic system, it's purpose could be to reduce work and increase prosperity for everyone. We should welcome automatisation, not be afraid of it as neo-luddites.

[MrDoom]

What is needed is katascopic control of technology and automation, not people.

Given any technical issue, and assuming any level of technology, there is an objective and optimal solution to the problem.


Most of all, advances in technology just increase our ability to do things, which may be either for the better or for the worse. All of our current problems are unitended negative consequences of our existing technology. The rapid advances of the 20th centure have been creating difficult new problems faster than they have been solving old problems: that's why we're in the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The problem is not the technology. It's the mechanism in which it is used (the Price System). A DVD player is not to blame if someone misuses it and wrecks their disk.

The risk of arson is not excuse to not invent fire.

[ichneumon]

this is from the environmental impact of eating meat debate. example:


You do know what hydroponics are? One more time, hydroponic crop production doesn't use soil. No fucking soil at all, because the crops are grown with their roots in mineral nutrient solution instead. Therefore it can hardly contribute to the destruction of it. Here's a picture of a NASA researcher checking on his hydroponic onions:

user posted image

In the future it is likely to increasingly replace traditional crop production.

this is from vanguard1917. my response - BS, it would cause more problems. the solution is sane farming, conserving soil and eating low on the food chain. "growing meat in a vat" isn't going to feed the world. "colonizing space" won't solve the population problem.

really, i want to distinguish between the position presented here and primitivism, which is entirely different.

[Sentinel]

That wasn't Vanguard1917, that was me. And hydroponics, if developed further, does seem like a fucking brilliant solution to the top soil erosion problem. Would you care to elaborate on the problems you think it might cause, simply shouting 'it WILL cause new problems because that's what technological development ALWAYS does!' won't fly here.

That might be your personal religion but we want facts.

Also, I have always said that the overthrow of capitalism is necessary, absolutely crucial, to save the environment from damage. So you claiming that I believe 'technology will solve all our problems' is indeed a strawman, exactly like Severian said. :)

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:19 pm
With a technocratic system, it's purpose could be to reduce work and increase prosperity for everyone. We should welcome automatisation, not be afraid of it as neo-luddites.
I don't feel it is fair to throw those that want to remain cautious of unchecked technological advancement into the Luddite camp. Personally I love technological advancement, provided we maintain a critical posture towards such advances so as to ensure the ecological sustainability of our artificial creations. Automatization is a noble concept, but it is impossible to consider the sustainability of such mechanization. Further, the division of labor necessitated by such mechanization could quite conceivably lead to further bureaucratization, further work-place alienation, and the creation of further power institutions which ultimately exploit labor.

Step forward cautiously, and with a critical mind.

[encephalon]

Of course technology won't solve all problems. We will; and with technology when necessary.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:19 pm
We should welcome automatisation
Yeah we should, but doesn't it gonna make people more lazy than ever?
and maybe someday if the automatisation are globalize,then doesn't all of the factory gonna use it and replace human with machine?

and if it does happen, then what happen to all people that are not an engineering or scientist, i'm sure that the factory would be need the engineer to operate the machine, but what would the people of non engineer will do then?sit down in their nice sofa and let the engineer and machine do their job?

[Dimentio]

If people are allowed more free time, it is good for them. We must stop looking at economic growth figures. Work smarter not harder.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:16 pm
If people are allowed more free time, it is good for them.
good for them? for who? the lazy people?

[MrDoom]

good for them? for who? the lazy people?

'Laziness' is only bad in a scarcity economy. If machines are doing all of the industrial work, who cares?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:47 pm
'Laziness' is only bad in a scarcity economy. If machines are doing all of the industrial work, who cares?
so you're assume that laziness are good in the opposite side of the scarcity? anyway no one answer my questions

[MrDoom]

I didn't say it was 'good'. 'Good' is a relative term.

Why work when the machines can do it and provide enough for all?

[Knight of Cydonia]

hm...
but if someday no one's working and there's laziness everywhere,and the engineers die and replaced with the other engineer that notabene made by the "lazyness" so he's not smart as the previous engineer who understand how to fix the machine if it broken down.

so he's (the brand new lazy engineer) not be able to fix it when it's hardly broke down (the machine). isn't that gonna make the factory won't produce more and there's no food no nothing more for the lazy people, ain't it gonna be doom for mankind. mr doom?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 19, 2007 05:07 pm
hm...
but if someday no one's working and there's laziness everywhere,and the engineers die and replaced with the other engineer that notabene made by the "lazyness" so he's not smart as the previous engineer who understand how to fix the machine if it broken down.

so he's (the brand new lazy engineer) not be able to fix it when it's hardly broke down (the machine). isn't that gonna make the factory won't produce more and there's no food no nothing more for the lazy people, ain't it gonna be doom for mankind. mr doom?
Your assuming that everyone will become couch potatoes, Do you honestly think that people will spend all of their lives just sitting around not bothering to learn anything because "machines do all the work now" and to assume that laziness equals stupidity is absurd. Personally if I didn't have to do anything, I'd like to think that boredom (if anything) would drive me to find something to do, like learn? Am I the only person who thinks like this?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 19, 2007 04:07 pm
hm...
but if someday no one's working and there's laziness everywhere,and the engineers die and replaced with the other engineer that notabene made by the "lazyness" so he's not smart as the previous engineer who understand how to fix the machine if it broken down.

so he's (the brand new lazy engineer) not be able to fix it when it's hardly broke down (the machine). isn't that gonna make the factory won't produce more and there's no food no nothing more for the lazy people, ain't it gonna be doom for mankind. mr doom?
In the technate, people are not studying at universities disconnected from technical life. Basic knowledge include programming, tool construction and simple engineering tasks. The youth are encouraged to find a sequence to work within from the beginning, and would not study to become chief engineers or foremen. No. They are working themselves up gradually. Competence decides who is going to get what position.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Your assuming that everyone will become couch potatoes, Do you honestly think that people will spend all of their lives just sitting around not bothering to learn anything because "machines do all the work now" and to assume that laziness equals stupidity is absurd.
that's because MrDoom says "Why work when the machines can do it and provide enough for all?" :rolleyes:


Personally if I didn't have to do anything, I'd like to think that boredom (if anything) would drive me to find something to do, like learn? Am I the only person who thinks like this?
whoa, i'm surprised that in this bored world there's still a person like you, who spend all of his boredom time with learning something :o

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+January 19, 2007 05:00 pm--> (knight of cydonia @ January 19, 2007 05:00 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:38 pm
Your assuming that everyone will become couch potatoes, Do you honestly think that people will spend all of their lives just sitting around not bothering to learn anything because "machines do all the work now" and to assume that laziness equals stupidity is absurd.
that's because MrDoom says "Why work when the machines can do it and provide enough for all?" :rolleyes: [/b]
Machines cannot produce scientific innovation or produce art.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:09 am
Machines cannot produce scientific innovation or produce art.
oh yeah..i forgot about that :P
then what it's call, even it's art and scientific innovation it's still called work isn't it?
i.e:
a teacher ask the student "tell us about what your father's do for work?"
the student = "my father is a scientist" - "my father is an artist" :P

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 19, 2007 06:00 pm

Personally if I didn't have to do anything, I'd like to think that boredom (if anything) would drive me to find something to do, like learn? Am I the only person who thinks like this?
whoa, i'm surprised that in this bored world there's still a person like you, who spend all of his boredom time with learning something :o
:lol: No there is far to much to do right now, I have no excuse to be bored.

[ichneumon]

That wasn't Vanguard1917, that was me. And hydroponics, if developed further, does seem like a fucking brilliant solution to the top soil erosion problem. Would you care to elaborate on the problems you think it might cause, simply shouting 'it WILL cause new problems because that's what technological development ALWAYS does!' won't fly here.

so how would hydroponics be better than just not eroding the topsoil? hydroponics takes copious amounts of fresh water (a commodity), lots of energy (far more than say, just sunlight). furthermore, this was originally a justification for eating meat - growing animal food hydroponically, which is ludicrous. don't eat meat. it's not efficient. it's only possible now because we add energy from petroleum to the natural system of production, which has dire long term consequences. the cost of food produced my intesive agriculture is directly related to the cost of petroleum - when the oil goes away, so do the cheeseburgers.

if science is go great, why don't you invent a machine that turns CO2 into sugar and O2 using sunlight and water? oh, and make it fit on the head of pin. and self-replicate.

the point being, life on earth is our greatest resource, the planet as it is. our technology will not be more efficient than what already exists for centuries. there is NO EXCUSE for damaging that resource. hydroponics, for instance, cannot compare with a functioning tailored argoecosystem.

a pinch of prevention (of ecological degredation) is worth a pound of (technological) cure.

[Sentinel]

hydroponics takes copious amounts of fresh water (a commodity)
Scarcity of fresh water is a problem that could be solved with heavily incresed desalination of seawater, like I pointed out in the original thread. This technology is already in use in some of the dryer countries on earth such as Saudi-Arabia, while others badly need it but can't afford it. Which brings us back to the real source of our problems -- profiteers and capitalism.


lots of energy (far more than say, just sunlight). furthermore, this was originally a justification for eating meat - growing animal food hydroponically, which is ludicrous. don't eat meat. it's not efficient. it's only possible now because we add energy from petroleum to the natural system of production, which has dire long term consequences. the cost of food produced my intesive agriculture is directly related to the cost of petroleum - when the oil goes away, so do the cheeseburgers.

When we run out of oil, we still have a much cleaner source of energy, called nuclear power. It would propably have replaced petroleum already if our class enemies didn't have a lot of capital invested in that smelly shit. And while nuclear fission creates waste that is hard to get rid off, fusion power is already on it's way -- and will marginalise the waste problem compared to fission.


if science is go great, why don't you invent a machine that turns CO2 into sugar and O2 using sunlight and water? oh, and make it fit on the head of pin. and self-replicate.

Just give us time! :lol:

Seriously speaking, though, there have always been people opposed to research, causing prolonged human misery. We would propably already have both colonised space and advanced into a hightech, communist, environmentally fully sustainable society, without all the superstitious wankers putting on the brakes for a millenium.

