future shock thread

[ada]

The rise of global terrorism, escalating tensions between Israel and Lebanon, nuclear brinksmanship from Korea, militia clashes in Somalia and George Bush's war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What is going on? Are we at the brink of a third global conflict?

Add to that climate change, AIDS and the threat of a deadly new influenza pandemic.

We've also got genetic engineering, global surveillance, reproductive cloning on the horizon and news that a man can open his email with a computer chip implanted in his head.

Hello the new millenium! (And we were worried about Y2K)

[kony]

The rise of global terrorism, escalating tensions between Israel and Lebanon, nuclear brinksmanship from Korea, militia clashes in Somalia and George Bush's war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Add to that climate change, AIDS and the threat of a deadly new influenza pandemic.

These things apply to our world today, but are not unique. Terrorism has been around forever. I remember a few years ago I watched a video that said that a Greek general said the best way to control a population was to put it into fear through terrorism. (or terrorising the population)

War has been going on since forever, so no need to talk about that. Nuclear weapons has been around for more than half a century, and still no nuclear war has broken out. After all, mutually assured destruction is a very good deterrant. If we follow this theory, then we should welcome that another nation has nuclear weapons.

Another two points on war. No need to talk about that 

Climate change isn't really anything unusual. The earth's climate is always changing. In fact, some scientists think this current "global warming" may not be significantly contributed to pollution and release of greenhouse gases. It may be just natural, like an ice age.

AIDS is a disease, and disease has always been present. Take tuberculosis - nowadays, far fewer people die from it, compared to, say, in the 19th century. (Chopin comes to mind) So we have something new. Maybe in another 150 years, AIDS is no longer a problem.

Finally, this threat of a pandemic. Pandemics are always happening, every couple of decades. The Black Death, or the Spanish Flu... they were deadly, but humanity still managed to cling on.

So yeah, if we look at things from my point of view, the state of the world isn't too bad. I'd actually be afraid if say.. one nation suddenly developed a weapon that could block all incoming missles. Now that's scary. See? Mutually Assured destruction actually guarantees safety. I think it's about time every country in the world got one of those nuclear warheads.

[pianistimo]

i always think of the reassurance of matthew 'see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end...for nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes...for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the BEGINNING OF THE WORLD (when satan fought against God then and was cast down to earth) until now, or ever shall.'

the 'ever shall' means that this will be the last time.  the last stand of man against God.  He's more  powerful.  when the sun is darkened and the moon doesn't give light - it won't be like we can suddently turn them on again.  whether they are darkened by bombs and smoke or otherwise - we will still be dealing with 'stars will fall from the sky (meteors) and the powers of the heavens will be shaken...'  this is a combination of man's own destruction and God's judgement.  both the prophets of God and 'sybil' converge on the point of a 'day of judgement.'  it's interesting that there's no disagreement among the spirits as to what will happen.  the dies irae is completely centered upon that idea and composers have used it complete with words/or not  - in music expressing the terror of the day.

'for the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of noah...for as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage (likely to same sex couples), until the day that noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be...for this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.'

[ada]

i always think of the reassurance of matthew 'see that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end...for nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes...for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the BEGINNING OF THE WORLD (when satan fought against God then and was cast down to earth) until now, or ever shall.'

the 'ever shall' means that this will be the last time. the last stand of man against God. He's more powerful. when the sun is darkened and the moon doesn't give light - it won't be like we can suddently turn them on again. whether they are darkened by bombs and smoke or otherwise - we will still be dealing with 'stars will fall from the sky (meteors) and the powers of the heavens will be shaken...' this is a combination of man's own destruction and God's judgement. both the prophets of God and 'sybil' converge on the point of a 'day of judgement.' it's interesting that there's no disagreement among the spirits as to what will happen. the dies irae is completely centered upon that idea and composers have used it complete with words/or not - in music expressing the terror of the day.

'for the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of noah...for as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage (likely to same sex couples), until the day that noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be...for this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.'

pianistimo you promised!

[prometheus]

There are only two issues on the agenda that threaten mankind. They are climate change and nuclear prolifiration. Both are ignored by most of the political entities that operate on the global level, with only a few exceptions that operate in the margin like Greenpeace and Elbaradei who is on the pay list of the UN and has been terrorised by Bush at one point of time.

Yes, we live in a world were Nobel peace prize winners are on the egde of mainstream. Not that I think one should pay that much attention to the Nobel prizes, especially not in the areas touching politics. Look who are on the list. Mandela, Arafat, and last but not least Kissenger who assured Suharto they had no problems with Indonesia annexxing East Timor and actually selling them the extra weapons they needed, which resulted in 200,000 people being massacred with US arms.



All the other issues do not pose a threat to mankind as a whole.

Nuclear weapons has been around for more than half a century, and still no nuclear war has broken out. After all, mutually assured destruction is a very good deterrant.

It may be a deterrant but the fact that nuclear war hasn't broken out in the past is pure a play of faith. JFK almost forced nuclear war on the sovjects in a very recless bluffing attempt, probably caused by his use of anphetamines, trying to ease the pain caused by Addison's disease at first but to stay feeling vital and energetic later.

There have been a couple of western generals that have proposed using nuclear weapons after Hiro and Naka. Actually, recently, with the Iranian crisis, the US has said that plans for using tactical nukes against Iranian nuclear facilities were on the drawing table.

There are many instances where the US, or another western country, had a unautherised launch. One can't imagine how many accidents there have been in the USSR. Or what happens with the Russian missiles that are on sharp.

If we follow this theory, then we should welcome that another nation has nuclear weapons.

Yes. And isn't that what points out how false this theory is? You really believe that if every country has a nuke then no one will ever use one? Since when are world leaders rational?

Furtermore, when has the destructive nature of new technology ever put any contraints on politicians who wanted to start a war?

Climate change isn't really anything unusual.

Yes, it isn't. And it goes hand in hand with mass extinction. Isn't it meaningless how often it has happened in the past. Obviously a climate chance can kill off species. It has done so on many many occasions. All species that have ever existed have already died out, excluding only a very very few which mostly have not have the chance yet to die out.

The earth's climate is always changing. In fact, some scientists think this current "global warming" may not be significantly contributed to pollution and release of greenhouse gases. It may be just natural, like an ice age.

The earth's climate isn't always changing. It has very drastic changes every so many thousand or million years. Furtermore, most scienstists in the field claim they have ample evidence to believe humans are influencing the climate chance we have already experienced in the last 100 years. I guess you are a victim of the anti-Kyoto propaganda that has swept over the US, giving the US economy another enourmous advantage over that of Europe.

[ada]

I'd actually be afraid if say.. one nation suddenly developed a weapon that could block all incoming missles. Now that's scary. See? Mutually Assured destruction actually guarantees safety. I think it's about time every country in the world got one of those nuclear warheads.

Yeah but the problem with MAD is that it only works as a deterrent if there's a balance of power (ie, it worked during the Cold War) It doesn't work if everyone has the capacity to nuke their neighbour.

[musik_man]

What I hate about Kyoto-lovers is this.  They take a scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer and that greenhouse gases cause some percentage of this, and run with it.  Those things are widely agreed upon, but what percentage of current climate change is man-made, whether the effects of global warming will be harmful to humanity on the net, and whether the costs of stopping global warming are greater than the costs of global warming itself are not settled questions.  They deserve debate not dismissal.

[pianistimo]

there's some guy here in pa that was recently in the paper - setting up a business to track weather patterns and global warming.  he apparently was a scientist in his younger days and now is setting up a personal business.  he has lots of data he wants to start analyzing more - and apparently access to satellite information.  he was looking for an office manager.  beign that i barely keep up with my home and paperwork here - i was dismally thinking how it might be that an office manager like me would qualify to do much.  i am confused when two phones ring at once.

[prometheus]

What I hate about Kyoto-lovers is this.

Funny rhetoric.

They take a scientific consensus that the world is getting warmer and that greenhouse gases cause some percentage of this, and run with it.

Actually, in the field there is also consensus that the climate change is influenced by humans. So then we get into things like the Mann hockey stick graph. Which normalisation has been attacked by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, an economist and someone with a mining background, two aliens in the field, who have made a lot of errors, including confucing radiants with degrees. Of course the US media jumped on this, again creating the image that the field that does the research is heavily divided.

But it doesn't even matter if we caused it or not. What matters is how can we stop it because regardless of what causes it, we will be the victim. And we should do everything to stabilize it.

Hmm, well, actually maybe it would be better if there is a climate chance that whipes out most of the humans.

[lisztisforkids]

Hmm, well, actually maybe it would be better if there is a climate chance that whipes out most of the humans.

 Most of the Netherlands and Holland would disapeer from flooding... I say 'Good Ridance'!

[musik_man]

Actually, in the field there is also consensus that the climate change is influenced by humans. So then we get into things like the Mann hockey stick graph. Which normalisation has been attacked by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, an economist and someone with a mining background, two aliens in the field, who have made a lot of errors, including confucing radiants with degrees. Of course the US media jumped on this, again creating the image that the field that does the research is heavily divided.

But it doesn't even matter if we caused it or not. What matters is how can we stop it because regardless of what causes it, we will be the victim. And we should do everything to stabilize it.

I admitted that there's a consensus that humans are at least partially responsible for climate change.  I fail to see why you are arguing the point with me.  What you should be arguing is that climate change poses an serious threat to humanity.  You've baldly asserted that it does, but haven't even explained why (droughts? storms? disease? Flooding?)  Even if you get that point secure, you'll have to convince me that money spent combating climate change would not be better used curing malaria and TB or supplying sanitary drinking water to third world nations.

Hmm, well, actually maybe it would be better if there is a climate chance that whipes out most of the humans.

Assuming that I'm not missing some sarcasm here, I find this statement sick.  It could only come from a completely depraved and twisted morality.

[prometheus]

You've baldly asserted that it does, but haven't even explained why (droughts? storms? disease? Flooding?)

Baldly? You mean boldly? Of course the big problem would be temperature chance and the effect it has on the whole ecosystem on a scale of thousands of years. That could make humans go extinct. But any chance in the climate will have an effect on our lives. Farmers will have to switch to other crops, for example.

You speak of malaria and drinking water. If the planet heats up then malaria will move to areas that were too cold. This has already happened. The same with drinking water. That problem is also increased by global warming

I actually fail to see that I have to argue that climate chance is bad for the whole of humanity. If you actually know something about the enviroment you will see it is essential. It is the special enviroment of the earth that has allowed us to live. And the margins are rather small. Especially for the weak economic structures we have build. It is much much easier to destroy a civilisation then it is to destroy mankind itself.