The catholic church was the main reactionary force for ages, but it no longer has the influence to stop research. And while you some of you anti-tech 'green comrades' do your best with your own foam in mouth doomsday preaching, the days of slowing down development are over. Deal with it.

Perhaps you lack the success of the godsuckers because while they promised the believers eternal life in a 'paradise', all you have to come with is a fucking plate of broccoli..?

[encephalon]

Machines cannot produce scientific innovation or produce art.

Actually, yes they can; at least scientific innovation. Look into evolutionary algorithms. As for art, though: even if they do/could produce art, it would not be significant to humans.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Actually, yes they can; at least scientific innovation.
Machines can produce music, too.

I don't see the problem with that though. The problem with technology is that the upper class that supress the people are in control of this technology. That is what we should be worried about.

Soon they will have control over everything, and they will know where every person is, and what each person is doing; If they do not know that already. Making uprisings, insurgencies etc. much much more difficult.

Che traveled away from Cuba on a false identity, but such things will probably be impossible in just a very few years, due to finger print checks and eye identification. How to counter that? Surgically removing and replacing finger prints and eye signatures, removing and attaching new fingers and eyes? I don't even want to think about it...

[Dimentio]

In a non-capitalist society employing a system which is utilised for the sake of sustainability, a high standard of life and an absence of political and economical power groups, that would not be a problem.

To abolish technology for the crimes of the establishment is like putting the guilt of war on metals.

[ichneumon]

When we run out of oil, we still have a much cleaner source of energy, called nuclear power. It would propably have replaced petroleum already if our class enemies didn't have a lot of capital invested in that smelly shit. And while nuclear fission creates waste that is hard to get rid off, fusion power is already on it's way -- and will marginalise the waste problem compared to fission.

and you expect fusion energy not to create problems? why? considering the energy it takes to deal with the waste, is fission even profitable? i doubt it. why would fusion be any different than steam, coal, oil, fission? all have drawbacks. if we had fewer people, oil alone would be enough. or even solar/hydroelectric.


Perhaps you lack the success of the godsuckers because while they promised the believers eternal life in a 'paradise', all you have to come with is a fucking plate of broccoli..?

at some point, we will integrate and retailor the ecology of the planet, so that it is a functioning, symbiotic and mutualistic whole, fully sentient in and of itself. this organism will colonize the dead worlds with the same unstoppable evolutionary interia that causes coconuts to wash up on the shores of new volcanic islands and sprout. but it will take time, patience and careful planning. how's that for visionary?

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:47 am


Machines cannot produce scientific innovation or produce art.

Actually, yes they can; at least scientific innovation. Look into evolutionary algorithms.
Yes, I thought about that. And maybe it is innovation. But they cannot think up anything that is fundamentally new.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:28 am
But they cannot think up anything that is fundamentally new.
i thought you were such an optimistic that the technology will surely replacing the work of human.why did you think that the machine can't think?let us just wait a few years from now...then let see ;)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:40 pm
And hydroponics, if developed further, does seem like a fucking brilliant solution to the top soil erosion problem.
Yeah, I gotta say it's pretty improbable that hydroponics will be implemented on a large scale anytime soon.

In your later posts, you gotta start talking about large-scale water desalination through fusion power and other future tech in order to suggest it would be possible. So that's all pretty speculative, especially the fusion part. Researchers have been promising to develop fusion power within 20 years - for more than 20 years. So who knows.

The only practical, cost-effective way to grow food remains in soil under sunlight, and that'll remain true for some time.

So it does remain necessary to find ways to make that both as productive, and as little environmentally destructive, as practical. Ways to address all the problems of soil degradation caused by capitalism, from erosion to nutrient exhaustion.

Marx in the 18th century noticed more about the beginnings of this process than some modern "Marxists" can see about its highly developed version:

Moreover, all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility. The more a country starts its development on the foundation of modern industry, like the United States, for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction. [245] Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth-the soil and the labourer.
more (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S10)

[Sentinel]

In your later posts, you gotta start talking about large-scale water desalination through fusion power and other future tech in order to suggest it would be possible.

Seawater desalination is a technique already in existence, it doesn't need any fusion power lol. The largest desalination plant in the world is in Saudi-Arabia. The main reason the worlds water scarcity problem isn't solved with it already, is that it's considered 'too expensive'.

There are people who profit from water being scarce, the people who made it a commodity to be sold in the first place. And they don't give a rat's ass if some poor people die of cholera, or how the hydroponics technology is advancing -- they want immediate profits!

Really, my general point here is that with capitalism overthrown, we won't have to stop eating meat in order to live on and thrive on this planet, nothing else..


So that's all pretty speculative, especially the fusion part. Researchers have been promising to develop fusion power within 20 years - for more than 20 years. So who knows.

You confused two different arguments with each other, I brought up fusion power only to say that nuclear power most likely won't produce as much waste sometime in the future as it does today:


Originally posted by wiki
Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains dangerous for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash. [2]. Some material will remain in current designs with longer half-lives.

Anyways, twenty years isn't that long a time actually, and progress is being made in the fusion power research all the time:


In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power into the plasma over many minutes, was announced.

This is the link to the wiki article on fusion power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power).

[encephalon]

Yes, I thought about that. And maybe it is innovation. But they cannot think up anything that is fundamentally new.

Don't be silly. If humans can conceive of something fundamentally new, then so can any other machine with the same capacity. Whether it has wires or veins is inconsequential.

But my guess is that nothing can think of something fundamentally new, human or otherwise.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 19, 2007 01:00 pm
that's because MrDoom says "Why work when the machines can do it and provide enough for all?" :rolleyes:

He is correct in his assertion, however the distinction must be made between arduous and ultimately counter-productive stagnant work, that is basically slaving away for wage, and that of actual work that is fair to the worker, and provides much more beneficial results than say the former, and is not only les stressful but overall will be more productive, and fruitful.

I assume that he isn't talking about the abolishment of labor, like some blackian non-sense of getting rid of labor and instead putting into place some "ludic," juvenile bullshitry, but instead talking about transferring arduous and time consuming jobs to machinery, so more focus can be applied to other jobs of more productive value.

[CCCPneubauten]

Jared Diamond also calls agriculture the greatest mistake of human history...

Wow, he sounds very anti-Primitivist.

http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake/

Oh, wait...

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 22, 2007 07:33 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 22, 2007 07:33 pm)
knight of [email protected] 19, 2007 01:00 pm
that's because MrDoom says "Why work when the machines can do it and provide enough for all?" :rolleyes:

He is correct in his assertion, however the distinction must be made between arduous and ultimately counter-productive stagnant work, that is basically slaving away for wage, and that of actual work that is fair to the worker, and provides much more beneficial results than say the former, and is not only les stressful but overall will be more productive, and fruitful.

I assume that he isn't talking about the abolishment of labor, like some blackian non-sense of getting rid of labor and instead putting into place some "ludic," juvenile bullshitry, but instead talking about transferring arduous and time consuming jobs to machinery, so more focus can be applied to other jobs of more productive value. [/b]
Of course.

Becoming revolting blobs of flesh and lard like Jabba the Hutt while some machine eats, breathes, and shits for you doesn't sound too appealing. :blink:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:01 pm

In your later posts, you gotta start talking about large-scale water desalination through fusion power and other future tech in order to suggest it would be possible.

Seawater desalination is a technique already in existence, it doesn't need any fusion power lol. The largest desalination plant in the world is in Saudi-Arabia. The main reason the worlds water scarcity problem isn't solved with it already, is that it's considered 'too expensive'.

There are people who profit from water being scarce, the people who made it a commodity to be sold in the first place.
Oh come on. It's not a capitalist plot that makes desalination expensive. It's the large amount of energy required. That'll be an issue under any social system. I'm sure you know this, which would explain why you mentioned nuclear power and fusion to begin with.

Energy supply is a real problem, with solutions yes. But not easy solutions, or solutions without any drawbacks.


Really, my general point here is that with capitalism overthrown, we won't have to stop eating meat in order to live on and thrive on this planet, nothing else..

I agree. I don't think we'll be able to stop growing crops in large areas of soil anytime soon.

I dunno about the whole growing meat in vats thing, but in any case those vat-cultures would need to be fed with nutrients from crops.

The problems of agriculture and working farmers will remain important to feeding humanity.

[ichneumon]

In line with recent studies (19, 20), we estimate that with the world population at 5.5 billion, food production is adequate to feed 7 billion people a vegetarian diet, with ideal distribution and no grain fed to livestock. Yet possibly as many as two billion people are now living in poverty (V. Abernathy, pers. comm.), and over I billion in "utter poverty" live with hunger (7, 19-23). Inadequate distribution of food is a substantial contributing factor to this current situation.

CONSTRAINTS ON THE EXPANSION OF THE GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY (http://dieoff.org/page36.htm)

no scientific advances are needed. just compromise and coordination. i suspect vatmeat would be a nightmare - it would certainly be less energy efficient. probably some new prion disease or something. *and* people would refuse to eat it - they'd rather have vegetables.

[redflagfires]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:48 pm
now, everyone is going to scream about primitivism. keep in mind that primitivism not only considers techonology as the source of most modern probelms, but also goes on to recommend that technology be somehow undone. never does Jared Diamond in this book take that approach. in fact, i think he would consider it ridiculous. what he is arguing is that prevention is better than technological cures for problems. his book shows how numerous "primitive" societies committed suicide - there is no idealization of the pre-technological.

" 'Technology will solve all our problems.' This is an expression of faith about the future, and therefore based on a supposed track record of technology having solved more problems than it created in the recent past. Underlying this expressiong of faith is the implicit assumption that, from tomorrow onwards, technology will function primarily to solve existing problems and will cease to create new problems. Those with such faith also assume that the new technologies now under discussion will succeed, and that they will do so quickly enought to make a big difference soon....But actual experience is the opposite of this assumed track record. Some dreamed-of new technologies will succeed, while others don't. Those that do succeed typically take a few decades to develop and phase in widely: think of gas heating, electric lighting...etc. New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problems that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems. Technological solutions to environmental problems are routinely far more expensive than preventive measures to avoid creating the problem in the first place...Most of all, advances in technology just increase our ability to do things, which may be either for the better or for the worse. All of our current problems are unitended negative consequences of our existing technology. The rapid advances of the 20th centure have been creating difficult new problems faster than they have been solving old problems: that's why we're in the situation in which we now find ourselves. What makes you think that, as of January 1, 2006[sic], for the first time in human history, technology will miraculously stope causing new unanticipated problems while it solves the problems that it previously produced?"