Even if you get that point secure, you'll have to convince me that money spent combating climate change would not be better used curing malaria and TB or supplying sanitary drinking water to third world nations.

Why not try to convince people that money spend on increasing CO2 concentrations would not be better spend curing malaria and TBS. I mean, it isn't about going from doing nothing to doing something. It is about that what we are doing already and limiting it.

Assuming that I'm not missing some sarcasm here, I find this statement sick.  It could only come from a completely depraved and twisted morality.

As a human it would immoral to defend the extintion of the species. But if you look at it from the perspective of the earth as a whole I can't see how one can defend mankind except because one is obliged to do so because one is a member of it.

[musik_man]

Baldly? You mean boldly? Of course the big problem would be temperature chance and the effect it has on the whole ecosystem on a scale of thousands of years. That could make humans go extinct. But any chance in the climate will have an effect on our lives. Farmers will have to switch to other crops, for example.

Please show that a minor change in temperature will cause these dire effects on the ecosystem.

You speak of malaria and drinking water. If the planet heats up then malaria will move to areas that were too cold. This has already happened. The same with drinking water. That problem is also increased by global warming

How does the planet warming contaminate drinking water?

I actually fail to see that I have to argue that climate chance is bad for the whole of humanity. If you actually know something about the enviroment you will see it is essential. It is the special enviroment of the earth that has allowed us to live. And the margins are rather small. Especially for the weak economic structures we have build. It is much much easier to destroy a civilisation then it is to destroy mankind itself.

The earth's temperature changes naturally all the time, and life has always continued.  So please, show how those margins are so small.

Why not try to convince people that money spend on increasing CO2 concentrations would not be better spend curing malaria and TBS. I mean, it isn't about going from doing nothing to doing something. It is about that what we are doing already and limiting it.

I was unaware that people are spending large amounts of money with the sole purpose of creating CO2.  Did you see these people on Captain Planet? 

Are you familiar with the term 'opportunity costs'?  Every dollar spent on climate change is not available for any other purpose.  So you need to show to me why we're better off spending limited money on climate change instead of other items.

As a human it would immoral to defend the extintion of the species. But if you look at it from the perspective of the earth as a whole I can't see how one can defend mankind except because one is obliged to do so because one is a member of it.

The earth does not have a perspective.  It's a hunk of rock.  Humans are the only conscious thinking beings, and therefore, the only species that has any claim for morality.

[jas]

What's bothering me more than any of that -- though that's maybe just because I stopped watching the news years ago -- is the fact that we're literally bulldozing our way across the planet killing and annihilating as we go. The sheer number of species of animal and plant that we've completely wiped out of existence because of our insatiable greed is unbelievable. And the fact that we know all this, and we know what's going to happen, but are continuing to do it anyway makes me wonder if we deserve to be here at all. It all comes from this notion that we're the most important living beings on earth, but the fact is that the planet thrived without us on it. We couldn't thrive without its natural species and resources, but it looks like we're giving it a d-a-m-n (bloody censors) good try. There's going to be a day in the not-too-distant future when all we'll have left of tigers, elephants and countless other creatures are photos and video footage, and no one (or rather, no one in a position powerful enough to actually do something about it) seems to care. It's aaaall about the money. Money, money, money.

Sorry, that wasn't exactly a cheery, life-affirming post but it's something that's been on my mind for a long time now.

Jas

[prometheus]

Please show that a minor change in temperature will cause these dire effects on the ecosystem.

I didn't say it will have dire effects. I said it has significant effects. For example, if temperate increases with about .1 degree then catterpillars will emerge from their eggs before the eggs of birds hatch. This means they will have a hard time to get food. If these two processes are seriously out of sync the birds will have no catterpillars at all. If this continues for a few years, if they fail to adapt, they will all die. Talk to any climatologist and that person will tell you that chaos theory applies in their field, ie butterfly effect.

How does the planet warming contaminate drinking water?

How funny....

The earth's temperature changes naturally all the time, and life has always continued.  So please, show how those margins are so small.

Like I said before, nearly all species have died out. A lot of them because of small temperature changes.

I was unaware that people are spending large amounts of money with the sole purpose of creating CO2.

You even added 'sole purpose'. I wasn't even talking about purpose. Even unwanted effect is enough.

Are you familiar with the term 'opportunity costs'?  Every dollar spent on climate change is not available for any other purpose.

The enviroment doesn't care about human constructions regarding economics. They are irrelevant.   

So you need to show to me why we're better off spending limited money on climate change instead of other items.

How much is the whole human civilisation worth?

The earth does not have a perspective.  It's a hunk of rock.  Humans are the only conscious thinking beings, and therefore, the only species that has any claim for morality.

So everyhing that has no consciousness can be destroyed without any moral objections? Strange sense of morality.

Furtermore, all mammals have consciousness. What humans have is something beyond that. Humans are conscious of their own consciousness.

[bernhard]

Furtermore, all mammals have consciousness. What humans have is something beyond that. Humans are conscious of their own consciousness.

No one can say that for sure. For all we know every living creature could have consciousness and self-consciousness. (Maybe even the non-living ones).

[bernhard]

What's bothering me more than any of that -- though that's maybe just because I stopped watching the news years ago -- is the fact that we're literally bulldozing our way across the planet killing and annihilating as we go. The sheer number of species of animal and plant that we've completely wiped out of existence because of our insatiable greed is unbelievable. And the fact that we know all this, and we know what's going to happen, but are continuing to do it anyway makes me wonder if we deserve to be here at all. It all comes from this notion that we're the most important living beings on earth, but the fact is that the planet thrived without us on it. We couldn't thrive without its natural species and resources, but it looks like we're giving it a d-a-m-n (bloody censors) good try. There's going to be a day in the not-too-distant future when all we'll have left of tigers, elephants and countless other creatures are photos and video footage, and no one (or rather, no one in a position powerful enough to actually do something about it) seems to care. It's aaaall about the money. Money, money, money.

Sorry, that wasn't exactly a cheery, life-affirming post but it's something that's been on my mind for a long time now.

Jas

What do you mean by "we", pale face? Just because a bunch of psychopaths in power are wrecking the environment does not mean I should be put in the same bag.
 

[musik_man]

I didn't say it will have dire effects. I said it has significant effects. For example, if temperate increases with about .1 degree then catterpillars will emerge from their eggs before the eggs of birds hatch. This means they will have a hard time to get food. If these two processes are seriously out of sync the birds will have no catterpillars at all. If this continues for a few years, if they fail to adapt, they will all die. Talk to any climatologist and that person will tell you that chaos theory applies in their field, ie butterfly effect.

Can you give a source on this?  The temperature naturally varies by much more than .1 Celcius, so those birds ought to be extinct already.

Like I said before, nearly all species have died out. A lot of them because of small temperature changes.

Give some examples.  Most extinctions were caused by meteor impacts not minor climate changes.  The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age didn't cause mass extinctions.

You even added 'sole purpose'. I wasn't even talking about purpose. Even unwanted effect is enough.

You said that the money spent making CO2 should be spent on other items, but nobody spends money to produce CO2.  It's a byproduct of energy production.  So what you must have meant is that we should take the money spent producing energy and spend it otherwise.  That's silly.  Energy is needed.

How much is the whole human civilisation worth?

You still haven't shown that global warming threatens humanity, so the question is moot.

So everyhing that has no consciousness can be destroyed without any moral objections? Strange sense of morality.

How so?  Why should I care about what happens to a big pile of unthinking atoms.

[living_stradivarius]

Can you give a source on this?  The temperature naturally varies by much more than .1 Celcius, so those birds ought to be extinct already.

Give some examples.  Most extinctions were caused by meteor impacts not minor climate changes.  The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age didn't cause mass extinctions.

You said that the money spent making CO2 should be spent on other items, but nobody spends money to produce CO2.  It's a byproduct of energy production.  So what you must have meant is that we should take the money spent producing energy and spend it otherwise.  That's silly.  Energy is needed.

You still haven't shown that global warming threatens humanity, so the question is moot.

How so?  Why should I care about what happens to a big pile of unthinking atoms.

The natural temperature variation has changed dramatically in this past century so the effects caused by man have been significant. I think overpopulation is going to get us before global warming does.

[kony]

overpopulation isn't an immediate problem. i read somewhere that the earth can house 60-100 billion people. and contrary to popular belief, China and India are NOT overpopulated.

[living_stradivarius]

overpopulation isn't an immediate problem. i read somewhere that the earth can house 60-100 billion people. and contrary to popular belief, China and India are NOT overpopulated.

Go live in China and India and see if you change your mind.

[kony]

That depends on the definition of over-populated. To me, it's when people are starving due to lack of resources for everyone, having nowhere to live because a lack of space and having no privacy whatsover, because people are everywhere.

And having experienced it first-hand, I can tell you this is not the case.

[prometheus]

Can you give a source on this?  The temperature naturally varies by much more than .1 Celcius, so those birds ought to be extinct already.

You are trying to be reterded. I bluntly added comments to prevent this straw man. I said that .1 degree has an influence. Naturally these birds are able to adapt to some extent but you can see that the temperature has an influence on blue tit breeding and the hatching of catterpillars. You can also see that they are breeding too late.
The temberature has been increasing around 0.2 to 0.6 degrees celcius in the 20th century. So if we take only the last 50 years we get 0.1 to .3 degrees on average.

Also, species are dying out every day. Some scientists even postulated that one million will have died out when we reach 2050. Why don't you calculate how much that is per day.

Give some examples.  Most extinctions were caused by meteor impacts not minor climate changes.  The Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age didn't cause mass extinctions

Cambrian-Ordovician extinction events, 488 million years ago. Reason, possible ice age or depletion of oxygen in marine waters.

Ordovician-Silurian extinction events, 444 million years ago. Up to 49% of the species died out. Reason, ice age.

Late Devonian extinction, 364 million years ago. Up to 70% died out. Reason, unknown but possible global cooling possible triggered by an bolide and/or forests reducing CO2

Permian-Triassic extinction event, 251 million years ago. 96% of the marine life died out and 70% of the vertebrates died out. Theories range from plate tectonics, impact, supernovea, extreme vulcanism to greenhouse warming. Probably a combination on a two or more.

Triassic-Jurassic extinction event, 200 million years ago. 20% of all marine life and a large number of non-dinosaur vertebrates died out, making an average of 50% of the species on earth dying out.  Possible causes, increase of CO2, impact and massive vulcanic eruptions.

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, 65.5 million years ago. 50% of all species. Reason, possibly a astroid impact followed by the climate chance it triggered.