-Jared Diamond, Collapse, pg 504-505
Interesting concept :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 12:45 pm
food production is adequate to feed 7 billion people a vegetarian diet
Food production is adequate to feed the world's population without a vegetarian diet. And it could be higher if it was a social priority, or even if market demand was higher - people go hungry because they don't have enough money to buy food.

The problem is capitalism, not meat-eating. Economic inequality would have people going hungry even if nobody ate meat, or if food production was potentially much higher. Capitalism's problem is "overproduction" relative to the market (products that can't be sold at a profit), not underproduction.

***

Vegetarianism is a religion, and people proselytizing for it use all kinds of arguments to support it...when what they really believe is MEAT IS MURDER! It's like some anti-abortion fanatic trying to say abortion is medically unsafe when what they really think is ABORTION KILLS BABIES!

[Sentinel]

Oh come on. It's not a capitalist plot that makes desalination expensive. It's the large amount of energy required. That'll be an issue under any social system. I'm sure you know this, which would explain why you mentioned nuclear power and fusion to begin with.

Of course it's not a plot, I'm no conspiracy theorist. :lol: It's the very nature of capitalism and the market. The capitalists consider it too expensive an not 'worth it' to fix the fresh water problem, as well as make profits from it's scarcity. So they aren't overtly enthusiastic in investing in desalination projects. A society with the wellbeing of man as it's self-purpose would have different priorities.

I mentioned nuclear power, yes. I firmly believe we should, until fusion power is available as a more sustainable and effective version of it, use and expand our nuclear fission technology. It's the best alternative at the moment, an energy source that fills both criterias; clean when handled properly and highly effective. It has risks but we simply have to be cautious -- a worker ownership of the plants is crucial for the sake of safety.

I do think we should fervently experiment in other alternatives too -- sun, wind, water.


Energy supply is a real problem, with solutions yes. But not easy solutions, or solutions without any drawbacks.

This is true, I agree. Nor am I trying to make it sound easy to get a sustainable and effective one, merely possible, as some here doubt it.


I dunno about the whole growing meat in vats thing, but in any case those vat-cultures would need to be fed with nutrients from crops.

I've yet to talk about growing meat in vat, you must be confusing me with someone else. I'm talking about growing crops in nutrient solution intead of soil, hydroponics. Here's a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics).

As to your latest post, I agree with it to one hundred percent. :)

[ichneumon]

Vegetarianism is a religion, and people proselytizing for it use all kinds of arguments to support it...when what they really believe is MEAT IS MURDER! It's like some anti-abortion fanatic trying to say abortion is medically unsafe when what they really think is ABORTION KILLS BABIES!

Communism is a religion....

that was beneath you, severian. honestly. i work in a lab that does animal testing. eating meat is inefficient. that's not religion - it's a fact.


Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

[Sentinel]

Communism is a religion....

Excuse me here, but what are you talking about?

And, yeah everyone, I too was certain Ichneumon was being sarcastic or something until I found this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49317&hl=). Now I'm not sure.. :unsure:

What do you mean, Ichneumon? Because 'communism' as in 'marxism' has absolutely zero, zip, nothing to do with religion, it is a materialist, scientific theory and paradigm. Let's make a deal, please keep assertions like that out of S&E, preferably leave that kind off stuff to the Opposing Ideologies proper or to the attached *ahem* ...sub-forum, called Religion & Theology. Or at least the Learning forum. OK?

Also, what is this nonsense?


Originally posted by In the thread I linked to Ichneumon says
1)Jared Diamond writes more truth on one page than Marx did in his whole life.
2)Religion is a powerful tool that should be used rather than opposed.
3)Dogmatism, of any type, is unforgivable and a sign of fanaticism. All fanatics are fascists.
4)Regardless of what you believe or think you know, if you run around killing people for it, you are insane and need help.

Mind elaborating on the highlighted parts some? As you in that thread tend to come off as a pacifist who advocates mind control, or something along those lines, as opposed to 'revolutionary leftist'. Just so I finally know where this thread really belongs. Thanks!

[ichneumon]

this doesn't go here, but whatever. yes, that was meant as sarcasm.

socieites that attempt to abolish traditional religions and replace them with state ideology have a tendency to turn those ideologies back into religions. thus the millions of chinese who make pilgrimages to mao's tomb, and burn offerings. thus lenin's pickled body. little red books (aka canon). whatever. it's a sociological phenomenon. this is happening to Science! in our society and it is much to science's detriment. instead of heaven, you have science fiction. darwin fish - with darwin's name where "jesus" used to be. this is an observation.

"Religion is a powerful tool that should be used rather than opposed."

religion is a powerful tool. it is a lever that can move a society. and, like it or not, marxism is a messianic movement. so go with it. what are the 10 commandments of living in a communist society? how does communist theory give rise to personal ethics? what is the purpose of life in the workers' paradise?

i'm hardcore postmodern. i don't care if what you believe is right and true. everyone thinks that about their belief system, otherwise, they wouldn't believe it. so what? it still serves the same function in your worldview and psychic makeup. the fact that i agree, generally, with your ideas about cosmology is also unimportant. i *know* i have a religion, as everyone does. you think yours is the One True. bluck.

4)Regardless of what you believe or think you know, if you run around killing people for it, you are insane and need help.

this is a statement of fact. it fits with the modern defintion of "insane". the idea that "i have the One True, so when i kill people, it's okay" is about as close to evil as it gets. murder is murder. war is murder - so are judicial executions. so is genocide. you don't have to believe in purges and mass graves to be a revolutionary. revolution is about change, particularly, sudden change in social systems. a union strike is a revolution. gandhi was a revolutionary. so was MLKJr.

could someone please move this to a more appropriate venue?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Serpent+January 20, 2007 02:39 am--> (Serpent @ January 20, 2007 02:39 am)
Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 19, 2007 04:07 pm
hm...
but if someday no one's working and there's laziness everywhere,and the engineers die and replaced with the other engineer that notabene made by the "lazyness" so he's not smart as the previous engineer who understand how to fix the machine if it broken down.

so he's (the brand new lazy engineer) not be able to fix it when it's hardly broke down (the machine). isn't that gonna make the factory won't produce more and there's no food no nothing more for the lazy people, ain't it gonna be doom for mankind. mr doom?
In the technate, people are not studying at universities disconnected from technical life. Basic knowledge include programming, tool construction and simple engineering tasks. The youth are encouraged to find a sequence to work within from the beginning, and would not study to become chief engineers or foremen. No. They are working themselves up gradually. Competence decides who is going to get what position. [/b]
I find all of those things you're suggesting as areas of study, painfully boring. What can i do instead?


Sentinel
When we run out of oil, we still have a much cleaner source of energy, called nuclear power.

'Cleaner' maybe, but 'clean' - not even close, toxic waste doesnt just evaporate ya know! Remembering of course that you're advocating we make nuclear power a primary form of energy - way to increase toxic waste exponentially! Do you imagine vast underground toxic waste storage facilities? What?

And worse, it relies on one of the most pollutive and destructive industrial processes - mining (add to that you're mining uranium for fucks sake, its' not made of hugs and kisses after all), and of a non-renewable resource - uranium. This is precisely the opposite of what humans need at this point, putting all our eggs in one basket with yet another pollutive non-renewable energy source.

Not to mention the fact that at present the vast majority of the worlds uranium rests in one single imperialist country; australia - so unless australia becomes a beacon of communism sometime soon (and realistically, it probably will not be soon enough to have any practical benefit for the majority of the planet - seeing as australia will sell to whoever can pay it the most - no socialist countries need apply) the idea that somehow the world will be flooded with the uranium necessary for their swanky new nuclear power plants is a pipe-dream.

Another fun fact, uranium mining (like a lot of mining globally) is accelerating (and has already resulted in a lot of) dispossession of land from Indigenous peoples, contaminating Indigenous land (destroying it really)... or at least what used to be Indigenous land before the people were forced out by mining companies digging up the dirt to fuel nuclear plants in western europe.

But yeah, who cares about Indigenous people or where the uranium is actually coming from, its all about the &#39;progress&#39; of the western european and north american technates. <_<

[ichneumon]

"fusion is just around the corner and will solve all our problems"

this is pure fantasy. even if generating energy via fusion is possible, it will be decades before the first power plants come on line. and why would you think fusion would be problem free, when every other source of electricity in the history of human kind has been plagued with problems?

i would like to see more money put into fusion research. this is much more important than, say, CERN. BUT the technofantasy idea is VERY dangerous. we have to accept that these ideas may very well be impossible, and act now in whatever way we can to solve our current problems.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by black rose+--> (black rose)I find all of those things you&#39;re suggesting as areas of study, painfully boring. What can i do instead?[/b]

Anything you&#39;d like, your influence in the actual running of the technate would be lesser, of course, but by no means necessarily your influence in society.


&#39;Cleaner&#39; maybe, but &#39;clean&#39; - not even close, toxic waste doesnt just evaporate ya know&#33; Remembering of course that you&#39;re advocating we make nuclear power a primary form of energy - way to increase toxic waste exponentially&#33; Do you imagine vast underground toxic waste storage facilities? What?

No, for the future I imagine a combination of mainly nuclear fusion but also solar, water and wind power plants to provide us with energy. Until then, pretty much what we have now, with a gradual transition from oil to the other energy sources.

What do you propose we do? All I see is foaming in mouth critiques of industrial society from you guys but few alternatives.


Not to mention the fact that at present the vast majority of the worlds uranium rests in one single imperialist country; australia - so unless australia becomes a beacon of communism sometime soon (and realistically, it probably will not be soon enough to have any practical benefit for the majority of the planet - seeing as australia will sell to whoever can pay it the most - no socialist countries need apply) the idea that somehow the world will be flooded with the uranium necessary for their swanky new nuclear power plants is a pipe-dream.