Greenhouse gasses, impacts, plate tectonics, vulcanism, and solar variation(super novea could be added as well) all influence climate change. But also land use and even aersosols seem to influence the climate a lot.

You said that the money spent making CO2 should be spent on other items, but nobody spends money to produce CO2.  It's a byproduct of energy production.  So what you must have meant is that we should take the money spent producing energy and spend it otherwise.  That's silly.  Energy is needed.

Energy is needed? Well, why don't you take the predicted demographic development in 2050 and then calculate the energy needed for all people in the world to live like we do now. People all around the world are going to want to drive a car, have a dish washing machine, a refrigerator, television all day long, pork and beef every day, a airplane holliday once a year, etc etc. With the level of globalisation of today it is going to be impossible to have much difference in wealth. Is it possible for all people on the planet to life like we do now? Wait until you calculate the amount of cattle needed to provide all the meat people want.

Ok you have the number. Let's try to find how all that energy can be produced. And of course it all has to come from the sun since that is the only substainable source of energy, maybe including fusion. If you try to produce bio-oil using crops then there will be no room left on the planet for crop prodution for the insane amounts of cattle.

How so?  Why should I care about what happens to a big pile of unthinking atoms.

Using 'why should I care' in a moral argument is kind of strange. First you claim it is immoral for me to say that humans may be better off going extinct. But why should both of us care if humans go extinct after we have already lived our life, the richest life of all humans ever, and died?


I think we should destroy the economy to save the enviroment. And we should also badly do something about the polulation. The earth cannot substrain that many rich people.

[musik_man]

You are trying to be reterded. I bluntly added comments to prevent this straw man. I said that .1 degree has an influence. Naturally these birds are able to adapt to some extent but you can see that the temperature has an influence on blue tit breeding and the hatching of catterpillars. You can also see that they are breeding too late.
The temberature has been increasing around 0.2 to 0.6 degrees celcius in the 20th century. So if we take only the last 50 years we get 0.1 to .3 degrees on average.

So please tell me, what is the extinction level of climate change?

Also, species are dying out every day. Some scientists even postulated that one million will have died out when we reach 2050. Why don't you calculate how much that is per day.

That figure is a perfect example of speculation passed off as science.

Energy is needed? Well, why don't you take the predicted demographic development in 2050 and then calculate the energy needed for all people in the world to live like we do now. People all around the world are going to want to drive a car, have a dish washing machine, a refrigerator, television all day long, pork and beef every day, a airplane holliday once a year, etc etc. With the level of globalisation of today it is going to be impossible to have much difference in wealth. Is it possible for all people on the planet to life like we do now? Wait until you calculate the amount of cattle needed to provide all the meat people want.

Wow, where to begin?  Obviously energy is needed.  I can't understand why you have a question mark after it.  The only way we could stop using energy is to completely alter our lifestyle and impoversh the world.

There's a famous quote from an economist that goes like this "If something can't continue forever, it won't."  If our current lifestyle can't go on forever, it will change.  If demand for energy spikes or the supply of energy dwindles, several things will happen.  People will consume less energy as the price increases.  Alternative forms of energy that weren't feasible at old prices, will be used.  Finally, research into developing new forms of energy will become increasingly profitable, and more of it will occur.  This is the basic nature of the free market.

The exact same thing applies to food.  Paul Ehrlich, a famous environmentalist, wrote a book in the 1970's entitled The Population Bomb which predicted that due to population increases the world would face mass starvation.  He predicted that millions in America alone would starve in the 1990's.  Well guess what, we've passed the 90's and we are able to export food using only a tiny fraction of our land, because of technology developed by private enterprise.  You're making the exact claim that he made 30 years ago.  You are just as wrong.

The big problem with your worldview is this, you view the economy as static.  All your analysis makes perfect sense, if this is true, but it's completely wrong.  The economy consists of the interactions of billions of people acting, for the most part, rationally.  It is highly adaptable and changes all the time to fit new circumstances.  When things become difficult to supply, the price rises and people conserve or find substitutes.  When things are more easily produced, people consume more of them.  We live in a dynamic world, and people respond to changes through the mechanism of price. 

Ok you have the number. Let's try to find how all that energy can be produced. And of course it all has to come from the sun since that is the only substainable source of energy, maybe including fusion. If you try to produce bio-oil using crops then there will be no room left on the planet for crop prodution for the insane amounts of cattle.

The sun isn't sustainable.  It will go out in due time.  Life is inherently unsustainable unless you know of a way to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Remember that in the long run we are all dead (to quote Keynes.)  Kinda depressing if you don't believe in God.  I guess you can console yourself with your belief that life is completely accidental and utterly meaningless anyway.  Why mourn its passing?

Using 'why should I care' in a moral argument is kind of strange. First you claim it is immoral for me to say that humans may be better off going extinct. But why should both of us care if humans go extinct after we have already lived our life, the richest life of all humans ever, and died?

Well, since in a God-less universe, which you believe in, life is accidental and has no meaning, the real question is why do you care about anything?  I care about things because I believe there is meaning and purpose in human life. 

I think we should destroy the economy to save the enviroment. And we should also badly do something about the polulation. The earth cannot substrain that many rich people.

We should destroy the economy and vastly restrict people's freedoms to produce and consume what they wany, because of your mistaken notions about the world.  I don't find it persuasive.

[prometheus]

So please tell me, what is the extinction level of climate change?

So because no one can now the actual repercussions of climate change we should ignore it?

That figure is a perfect example of speculation passed off as science.

How would you know? You know which paper I am talking about? It was published in Nature, which is peer reviewed. So give me the details of this study since you know it.

Wow, where to begin?  Obviously energy is needed.  I can't understand why you have a question mark after it.

Because it may be needed but that doesn't mean it is feasable. Then you continue to claim that a solution will be found. Maybe there will, but why don't you give it to me? You argue for 'wait and see'-solution. I think that that is very irresponsible considering the odds, even if it worked in the past.

Then you continue to mention one person that was wrong about one thing. Totally irrelevant.

 The only way we could stop using energy is to completely alter our lifestyle and impoversh the world.

There's a famous quote from an economist that goes like this "If something can't continue forever, it won't." 

So if a truck is on a collision course with a concrete block we should just wait for it to stop continuing? Obviously all your claims are true. But the economy only cares for itself. I don't see how your argument is hopeful, constructive or creating perspective. Bascally you say that if we all die, or if we all get poor, so be it. Or do you really believe an economy can only increase in strenght? Do you really think that the truck will automatically steer past the concrete block just before it hits it?

If our current lifestyle can't go on forever, it will change.

We have to change it. Sure, the economy might safe its own skin. But it will only be forced to chance after it has destroyed many things. Why not change it now since it will have to change anyway.

If demand for energy spikes or the supply of energy dwindles, several things will happen.  People will consume less energy as the price increases.

Energy got more expensive the last few years. Did energy usage decrease?

Alternative forms of energy that weren't feasible at old prices, will be used.

What does it mean if all energy is priced at a triple rate of what it is now? What does it mean for the nature of the economy?

Finally, research into developing new forms of energy will become increasingly profitable, and more of it will occur.

Give me one possible substainable source of energy that can provide all the energy needs and that can be developed before 2050.

You're making the exact claim that he made 30 years ago.  You are just as wrong.

You can't get more energy out of a systen then you put in it. I didn't limit myself to current technological limitations. My limitation is the energy the sun puts inside the earth. The same goes for the rest of your argument. It doesn't matter if you view the economy as static or dynamic. We are burning through our resources, wasting them. Not this may have been economically feasable and the moment it will stop to be it will stop but I am talking about the rationality behind it. The same goes for the energy problem.

The sun isn't sustainable.  It will go out in due time.

We are talking about a really long term here. We need to do something now about the nature of our world economy, about the use of fossil fuels and about climate change. The sun becomming a red giant has no priority whatsover. As far as we know in the best scenario we will have died out long before the sun becomes a red giant.

Life is inherently unsustainable unless you know of a way to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Remember that in the long run we are all dead (to quote Keynes.)  Kinda depressing if you don't believe in God.  I guess you can console yourself with your belief that life is completely accidental and utterly meaningless anyway.  Why mourn its passing?


Well, since in a God-less universe, which you believe in, life is accidental and has no meaning, the real question is why do you care about anything?  I care about things because I believe there is meaning and purpose in human life. 

Ooh, yes. I am a total nihilist and I am immoral. But at the same time you argue for the economy doing anything it needs to do and I argue for quality of life and preservation of the earth. Who is the real nihilist?

We should destroy the economy and vastly restrict people's freedoms to produce and consume what they wany, because of your mistaken notions about the world.  I don't find it persuasive.

Restricting people's freedoms? The interest of the economy doesn't restrict people, right? Futermore, my views of the world aren't mistaken. When you talk about the world or about human civilisation in reality you are only talking about the economy. I don't. Maybe that is your problem.

[musik_man]

So because no one can now the actual repercussions of climate change we should ignore it?

Yes, we should not spend incredible amounts of money to solve a problem that we aren't entirely sure is even a problem.  Do you really think that we should throw money at every potential problem based off of irrational fear?

Because it may be needed but that doesn't mean it is feasable. Then you continue to claim that a solution will be found. Maybe there will, but why don't you give it to me? You argue for 'wait and see'-solution. I think that that is very irresponsible considering the odds, even if it worked in the past.

Of course I don't know the solution.  No one has that sort of knowledge.  You claim that you can predict and plan for the future, but you can't.  You simply lack the information.  This is the problem with social engineering.  It takes an astounding level of arrogance to act like you can predict the problems of the future and that you know all the solutions.  The market gets around this little problem by using the mechanism of price to allow people to adapt and change their behavior based off of changing conditions.  The collective knowledge of society dispersed among individuals is far more trustworthy than the babbling of intellectuals.

Then you continue to mention one person that was wrong about one thing. Totally irrelevant.

You hold the same beliefs as this person, so I don't think it irrelevant.  Let me quote Well, why don't you take the predicted demographic development in 2050 and then calculate the energy needed for all people in the world to live like we do now.  You are making the same claim that he made, that our world is unsustainable.  It's an incredibly common view for environmentalists and one that has been continually proven wrong by experience.  I'll let you in on something.  Ehrlich was not the first to make this claim.  The economist Malthus viewed demographic growth as perpetually consigning the human race to misery and poverty in the early 1800's.  History has proven both wrong.  So why should I listen to you when you are peddling the exact same ideas?  Why are they right this time?