Would we end up in a situation where the rest of the world was communist and Australia still capitalist, there would indeed be somewhat of a problem -- but there are other deposits of uranium; in Canada, Russia, Kazachstan, the US and several other countries. Uranium can also be found in seawater.

But why would this worst scenario for uranium supply happen? According to historical materialism it is the imperialist first world countries that&#39;ll overthrow capitalism first, after all. Not that that matters if one is opposed to progress and inclined to demonising it, of course..

Also, uranium supply is a problem only as long as we are dependent of the fission reactor; fusion plants would use other fuels, namely deuterium and lithium -- of which there are nearly unlimited resources.


Another fun fact, uranium mining (like a lot of mining globally) is accelerating (and has already resulted in a lot of) dispossession of land from Indigenous peoples, contaminating Indigenous land (destroying it really)... or at least what used to be Indigenous land before the people were forced out by mining companies digging up the dirt to fuel nuclear plants in western europe.

But yeah, who cares about Indigenous people or where the uranium is actually coming from, its all about the &#39;progress&#39; of the western european and north american technates.

Yeah, anyone who advocates sustaining technological progress is an eurocentric chauvinist by definition. Stop strawmanning, that kind of accusations are really offending.. I would never advocate progress for parts of the globe through exploitation of others, I&#39;m a communist.

Like you said yourself, Australia propably wouldn&#39;t sell uranium to socialists/communists, so the socialist or communist societies/technates wouldn&#39;t be responsible for those australian capitalists exploiting indigenious lands.

After the world revolution spread into Australia, those preferring a primitive way of life could always be offered an even bigger enclave somewhere else in the country or where ever, should they sit on crucial resources.

On the other hand, if the surrounding society was a communist one that really cared about them it&#39;d make sure their children had access to a proper modern education and were offered a place in the hightech society, without losing their language and cultural characteristics.


ichneumon
this is pure fantasy. even if generating energy via fusion is possible, it will be decades before the first power plants come on line.

Decades isn&#39;t that long a time you know.


and why would you think fusion would be problem free, when every other source of electricity in the history of human kind has been plagued with problems?

It isn&#39;t &#39;problem free&#39;, but research indicates it will be much less problematic than present energy sources.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)Anything you&#39;d like, your influence in the actual running of the technate would be lesser, of course, but by no means necessarily your influence in society.
[/b]

Why &#39;of course&#39;? Why should people who are inclined to be programmers or engineers have a greater control over how the system is run? You&#39;re establishing imbalances of power.

How could there not be a qualitive difference in a persons &#39;influence&#39; over society when they have less control of their own workplace, work - the very system of their labour and how it functions?

Moreover, you and other technocrats talk about &#39;the technate&#39; as if it actually exists, or rather, that it will exist - in reality it will not be adherents to technocracy that will shape the future direction of human society, rather it will be the working class, the oppressed and dispossesed - and in these circles technocracy is a complete unknown. Technocracy is essentially a tiny intellectual movement of european internet users, and i really dont see it growing significantly anytime soon, nor would i want to see that - having such an explicit &#39;plan&#39; for future society is thoroughly un-marxist and utopian.


Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)What do you propose we do?[/b]

Focus on further developing renewable energy sources (things like solar power are improving all the time), the ones you place as seconday to nuclear power.


Originally posted by Sentinel

All I see is foaming in mouth critiques of industrial society from you guys but few alternatives.

Please quote where i have made this &#39;foaming in mouth critique of industrial society&#39; - total strawman.


Originally posted by Sentinel
Would we end up in a situation where the rest of the world was communist and Australia still capitalist, there would indeed be somewhat of a problem --

Actually, there is already a huge problem with your idea.

First of all, yes, for your proposal to be viable in any meaningful sense, countries like australia and candada will have to become communist - and soon, in fact they would have to be at the forefront of social change, because without them the supply of uranium will be woefully insufficient to support an expansion of nuclear power globally.

Without australia there will simply not be enough uranium to fuel plants globally, certainly nothing approaching the amount of plants that would be required to mark this huge shift in energy focus.

And what of island nations? And other places that for geographic reasons (enviromental hazards etc.) are completely unsuited to nuclear power plants? What should they do?


Originally posted by Sentinel

but there are other deposits of uranium; in Canada, Russia, Kazachstan, the US and several other countries. Uranium can also be found in seawater.

Right, and these all pale into significance compared to the supply found in australia, not to mention that they are already running out - on the other hand thanks to a moratorium on new mines, australias supply of uranium is still expansive.


Originally posted by sentinel

But why would this worst scenario for uranium supply happen? According to historical materialism it is the imperialist first world countries that&#39;ll overthrow capitalism first, after all.

Because your whole proposal rests on the hope (how materialist) that revolution will happen in the &#39;right&#39; countries - if there isnt a revolution in australia for example you&#39;re essentially fucked (and if canada isnt down the situation will be completely hopeless).

And although this is by no means definitive... australia lacks a history of militant workers struggle approaching anything of the scale of latin america, europe etc. - the same can be said for canada - i really dont see the world revolution starting in these places. And even if there is a revolution in these places, it has to relatively soon, or at least as i said - at the forefront of revolutionary change globally, if not it makes your proposal thoroughly impractical.

And if there is a revolution in australia for example, then you have to hope (there&#39;s that word again) that the people of this continent can actually mine the uranium necessary - revolution is no picnic, the continents infrastructure may lie in ruins, and the people more concerned with prioritising the needs of life, food, shelter, water, clothing, and securing revolutionary society than steaming into a massive expansion of uranium mining (of all things).

Moreover the majority of uranium is found in parts of australia which already lack infrastructure, so a damaged infrastructure will make mining even less feasible.

And finally, your proposal again rests on the hope that the people of this continent will actually want to mine the uranium here (let alone at the level required for a global nuclear program) - and unfortunately for the western european and north american technates (these are the only places where technates are currently feasible correct?) - opposition to nuclear power and uranium mining is widespread in australia, with leftwing people here rarely endorsing the further exploitation of Indigenous people and land.

Moreover most of these points can be applied with more or less vigour in other places with large uranium supplies.


Originally posted by sentinel

Not that that matters if one is opposed to progress and inclined to demonising it, of course..

&#39;Progress&#39;... how quaintly 19th century of you.

But seriously, of course i dont oppose &#39;progress&#39; as a general concept - &#39;progress&#39; has nothing to do with the discussion we are having, rather we are debating whether pursuing nuclear power as a primary energy source is a wise decision - i disagree, which of course from the dogmatic POV of a technocrat = being &#39;opposed to progress&#39; - no, it simply means opposing your conception of &#39;progress&#39;... unless of course you think you&#39;re the only person who can be right on any given issue? Or indeed that a technocratic conception of progress is the only acceptable conception of progress?


Originally posted by Sentinel

Also, uranium supply is a problem only as long as we are dependent of the fission reactor; fusion plants would use other fuels, namely deuterium and lithium -- of which there are nearly unlimited resources.

Technology which currently does not exist, and may well never exist in a form useful enough for the purpose you are designating it - that is about as weak an argument as can be made.


Originally posted by sentinel

eah, anyone who advocates sustaining technological progress is an eurocentric chauvinist by definition.

Guilty conscience? I never mentioned &#39;eurocentric chauvinism&#39; (though i will later in this post given your latest comments). Though of course, it would be incredibly chauvinistic of you or anyone to assert that people living outside of europe have to produce uranium for the first world or they are &#39;opposing progress&#39;.



Originally posted by sentinel

Stop strawmanning, that kind of accusations are really offending..

Right, and your ridiculous mischaracterisation of my criticisms are not offensive in the slighest :unsure:


Originally posted by Sentinel

I would never advocate progress for parts of the globe through exploitation of others, I&#39;m a communist.

Right, so then what are you going to do if the Indigenous people of australia (let alone the non-Indigenous people) dont want destroy the land they live on to fuel european power plants? I guess there isnt much you can do... and therein lies just one of the many weaknesses of your proposal. Living in australia i gotta say, unless opinion shifts drastically in the near future, i dont see non-Indigenous people supporting your proposal either.


Originally posted by Sentinel

Like you said yourself, Australia propably wouldn&#39;t sell uranium to socialists/communists, so the socialist or communist societies/technates wouldn&#39;t be responsible for those australian capitalists exploiting indigenious lands.

Right, but without australias uranium supply any mass shift towards nuclear power will be greatly hindered.


[email protected]

After the world revolution spread into Australia, those preferring a primitive way of life could always be offered an even bigger enclave somewhere else in the country or where ever, should they sit on crucial resources.

Way to be thoroughly paternalistic&#33; I didnt mention chauvinism in my last post, but i will now for sure, way to be a chauvinist&#33;

Yo primitives, you can move off your land, over to some place decided by &#39;us&#39; - coz like we want to dig it up, well actually - make it completely unusable by humans for like... forever. Yo you dont wanna move? Too bad, you&#39;re in the way of PROGRESS, so you better get out of the way or we&#39;ll move you out of the way&#33; funnily enough this the exact same argument (and rhetoric disgustingly enough) employed by europeans when they originally invaded this continent and begun appropiating Aboriginal land and resources. That Indigenous people dont know how to use it &#39;properly&#39;, that they&#39;re &#39;wasting&#39; the land and the resources.

Would you support that? Forcing Indigenous people off their land so it can be turned into a giant uranium mine? If so, welcome to the australian right, say hello to the racist neo-liberal party and big business for me&#33;


Sentinel

On the other hand, if the surrounding society was a communist one that really cared about them it&#39;d make sure their children had access to a proper modern education and were offered a place in the hightech society, without losing their language and cultural characteristics.

What makes you think that every society on the planet will want to be run like a technate or somekind of techocratic utopia? (you seem to hinge A LOT of your arguments on this assumption)

Given the fact technocracy has zero influence anywhere, let alone on the working class, and on this board alone many class conscious working class people are highly suspicious of technocracy (and no, not just the &#39;primitivist&#39; ones), your whole vision of the future seems incredibly far-fetched to be honest.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well black rose. Uranium is not the only resource for fission reactors. There is Thorium which abandunt every where but the techonolgy to tune it up to use in fission is highly expensive and not available for all countries. We have to thank IAEA a club with Nuclear weapon owning members for that.

Nuclear energy is way better than fossil fuels IMO. They don&#39;t produce green house gases and also the some 20% of the wastes can be recycled for usage(plutonium is not naturally available but obtained from fission reactors - primary ingredient in producing Hydrogen Bomb currently :( which is based on fusion technology).

But we can&#39;t overrule the toxic wast it produces which is no way comparable to greenhouse gases. Regardless I really don&#39;t know fusion which happens in the sun can be used in Earth to produce energy. I really don&#39;t know whether it is feasible any way in the current property relations or in an post revolutionary relations any where in the future in any point of view.

It is hundred percent our priority to concentrate more on renewable energy form. Because even uranium and thorium runs out eventually. If more forests are destroyed and more fossil fuels are used up then there will be no place for humanity in the Earth which is the only one capable of supporting human life forms.As Severian said early in this thread we need a social revolution to keep up with the technical progress to ensure the survival of the working class.

Certainly some in revolutionary left do not understand that it is workers and peasants who are paying up for all the environmental degradation not the people who own Hummers.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black rose+March 15, 2007 10:41 am--> (black rose &#064; March 15, 2007 10:41 am)
Sentinel
Anything you&#39;d like, your influence in the actual running of the technate would be lesser, of course, but by no means necessarily your influence in society.


Why &#39;of course&#39;? Why should people who are inclined to be programmers or engineers have a greater control over how the system is run? You&#39;re establishing imbalances of power. [/b]
The reason they would have more influence in running a technate is that they&#39;d be able to have influence in the technical tier of government - after all they actually have the knowledge to run that pert of society. I wouldn&#39;t trust a non-engineer/scientist to give a decent opinion on the technical/scientific running of the society I&#39;m in.


How could there not be a qualitive difference in a persons &#39;influence&#39; over society when they have less control of their own workplace, work - the very system of their labour and how it functions? Do you understand how a technate is run, at all? I suggest you read up on it and look especially into the two-tier governmental system. We do not need people that do not understand the technology trying to decide how it will be used - we have that already and look what good it&#39;s doing us.


Moreover, you and other technocrats talk about &#39;the technate&#39; as if it actually exists, or rather, that it will exist Yes, when someone envisages a future society it&#39;s fairly natural for them to assume it will exist, that&#39;s not really a meaningful criticism - unless of course you don&#39;t think a communist society will exist either.
in reality it will not be adherents to technocracy that will shape the future direction of human society, rather it will be the working class, the oppressed and dispossesed - and in these circles technocracy is a complete unknown. What the fuck is this? "THose dumb workers don&#39;t know about technocracy"? Fuck off.I don&#39;t know if you&#39;re removed from the international proletariat or what but I&#39;ve known quite a few that are interested in technocracy and even knowledgeable about to say it is a "a complete unknown" is an insulting falsehood.
it Technocracy is essentially a tiny intellectual movement of european internet users, I&#39;ll just tell that to the technocrats in the US, Latin America and Indonesia shall I?
and i really dont see it growing significantly anytime soon, And what is that assumption founded on?
nor would i want to see that - having such an explicit &#39;plan&#39; for future society is thoroughly un-marxist and utopian. So having a plan for what to do once you&#39;ve had a revolution is &#39;utopian&#39; but saying (pretty much) oh it&#39;ll "all sort itself out, somehow" is thoroughly scientific?

EDIT: On "chauvinism" against people that have useful resources that they are not using but for some, unfathomable, reason are completely unable to share they are no better than the capitalists that insist on hoarding goods and resources. If it is in the interest of a majority of people to have an efficient fuel source but a group of people - no matter who they are - are preventing this by selfishly withholding the necessary materials then it is in our interest to prevent them from doing so. Allowing them to move to a larger enclave isn&#39;t even a punishment so I don&#39;t know what you as the apologist for these resource hoarders actually has to complain about aside from kind of perceived "chauvinism".

[Sentinel]

Moreover, you and other technocrats talk about &#39;the technate&#39; as if it actually exists, or rather, that it will exist - in reality it will not be adherents to technocracy that will shape the future direction of human society, rather it will be the working class, the oppressed and dispossesed - and in these circles technocracy is a complete unknown.

You were the one who strangely enough started talking about technocracy here while it&#39;s completely irrelevant to the discussion -- we could be talking about any sort of future hightech communist society.

You have a tendency to get technocracy and transhumanism mixed up, maybe because many advocate both. Technocracy means the application of science into social order, a combination of methods that could be used to run a future society, the most important one being energy accounting. Not the uploading of brains into CD:s.

And precisely because it&#39;s relatively unknown, I&#39;m trying to &#39;spread the word&#39;.. Just like you do with your brand of anarcho-communism -- not that well known among workers, that either now is it?


Technocracy is essentially a tiny intellectual movement of european internet users, and i really dont see it growing significantly anytime soon, nor would i want to see that - having such an explicit &#39;plan&#39; for future society is thoroughly un-marxist and utopian.

I have anything but an &#39;explicit plan&#39; -- I simply advocate what seems smart to me and hope comrades will listen and get influenced.


Please quote where i have made this &#39;foaming in mouth critique of industrial society&#39; - total strawman.


I may have exaggerated to make a point here, but a hostility towards industrial society as well as technological progress certainly has sneaken into your paradigm as of lately -- your latest post for instance sure was a little &#39;foamy&#39; in it&#39;s strawmanning, hostile fashion.


And what of island nations? And other places that for geographic reasons (enviromental hazards etc.) are completely unsuited to nuclear power plants? What should they do?


Fine, do read selectively if it suites you. I did however emphasise in my latest post that other forms of energy should be developed and used as well, I explicitly named solar, water and wind. I do however firmly believe that electricity through nuclear power does have the best cleanliness/effectivity ratio and hence should be prioritised over fossile fuels, and am optimistic over fusion research.


Because your whole proposal rests on the hope (how materialist) that revolution will happen in the &#39;right&#39; countries - if there isnt a revolution in australia for example you&#39;re essentially fucked (and if canada isnt down the situation will be completely hopeless).

According to that Marx geezer the communist revolution will happen in the most developed countries first -- because communism is the natural next step in development. I see no reason to doubt this -- while revolutions certainly can happen in the third world as well, those are and will be vanguardist socialist and progressive-nationalist anti-imperialist revolutions, not ones that are likely to lead straight into communism.


I didnt mention chauvinism in my last post

Nah, you only put the words &#39;who gives a fuck about indigenous peoples&#39; in my mouth. :rolleyes:


Guilty conscience? I never mentioned &#39;eurocentric chauvinism&#39; (though i will later in this post given your latest comments). Though of course, it would be incredibly chauvinistic of you or anyone to assert that people living outside of europe have to produce uranium for the first world or they are &#39;opposing progress&#39;.

Something I&#39;ve never asserted they should do -- they would however have to let us use their uranium not only for our benefit but also that of themselves. Like Jazz said, who the fuck are they to claim ownership over it&#33; You believe in private property suddenly?


Technology which currently does not exist, and may well never exist in a form useful enough for the purpose you are designating it - that is about as weak an argument as can be made.

Unfortunately to you little doomsday prophecy, recent research does however say differently. The first ITER reactor, superior to other fusion reactor experiments before it and a big landmark for the research, was finished just two years ago.


Yo primitives, you can move off your land, over to some place decided by &#39;us&#39; - coz like we want to dig it up, well actually - make it completely unusable by humans for like... forever. Yo you dont wanna move? Too bad, you&#39;re in the way of PROGRESS, so you better get out of the way or we&#39;ll move you out of the way&#33; funnily enough this the exact same argument (and rhetoric disgustingly enough) employed by europeans when they originally invaded this continent and begun appropiating Aboriginal land and resources. That Indigenous people dont know how to use it &#39;properly&#39;, that they&#39;re &#39;wasting&#39; the land and the resources.

The excuses the colonialists used are irrelevant -- their intentions were malicious. Harvesting resources for common benefit of all humanity (which includes the indigenous peoples) while also trying to offer everyone the possibility to continue life in a preferable fashion can not be chauvinist -- and isn&#39;t anything like what the colonialists did.

Now, it is a fact that populations of advanced societies grow and need vast resources -- and will eventually surround those who cling into life in a primitive fashion, leaving them in enclaves; islands of primitivity in an ocean of advancement. Unfortunately a primitive lifestyle requires enormous areas for few people, and thus a difficult situation emerges.

This is a problem caused by development, not attitudes, and is unavoidable. There is however both a capitalist and communist solution to it, which both are hightech but entirely different in purpose and method. Redstar2000 said it quite aply in his essay Back to Feudalism? (http://rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1123037792&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&):


Get it through your head. "High-tech" civilization is here to stay&#33; The only options are capitalist "high-tech" or communist "high-tech". There ain&#39;t no other horse in the race.


Would you support that? Forcing Indigenous people off their land so it can be turned into a giant uranium mine?

If absolutely necessary to stop global warming and pollution while sustaining a hightech communist society, and while offering them better and wider lands equally suiteble for their lifestyle? Then yes, otherwise no. I would naturally not support brutally throwing people off their lands and throwing them to the wolves, and I&#39;d be mighty pleased if you could stop labeling me as one who does.


If so, welcome to the australian right, say hello to the racist neo-liberal party and big business for me&#33;

Why not get a fucking grip?


Given the fact technocracy has zero influence anywhere, let alone on the working class, and on this board alone many class conscious working class people are highly suspicious of technocracy (and no, not just the &#39;primitivist&#39; ones), your whole vision of the future seems incredibly far-fetched to be honest.

Like I said earlier, technocracy has fucking zero to do with this, I&#39;m talking about any hightech socialist-communist society.


Originally posted by Jazzratt
On "chauvinism" against people that have useful resources that they are not using but for some, unfathomable, reason are completely unable to share they are no better than the capitalists that insist on hoarding goods and resources. If it is in the interest of a majority of people to have an efficient fuel source but a group of people - no matter who they are - are preventing this by selfishly withholding the necessary materials then it is in our interest to prevent them from doing so. Allowing them to move to a larger enclave isn&#39;t even a punishment so I don&#39;t know what you as the apologist for these resource hoarders actually has to complain about aside from kind of perceived "chauvinism".