So if a truck is on a collision course with a concrete block we should just wait for it to stop continuing? Obviously all your claims are true. But the economy only cares for itself. I don't see how your argument is hopeful, constructive or creating perspective. Bascally you say that if we all die, or if we all get poor, so be it. Or do you really believe an economy can only increase in strenght? Do you really think that the truck will automatically steer past the concrete block just before it hits it?

Once again this shows that you really haven't grasped how capitalism and the free market work.  The economy isn't a independent entity.  It refers to all the actions of every person who produces and consumes wealth.  Everyone pursues their self-interests and everyone is better off for it.

Furthermore, it is not like a truck without a driver.  It does not blindly speed along oblivious to all problems.  As I said earlier, through the mechanism of price, it adapts to changing circumstances with an astonishing flexibility.  When the price of a product increases, people buy less of it.  When the price drops, more is purchased.  People don't need to know why the prices change, and truly no one does.  The knowledge is decentralized and spread throughout society as a whole.  The market brings together this knowledge and allows people to react to it much better than any social engineer could.  It is far more intelligent to rely on society as a whole to solve problems than to rely on fearmongers with pitiable track records.  People have been making wild claims about doom in the near future for hundreds of years.  Whether it be a population bomb or an energy crisis.  They've been consistently wrong. 

Even if they are correct in that some problem does lie ahead in the future, I wouldn't trust them to solve it.  Private enterprise would be much more effective at dealing with any problems than governments.

We have to change it. Sure, the economy might safe its own skin. But it will only be forced to chance after it has destroyed many things. Why not change it now since it will have to change anyway.

The economy is nothing other than society as a whole.  To be more accurate you should have said "Sure, people may save there own skins."  And that's exactly what will happen.  People acting rationally in their own self-interest will do a far better job of protecting themselves than you could.

And yes, the economy will change.  It changes continually.  The real question is how it will change.  You can't know that.  No one can.

Energy got more expensive the last few years. Did energy usage decrease?

No, but energy consumption is lower than it would be if the price had stayed the same.  Are you seriously going to deny the fundamental tenets of supply and demand? 

What does it mean if all energy is priced at a triple rate of what it is now? What does it mean for the nature of the economy?

People will naturally conserve it.

Give me one possible substainable source of energy that can provide all the energy needs and that can be developed before 2050.

I don't need to.  I've repeatedly denied that anyone can have a really acccurate view of what the future will hold.  Could people in 1800 have any idea about oil being used as a major power source or nuclear fission?  Why are we any different today?

You can't get more energy out of a systen then you put in it. I didn't limit myself to current technological limitations. My limitation is the energy the sun puts inside the earth. The same goes for the rest of your argument. It doesn't matter if you view the economy as static or dynamic. We are burning through our resources, wasting them. Not this may have been economically feasable and the moment it will stop to be it will stop but I am talking about the rationality behind it. The same goes for the energy problem.

So what is the proper level of energy that we should be using?  Please give it in Kilowatt hours per person.

Ooh, yes. I am a total nihilist and I am immoral. But at the same time you argue for the economy doing anything it needs to do and I argue for quality of life and preservation of the earth. Who is the real nihilist?

I don't think you are a nihilist.  I do think that if you logically and rationally extrapolate from your fundamental views, you would be one.  And no, I'm the one arguing for quality of life in this debate.  You are arguing that we should impoversh the world(which really means impovershing individuals) to prevent a catastrophe that we have no reason to believe will happen.

Restricting people's freedoms? The interest of the economy doesn't restrict people, right? Futermore, my views of the world aren't mistaken. When you talk about the world or about human civilisation in reality you are only talking about the economy. I don't. Maybe that is your problem.

Economics 101.  The economy doesn't have interests.  People have interests and should have the freedom to pursue them.  Once again you don't have an understanding of what the economy is.  Let me repeat myself.  The free market economy is nothing more than what occurs when individuals are free to produce and consume what they want to.  Any movement away from this is a restriction of freedom.  What you want, is the government to step in and tell us what we can and can't do.  You believe that people will be better off because of your intervention, but you are wrong.  They will be left worse off for it, and more importantly less free for it.  You don't think people are acting as you think they ought to, so you want to force them to follow your beliefs.  It's truly the story of almost all social movements of the 20th century.  It's paternalism.  Daddy knows best.

[prometheus]

Yes, we should not spend incredible amounts of money to solve a problem that we aren't entirely sure is even a problem.  Do you really think that we should throw money at every potential problem based off of irrational fear?

I am sorry but you misunderstood, probably intentionally. We know the climate is going to change and we know any change is for the worse. You asked for details. But we do not have or need details. The fact that we don't know the actual details doesn't mean thinking it is a problem is irrational fear. This is absurd.

Of course I don't know the solution.  No one has that sort of knowledge.  You claim that you can predict and plan for the future, but you can't.  You simply lack the information.

We know very well that lowering CO2 expulsion will improve the situation so your argument doesn't work. Actually, it is silly. You claim that we don't need to know the effects of increasing CO2 levels as long as it is a side effect.  I don't. We expulse CO2 which increase the levels in the atmosphere. I say that we should know it is harmless before we do it. Even if we don't know the effect we shouldn't do it. And of course we know very well what kind of influences it may have.

I don't claim I can predict the future. You claim one doesn't need to know that a problem gets solved to know that it will. This is, again,  absurd.

This is the problem with social engineering.  It takes an astounding level of arrogance to act like you can predict the problems of the future and that you know all the solutions.

You are really talking glibberish here.