I couldn&#39;t agree more -- we should strive to preserve cultural distinctions and differences but technological advancement isn&#39;t &#39;western culture&#39; that can be chauvinistically imposed on others. Colonialists were imposing their culture, language, urgh religion on the indigenous. That&#39;s chauvinism, while spreading technological advancement is solidarity&#33; Maybe not towards those who wish to condemn their families into living primitively of religious/tradition reasons but certainly their kids..

But, again, I would be in favor of actively supporting enclaves of &#39;traditional living&#39; for people who have grown up with access to modern education and medicine, who have seen the alternative -- preferably just not on top of the worlds largest uranium deposit should the usage of that become necessary for the rest of mankind to live advanced lives..

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)You were the one who strangely enough started talking about technocracy here while it&#39;s completely irrelevant to the discussion -- we could be talking about any sort of future hightech communist society.[/b]

Oh come on, i began a dialogue with you, you&#39;re a technocrat, your views (and arguments) are grounded in a technocratic ideology - its completely relevant.


Originally posted by Sentinel+--> (Sentinel)You have a tendency to get technocracy and transhumanism mixed up[/b]

No... i dont; i never mentioned transhumanism.


Originally posted by Sentinel

Technocracy means the application of science into social order, a combination of methods that could be used to run a future society, the most important one being energy accounting. Not the uploading of brains into CD:s.

and 2+2 = 4

How about this one?

4 + 4 = 8&#33;

Thanks for treating me like an idiot.


Originally posted by Sentinel

And precisely because it&#39;s relatively unknown, I&#39;m trying to &#39;spread the word&#39;.. Just like you do with your brand of anarcho-communism -- not that well known among workers, that either now is it?

Well no, of course &#39;my&#39; brand of anarchist communism is not well known amongst working people - but then again &#39;my&#39; brand is not really that well known beyond my own brain. On the other hand, anarchism is - technocracy by comparison has about as much &#39;roots&#39; in the working class as objectivism.


Originally posted by Sentinel

I have anything but an &#39;explicit plan&#39; -- I simply advocate what seems smart to me and hope comrades will listen and get influenced.


Then why do you and so many of your fellow technocrats insist on prefacing your statements with &#39;in the technate&#39; - followed by some ready-made response?


Originally posted by Sentinel
but a hostility towards industrial society as well as technological progress certainly has sneaken into your paradigm as of lately

News to me.


Originally posted by Sentinel

-- your latest post for instance sure was a little &#39;foamy&#39; in it&#39;s strawmanning, hostile fashion.

You&#39;re entitled to your POV, i disagree.


Originally posted by Sentinel
I do however firmly believe that electricity through nuclear power does have the best cleanliness/effectivity ratio and hence should be prioritised over fossile fuels, and am optimistic over fusion research.

Prioritised over fossil fuels is one thing, but there&#39;s a difference between prioritising nuclear over coal, and making nuclear the primary thrust of a &#39;new deal&#39; on energy production that sounds very much looooooooong term - and your rhetoric (and that of many others in this forum) frequently makes the jump betweent the two.


Originally posted by Sentinel
According to that Marx geezer the communist revolution will happen in the most developed countries first -- because communism is the natural next step in development. I see no reason to doubt this -- while revolutions certainly can happen in the third world as well, those are and will be vanguardist socialist and progressive-nationalist anti-imperialist revolutions, not ones that are likely to lead straight into communism.

You&#39;re side-stepping my point (well actually about four of them).

I wasnt debating whether or not any future revolution would happen first in the &#39;developed&#39; world, but i pointing out a weakness in your proposal i.e. that your proposal relies on not just this occurring - but on this occurring in the right places, in the countries that not only have adequate uranium resources, but more importantly enough to provide uranium to those countries which have none or not enough - i.e. australia.


Originally posted by me

First of all, yes, for your proposal to be viable in any meaningful sense, countries like australia and candada will have to become communist - and soon, in fact they would have to be at the forefront of social change, because without them the supply of uranium will be woefully insufficient to support an expansion of nuclear power globally.

Without australia there will simply not be enough uranium to fuel plants globally, certainly nothing approaching the amount of plants that would be required to mark this huge shift in energy focus.

I then proceeded to make a whole bunch of other points related to this problem:


Originally posted by me
And although this is by no means definitive... australia lacks a history of militant workers struggle approaching anything of the scale of latin america, europe etc. - the same can be said for canada - i really dont see the world revolution starting in these places. And even if there is a revolution in these places, it has to relatively soon, or at least as i said - at the forefront of revolutionary change globally, if not it makes your proposal thoroughly impractical.

And if there is a revolution in australia for example, then you have to hope (there&#39;s that word again) that the people of this continent can actually mine the uranium necessary - revolution is no picnic, the continents infrastructure may lie in ruins, and the people more concerned with prioritising the needs of life, food, shelter, water, clothing, and securing revolutionary society than steaming into a massive expansion of uranium mining (of all things).

Moreover the majority of uranium is found in parts of australia which already lack infrastructure, so a damaged infrastructure will make mining even less feasible.

And finally, your proposal again rests on the hope that the people of this continent will actually want to mine the uranium here (let alone at the level required for a global nuclear program) - and unfortunately for the western european and north american technates (these are the only places where technates are currently feasible correct?) - opposition to nuclear power and uranium mining is widespread in australia, with leftwing people here rarely endorsing the further exploitation of Indigenous people and land.

Moreover most of these points can be applied with more or less vigour in other places with large uranium supplies.


Are you going to address those points also?

--------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by Sentinel
Something I&#39;ve never asserted they should do -- they would however have to let us use their uranium not only for our benefit but also that of themselves.

So you wont force people to produce uranium but they will have to let you use it? Maybe im misunderstanding you, but that doesnt sound like much of a choice.

What if they dont want to use uranium? What if only a minority of people on the australian continent want to use uranium? What then? (ditto for canada etc.) Like i said in my last post, your proposal relies on the assumption that the places that actually have large supplies of uranium will be in a state to mine it, will be communist or pro-communist, will WANT to mine it - and if they do, will want to mine it to a degree that offsets the lack of uranium in others places, i.e. dont rely on non-renewable energy sources&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Originally posted by Sentinel

Like Jazz said, who the fuck are they to claim ownership over it&#33;

It&#39;s not a question of ownership, its a matter of not kicking people off what little land they have, turning it into a gigantic mine and making completely uninhabitable, yeah?

Who are they? The people who live here.


Originally posted by Sentinel

You believe in private property suddenly?

It&#39;s not private property, but no i believe in the principal of self-determination, the whole liberty dealie where people dont impinge on other peoples liberty.

And i guess i was right, you DO believe in dispossessing Indigenous people so that you can extract uranium off their land - if it comes down to it - you support reviving old colonial practices.

I guess that&#39;s the price of &#39;progress&#39; huh?

Some peoples lives, homes, some peoples points of view dont count when it comes down to it - if someone happens to live on land which contains resources the technate deems &#39;essential for progress&#39; - those people will soon find themselves being turfed off their land and by force if necessary.

Of course it will start with nice gestures, rhetorical flourishes like &#39;oh but there&#39;s this wonderful place over here you can live instead, and look we will you give you all this cool shit&#33;&#39;

Sounds reasonable... after all, no one has any claim to land, not even Indigenous people (real communists dont believe in private property after all) - but then again, some people do have more of a claim than others, the technate for example - has the power, indeed the right to remove people from land if they happen to be living on top of &#39;essential&#39; resources - these people are despicable after all, in jazzrats words &#39;selfish&#39; &#39;resource hoarders&#39; - by &#39;resource hoarding&#39; he means living on top of land that has not yet been mined

But yes, despite the nice words of the technate the people still do not want to abandon their homes, their communities, their histories - they dont want to be uprooted and transplanted somewhere else like the various colonial governments had been attempting for centuries before - then what happens?

The technate army or militia moves in to remove them by force?

What if they resist? Should the technate militia kill the resistors? They have weapons after all.

But if they did go peacefully? What happens when the technate discovers some new essential resource on the site of their home? Will they be moved again? How long will this go on?

Essentially in the world of the technate there is no place for self-determination, no space for autonomous living - when it really comes down to it - its the needs of the technate, defined by the technate that matter (and which are backed up with force).


Originally posted by Sentinel
Unfortunately to you little doomsday prophecy, recent research does however say differently. The first ITER reactor, superior to other fusion reactor experiments before it and a big landmark for the research, was finished just two years ago.

If by &#39;doomsday prophecy&#39; you mean scepticism concerning fusion power (and im hardly alone there), then no i think my scepticism is completely well-founded, as severian remarked earlier in this thread - scientists have been promising fusion power in 20 years for the past 22... it is foolish to incorporate non-existant technology (and not just non-existant, but technology which may actually be impossible) in a plan for something as crucial as energy production.


Originally posted by Sentinel
Harvesting resources for common benefit of all humanity (which includes the indigenous peoples) while also trying to offer everyone the possibility to continue life in a preferable fashion can not be chauvinist -- and isn&#39;t anything like what the colonialists did.

Actually that is precisely what the colonialist said and did.

Have you heard of the white mans burden?

At the end of the day, you&#39;re not just offering - you&#39;re offering with the intent to TAKE. If your gifts arent received you will take what you want, this is precisely how the colonialists operated.


Originally posted by Sentinel
If absolutely necessary to stop global warming and pollution while sustaining a hightech communist society, and while offering them better and wider lands equally suiteble for their lifestyle? Then yes, otherwise no.

Shifting to nuclear power is not &#39;absoluetely necessary to stop global warming and pollution&#39; - on the contrary - and whatever you offer someone for taking their land and destroying without their consent is worthless, it completely misses the point (see my lengthy section exploring this issue above).

Moreover, you&#39;ve just outlined in the paragraph preceding this one why statements like &#39;while offering them better and wider lands equally suiteble for their lifestyle&#39; are completely hollow - you should have put an asterisk on that with something like &#39;while stocks last&#39; - your nice deals will only last as long as you havent re-appropiated the other land.


Originally posted by Sentinel

I would naturally not support brutally throwing people off their lands and throwing them to the wolves, and I&#39;d be mighty pleased if you could stop labeling me as one who does.

Then stop saying that you will, its really that simple. You just said yourself, &#39;if absoluetely... blah blah... yes&#39; you would force Indigenous people off their land. You&#39;ve made this point very clear, if it comes down to getting access to uranium you are fully prepared to throw people off their lands (of course it will be brutal, like any anti-colonial struggle it will be bloody).


Originally posted by Sentinel
Why not get a fucking grip?

Maybe we can get one together huh? I am merely informing you of whose company you keep.


Originally posted by Sentinel
that&#39;s chauvinism, while spreading technological advancement is solidarity&#33;

Except that&#39;s not what you&#39;re proposing; what you&#39;re saying is that if &#39;primitive&#39; people are sitting on land you want, that you have the right to kick them off and take it - end of story.


[email protected]
preferably just not on top of the worlds largest uranium deposit should the usage of that become necessary for the rest of mankind to live advanced lives..

That&#39;s just it, its not &#39;necssary&#39; - it only becomes necessary when you centre nuclear power.


--------------------------

I&#39;d also appreciate if you addressed this paragraph (as well as the the large section i re-posted earlier up in this post - thanks):

After you accused me of &#39;opposing progress&#39;


me
But seriously, of course i dont oppose &#39;progress&#39; as a general concept - &#39;progress&#39; has nothing to do with the discussion we are having, rather we are debating whether pursuing nuclear power as a primary energy source is a wise decision - i disagree, which of course from the dogmatic POV of a technocrat = being &#39;opposed to progress&#39; - no, it simply means opposing your conception of &#39;progress&#39;... unless of course you think you&#39;re the only person who can be right on any given issue? Or indeed that a technocratic conception of progress is the only acceptable conception of progress?

[ichneumon]

rudyard kipling&#39;s white man&#39;s burden, excerpt



Take up the White Man&#39;s burden
Send forth the best ye breed
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives&#39; need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man&#39;s burden
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another&#39;s profit
And work another&#39;s gain.

Take up the White Man&#39;s burden
The savage wars of peace
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;

also the name of really great song by banco de gaia.

[Sentinel]

Now listen to me as this is the last time I&#39;ll say it: what I&#39;m advocating is nothing explicitly &#39;technocrat&#39;. While I like many of their ideas and am trying to find ways to combine those with communist thought, I&#39;m not a technocrat. Comprende?

You don&#39;t know what the fuck technocracy is, and have decided to call anything vaguely resembling the emphasising of the importance of technological progress for social development &#39;technocracy&#39;. Stop it.


Then why do you and so many of your fellow technocrats insist on prefacing your statements with &#39;in the technate&#39; - followed by some ready-made response?


Maybe because someone has already asserted there would be a technate?


Prioritised over fossil fuels is one thing, but there&#39;s a difference between prioritising nuclear over coal, and making nuclear the primary thrust of a &#39;new deal&#39; on energy production that sounds very much looooooooong term - and your rhetoric (and that of many others in this forum) frequently makes the jump betweent the two.

Like I have said countless times nuclear power has the best effiency/cleanliness ratio and as such seems like the energy source we should mainly put our trust in -- obviosly constantly developing it. You do raise valid criticisms mostly, but like always with development troubles are to be expected, and we really just have to overvcome them.


And although this is by no means definitive... australia lacks a history of militant workers struggle approaching anything of the scale of latin america, europe etc. - the same can be said for canada - i really dont see the world revolution starting in these places. And even if there is a revolution in these places, it has to relatively soon, or at least as i said - at the forefront of revolutionary change globally, if not it makes your proposal thoroughly impractical.


Well no developed imperialist nation is on the verge of a communistic revolution currently.. but I would expect that once it starts somewhere there will be a domino effect. But this whole discussion is about a hypothetical what should be done situation anyway, we are talking decades in the future here.


And if there is a revolution in australia for example, then you have to hope (there&#39;s that word again) that the people of this continent can actually mine the uranium necessary - revolution is no picnic, the continents infrastructure may lie in ruins, and the people more concerned with prioritising the needs of life, food, shelter, water, clothing, and securing revolutionary society than steaming into a massive expansion of uranium mining (of all things).

Moreover the majority of uranium is found in parts of australia which already lack infrastructure, so a damaged infrastructure will make mining even less feasible.

Wouldn&#39;t it make developing any energy source then? Regardless, if there were other revolutionary countries a tight cooperation would of course be necessary and likely.


opposition to nuclear power and uranium mining is widespread in australia, with leftwing people here rarely endorsing the further exploitation of Indigenous people and land.

Well that would be really unfortunate should we come to a situation where the choice was between pollution and global warming, and those people willing to bargain some of their precious traditions. Let&#39;s hope we don&#39;t&#33;

Actually I&#39;m quite sure we won&#39;t, and other fuels will evetually replace the uranium (like thorium which g.ram mentioned) as well as fusion replacing fission, but since you are determined to paint the devil on the wall like a saying goes -- maybe the determination to protect &#39;culture&#39; ie primitive ways of living of you and your likes will cause a humanitarian catastrophe, and even make the planet inhabitable in the long run? :(


And i guess i was right, you DO believe in dispossessing Indigenous people so that you can extract uranium off their land - if it comes down to it - you support reviving old colonial practices.

I guess that&#39;s the price of &#39;progress&#39; huh?

Some peoples lives, homes, some peoples points of view dont count when it comes down to it - if someone happens to live on land which contains resources the technate deems &#39;essential for progress&#39; - those people will soon find themselves being turfed off their land and by force if necessary.

Of course it will start with nice gestures, rhetorical flourishes like &#39;oh but there&#39;s this wonderful place over here you can live instead, and look we will you give you all this cool shit&#33;&#39;

Sounds reasonable... after all, no one has any claim to land, not even Indigenous people (real communists dont believe in private property after all) - but then again, some people do have more of a claim than others, the technate for example - has the power, indeed the right to remove people from land if they happen to be living on top of &#39;essential&#39; resources - these people are despicable after all, in jazzrats words &#39;selfish&#39; &#39;resource hoarders&#39; - by &#39;resource hoarding&#39; he means living on top of land that has not yet been mined

But yes, despite the nice words of the technate the people still do not want to abandon their homes, their communities, their histories - they dont want to be uprooted and transplanted somewhere else like the various colonial governments had been attempting for centuries before - then what happens?

The technate army or militia moves in to remove them by force?

What if they resist? Should the technate militia kill the resistors? They have weapons after all.

But if they did go peacefully? What happens when the technate discovers some new essential resource on the site of their home? Will they be moved again? How long will this go on?

Essentially in the world of the technate there is no place for self-determination, no space for autonomous living - when it really comes down to it - its the needs of the technate, defined by the technate that matter (and which are backed up with force).

This is one scenario that could happen -- another one is that they keep their uranium and the world keeps on using polluting energy sources. Neither of them is really nice. But yeah, it&#39;s the needs of the people, defined by the people -- the majority -- that matter; I would never support a society which wasn&#39;t thoroughly democratic. And the people are not likely to give up their hopes of a sustainable hightech easily.

Now, I&#39;m not opposed to developing solar and wind power at all, I ardently support it&#33; But as it is they unfortunately lack the effiency to even compete in the same league as nuclear power.


Have you heard of the white mans burden?

Where does race come into the dicussion? Or even culture? I have explicitly stated in this thread that I find the preservation of cultural diversity and minority languages important -- I belong to a minority in the country I live in so I should know what I&#39;m talking about. I just don&#39;t acknowlegde an inferior tech level as a cultural trait&#33; So your accusations of racism and cultural chauvinism are complete, utter, unfounded b u l l s h i t.

Know where you can shove them? :angry:


But seriously, of course i dont oppose &#39;progress&#39; as a general concept - &#39;progress&#39; has nothing to do with the discussion we are having, rather we are debating whether pursuing nuclear power as a primary energy source is a wise decision - i disagree, which of course from the dogmatic POV of a technocrat = being &#39;opposed to progress&#39; - no, it simply means opposing your conception of &#39;progress&#39;... unless of course you think you&#39;re the only person who can be right on any given issue? Or indeed that a technocratic conception of progress is the only acceptable conception of progress?

Why don&#39;t you explain a little more indepth how you concept of progress looks like then, and how it&#39;s different from mine. For starters, how do you propose are we going to supply the world with energy while avoiding pollution and global warming?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black rose+March 15, 2007 04:21 pm--> (black rose @ March 15, 2007 04:21 pm) I&#39;d also appreciate if you addressed this paragraph (as well as the the large section i re-posted earlier up in this post - thanks) [/b]
Okay. I will rise to your challenge. Well I&#39;ll at least reply to this bit, I think sentinel replied succinctly to the other bit.


black ****
But seriously, of course i dont oppose &#39;progress&#39; as a general concept - &#39;progress&#39; has nothing to do with the discussion we are having, It has everything to do with the discussion we&#39;re having, whether or not you support universal technological progress is one of the central issues.
rather we are debating whether pursuing nuclear power as a primary energy source is a wise decision - i disagree, which of course from the dogmatic POV of a technocrat = being &#39;opposed to progress&#39; - no, it simply means opposing your conception of &#39;progress&#39;... unless of course you think you&#39;re the only person who can be right on any given issue? Or indeed that a technocratic conception of progress is the only acceptable conception of progress? Well yes. I do think my concept of progress is the only acceptable one. Consider this: a statement can, for the most part, either be true or false and if I am making a statement that is true or is as far as I know true than any statement directly contradicting that must logically be false. Therefore yes I do only know my conception of true to be so. Therefore I disagree with your conception of progress whereby we don#t embrace technologies that decrease global warming and other environmental damages and provide mankind (or at least the non-primitive part) with the technology to provide cleaner and more efficient fuel.

[ichneumon]

Q) does nuclear fission produce net energy? after the costs of the mining, transporting, refining and dealing with the waste, what is the actual REAL energy output? this is not meant to be contentious, it&#39;s just hard to tell with gazillions of gov&#39;t subsidies and capitalist profit-mongering. i&#39;m betting, though, that it&#39;s not a pretty picture.

yes, the human race is in serious trouble in the energy production department. i fully support research into fusion and thorium reactors, BUT...

1)no amount of nuclear power will ever allow 8 billion+ humans to live at first world standards
2)people seem to be much more interested in alternative uses for uranium
3)it would take decades for the world to build that many nuclear plants - and it would not be without accidents and problems, even if the world were willing, which it isn&#39;t

my advice involves zero population growth, serious investment in energy efficiency technology and renewable energy and, best of all, cutting down on consumption and waste. but that makes me a primitivist anti-human green freak. my point is that *counting* on technology, ie, nuclear power, is a seriously bad idea. yes, we try, but we also tighten our belts and do it the hard way.

but that&#39;s just advice. for some problems, there are no acceptable solutions. i have no idea how to solve this - but *constructive* debate would probably help

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:43 pm
Q) does nuclear fission produce net energy?
Yes, of course. Now corn ethanol, that&#39;s a subsidized Potemkin village which produces no net energy. Exists only to make governments and corporations look more green.


1)no amount of nuclear power will ever allow 8 billion+ humans to live at first world standards

Why not? Energy is the biggest limiting factor. All the other "limits to growth" type predictions have failed again and again.


2)people seem to be much more interested in alternative uses for uranium

What alternative uses?


3)it would take decades for the world to build that many nuclear plants - and it would not be without accidents and problems, even if the world were willing, which it isn&#39;t

"The world"? Actually Third World countries seem to be trying hard to develop nuclear energy despite opposition by the imperialist countries.


my advice involves zero population growth, serious investment in energy efficiency technology and renewable energy and, best of all, cutting down on consumption and waste. but that makes me a primitivist anti-human green freak.

Sure does. Telling most of humanity they can never enjoy First-World living standards, and what&#39;s more, to consume less&#33;

[ichneumon]

Yes, of course.

how much energy does it take to deal with the waste? infinite, no answer - ergo, it is not profitable.


Why not? Energy is the biggest limiting factor. All the other "limits to growth" type predictions have failed again and again.

no, they haven&#39;t. the logistic growth equation is hard science. it is insanity to think that the earth has no maximum carrying capacity of humans.

we create food by burning petroleum, we "cheat" by using stored sunlight. every gram of our technology depends on it. how much uranium are we talking about to replace that, and where does the waste go to?


"The world"? Actually Third World countries seem to be trying hard to develop nuclear energy despite opposition by the imperialist countries.

it would still take decades, money they don&#39;t have, uranium they don&#39;t have and no one has no idea of what to do with the waste. if it is sensible for them to do so, which is a case by case decision, good. they have MUCH more moral imperative to take what they can get, to do everything they can, because for much of the third world, it&#39;s life or death. has it occurred to you that imperialist countries just don&#39;t want U235 floating around? or barrels of long life radioactives?

if the soviet fucking union can&#39;t build a safe reactor, why do you think mozambique will be able to?


What alternative uses?

hello. what is U235 REALLY good for?


Sure does. Telling most of humanity they can never enjoy First-World living standards, and what&#39;s more, to consume less&#33;

facts and figure say that. period. and i&#39;m telling first worlders to consume less, ie, TO SHARE. most of humanity can&#39;t have first world living standards BECAUSE THERE IS NO ENERGY FOR IT. you see, i base my vision of the future on FACTS, not ideology. yes, it sucks. the future is going to be very, very hard. technology will progress, and it will continue to fail to produce utopia, mostly because there&#39;s not enough to go around - for some to be "first world" there will have to be a last world. i merely suggest distributing the limited world resources FAIRLY, but i&#39;m not such an idiot as to think that that will mean every single family in africa having the SUV in suburbia dream.

i&#39;m saying that WE the first world are going to take a reduction in our precious quality of living, which seems to be defined by the kg&#39;s of chinese made plastic crap we own, so that the rest of the world can have food, shelter and medicine. is that PRIMITIVE?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:03 pm

Yes, of course.

how much energy does it take to deal with the waste? infinite, no answer - ergo, it is not profitable.


Why not? Energy is the biggest limiting factor. All the other "limits to growth" type predictions have failed again and again.

no, they haven&#39;t. the logistic growth equation is hard science. it is insanity to think that the earth has no maximum carrying capacity of humans.
Y&#39;know, when you start talking about infinity, it tends to show that your conclusions are not based on any specific figures or facts&#33;

Nuclear waste does not in fact remain dangerous forever. The more radioactive an isotope, the shorter its half-life. So radioactivity levels in fact drop much quicker than the thousands of years some people talk about.

New techniques like reprocessing and vitrification also help deal with the nuclear-waste problem, just as pebble-bed designs have made the reactors themselves safer. One shouldn&#39;t stick to a position, like blanket opposition to all nuclear power, when the situation changes.

Similarly, the "carrying capacity" isn&#39;t infinite? Who said it was? This kind of statement is no substitute for showing humanity is at or near some fixed limit. Population growth is leveling off, and as more and more of humanity approaches those First World living standards, it levels off faster, even declines in some industrialized countries.


it would still take decades,

Some countries are a lot closer. And if something will take a while to implement, that&#39;s not a reason to wait - it&#39;s a reason to get working on it.


f the soviet fucking union can&#39;t build a safe reactor, why do you think mozambique will be able to?

Because safer designs are now known and available.


and i&#39;m telling first worlders to consume less, ie, TO SHARE.

Yeah, people are more likely to share if benefits them. Right now, the only people likely to "consume less" are workers whose real wage levels are under attack by the bosses.


has it occurred to you that imperialist countries just don&#39;t want U235 floating around? or barrels of long life radioactives?

They don&#39;t seem to have a problem with that when it&#39;s their own reactors.

Has it occurred to you that:
1. Control of energy is a big source of strategic rivalry and conflict in the world today, most evidently around oil, but not limited to oil. I.e. the imperialist countries (and everyone) want to control energy supplies.

2. Nuclear weapons are about the only thing which can reliably deter the U.S. military. Definitely limits Washington&#39;s freedom of maneuver, and strategic leverage aka ability to credibly threaten countries and make them change their behavior.

Could that have something to do with their attitude? The reason why even non-"Axis of Evil" countries like Brazil have found themselves in disputes with the IAEA over intrusive inspection demands?

[ichneumon]

New techniques like reprocessing and vitrification also help deal with the nuclear-waste problem, just as pebble-bed designs have made the reactors themselves safer. One shouldn&#39;t stick to a position, like blanket opposition to all nuclear power, when the situation changes.

Similarly, the "carrying capacity" isn&#39;t infinite? Who said it was? This kind of statement is no substitute for showing humanity is at or near some fixed limit. Population growth is leveling off, and as more and more of humanity approaches those First World living standards, it levels off faster, even declines in some industrialized countries.

ie, technology will solve all our problems, therefore let&#39;s breed like rabbits.

no dice, sorry. zero population growth, clean energy technology that exists NOW.

okay, consider this model, an extension of the classical logistical growth equation.

dN/dt=rN(1-N/K). N is the population, r=growth rate, K=carrying capacity. thus when N=K, growth stops.

the carrying capacity of the earth is set to K. K is a product of (arable land area, tech level, arable land quality, energy supply) K=f(ALA, TL, ALQ, E).

ALA is fixed, for this argument. TL changes with time, is dependent on N (population level) and E. E, as we know it, is limited and dependent on petroleum and uranium supply. ALQ is a problem, because it is inversely proportional to N and E - as time goes on and the population goes up, more energy reserves are used, creating pollution, all of which degrades ALQ.

E here is a fixed quantity. if E is 100units, use of those 100units of E produces a 100units of pollution. at which point TL crashes and burns, ALQ is fucked and N, the human population also crashes.

basically, K is being artificially inflated by E (the reserves of petroleum and uranium) via TL. E is limited, and use of E has this lag-time effect on K itself, actually lowering it as it degrades ALQ. it&#39;s not pretty.

r, the growth rate, isn&#39;t so important when K is flexible. as ALQ declines and TL goes up, we get more food from less and lower quality land by pumping more energy into it, which degrades the land further, with a time lag. since there is a set limit on the supply of E, and that E becomes more expensive as it declines (which this model ignores), K is much higher than it "should" be is a stable system. we need non-polluting energy or unlimited energy or K is going down, which will cause dN/dt to go negative, ie, a die-off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ie, technology will solve all our problems, therefore let&#39;s breed like rabbits.

That&#39;s not what he said at all. If population growth levels off as quality of life increases, then how the fuck do you manage to read that as an advocation of increased population growth?&#33;? :rolleyes:


no dice, sorry. zero population growth, clean energy technology that exists NOW

You realise zero population growth is only possible if everyone has a quality of life above a certain level, and that in order to achieve that, more people need to live high-energy lifesetyles that current alternative energy sources cannot provide right now?.

Your demands are impossible.


okay, consider this model, an extension of the classical logistical growth equation.

Models are useless without accurate figures, and are at best approximations, and at worst they are worth the same as made up figures, in other words nothing.

Unless you can provide accurate figures, your model is utterly worthless.

[ichneumon]

Unless you can provide accurate figures, your model is utterly worthless.

the model is only meant to show how the carrying capacity of the earth can seem to grow/not be met - it&#39;s in response to the idea that the earth has no K, which is ludicrous.


You realise zero population growth is only possible if everyone has a quality of life above a certain level, and that in order to achieve that, more people need to live high-energy lifesetyles that current alternative energy sources cannot provide right now?.

not true. living condition can improve without industry. Kerala model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model)
seeing as how kerala got that way through communism...i&#39;d expect you to know that. in particular, women&#39;s rights and education are key to reducing population growth, not steel mills and coal mines.

it baffles me how everyone here expects the 3rd world to go through the exact same industrial processes as the first world 200years ago. the conditions are not at all the same. this process you seem to demand is impossible - if even india and china developed as per western europe, the atmosphere would be unfit to breathe. the population of europe didn&#39;t soar to a billion then decline to present levels, not even close.

i also utterly fail to grasp why some communists are quick to wish other cultures into wage-slavery and capitalism. "communism is only possible after industrialization" - show me where that has happened. it seems much more true that communism is a stage that allows rapid industrialization. cuba and kerala are where communism has *worked*, not in the post-industrial nations.

i&#39;m suggesting communism as a tool to allow sane, safe, human-beneficent development, rather than the euroamerican model, which is probably impossible now.