The market gets around this little problem by using the mechanism of price to allow people to adapt and change their behavior based off of changing conditions.  The collective knowledge of society dispersed among individuals is far more trustworthy than the babbling of intellectuals.

There are tons of problems that don't get solved. Why would it be only natural for these problems to be solved? They don't even need to be solved? Why wouldn't the market just ignore it?

You hold the same beliefs as this person, so I don't think it irrelevant.  Let me quote Well, why don't you take the predicted demographic development in 2050 and then calculate the energy needed for all people in the world to live like we do now.  You are making the same claim that he made, that our world is unsustainable.

Pardon me? His problem was that he didn't account for new technology. That is what you said before. My scenario is independent from technology as I looked at the limitations of the sun putting energy in the earth.

So why should I listen to you when you are peddling the exact same ideas?

So you are actually reading and understanding what I am saying!? No no, you can't be serious. If you do then why the level of your replies is so low?

Once again this shows that you really haven't grasped how capitalism and the free market work.  The economy isn't a independent entity.  It refers to all the actions of every person who produces and consumes wealth.  Everyone pursues their self-interests and everyone is better off for it.

You really do have a religious belief in the free market, don't you? First off, the free market and actual kapitalism don't even exist so I do not understand what they have got to do with this discussion. Let alone how they could offer a solution if they did.

Obviously the free market doesn't pick the path that is best for everyone. Free market isn't operated by the interest of the collective. It is operated by supply and demand. I don't see how a system can solve all our problems because it is operated by supply and demand. Maybe you don't understand the free market that well.

Furthermore, it is not like a truck without a driver.  It does not blindly speed along oblivious to all problems.

No, there is a driver but he isn't looking out of the window. He is looking at a computer screen showing supply and demand so that he can jump out of the truck just before it hits the concrete block.

As I said earlier, through the mechanism of price, it adapts to changing circumstances with an astonishing flexibility.  When the price of a product increases, people buy less of it.  When the price drops, more is purchased.  People don't need to know why the prices change, and truly no one does.

If more energy is needed than is availible the price will go to infinity. Obviously that cannot happen. So people have to give up their need for energy because the price gets to low while it is rising. This means ordinary people can no longer drive their car. Which means they can only work close at home. Goods that are transported large distances become very expensive. Now you may argue that humans will organise themselves in another way but that is only natural and not the point. The point is that their potential is limited. I don't see how you can claim that because people adjust no potential is lost. You keep talking about these people that talked bout overpopulation and famine. It is not like famine doesn't happen in this world. I don't get the point at all.

The knowledge is decentralized and spread throughout society as a whole.  The market brings together this knowledge and allows people to react to it much better than any social engineer could.  It is far more intelligent to rely on society as a whole to solve problems than to rely on fearmongers with pitiable track records.

This is a whole different kind of discussion. I am not arguing for one political system or the other. I don't care about who takes the descisions. I am arguing for the dangers of climate change. The moment the US grain belt has turned into the american sahara, the moment all the costal areas become part of the ocean, the moment no farmer can still do its job because of the climate change then there will not be an economy at all. Animals don't have economies. Ancient humans also do not have economies. There will be no supply. It will be impossible to transport goods from an area of surplus to an area of scarity.

But when we talk about the current economy and short term changes like the energy needs of the future. It is not about what happens with supply and demand. It is about what happens to the stock market. It can crash down because of a silly rumour, evaporating billions in hours.

People have been making wild claims about doom in the near future for hundreds of years.  Whether it be a population bomb or an energy crisis.  They've been consistently wrong.

You are right. But I am not claiming that we will all be dead in a 100 years. I claim that nuclear weapons and climate change are the two threats to human civilisation.

Even if they are correct in that some problem does lie ahead in the future, I wouldn't trust them to solve it.  Private enterprise would be much more effective at dealing with any problems than governments.

It is so funny that you continue to follow your own dogma. Who is conserving energy? Does it matter for a company building television that their tv wastes some energy which price is still affordable today? No it doesn't matter a bit. So how would they care?

The economy is nothing other than society as a whole.

What!? No wonder you can't stop with viewing human civilisation as an economy. For you they are the same thing. If you don't take this back I will stop arguing because then you are so deluded it will have no more use.

To be more accurate you should have said "Sure, people may save there own skins."

People are already dying because of pollution caused by industry and cars. I don't see how and why they will save their skin. Let alone which economic princible will be responsible for this.

And that's exactly what will happen.  People acting rationally in their own self-interest will do a far better job of protecting themselves than you could.

First off, people aren't rational. Second, there is a difference between a human and a costumer. Humans want to safe their skin and be more rational and do something for the enviroment, conservation, reduce animal torture. But costumers only look at prices and their buget, not caring how it is producted.

Same goes for the nuclear prolifration. Why haven't people acted in their rational self interest and got rid of nuclear weapons? Or at the least of leaders who increase prolifiration like Bush.

And yes, the economy will change.  It changes continually.  The real question is how it will change.  You can't know that.  No one can.

But how do you know that the Chinese and Indian people will be able to live at the standards of living in the west today? You don't. And how much shock the energy problem will have on the economy on a whole.

No, but energy consumption is lower than it would be if the price had stayed the same.  Are you seriously going to deny the fundamental tenets of supply and demand? 

No. But this just shows that suppy and demand have nothing to do with it. We only have a limited amount of fossil fuel. We should use it in the most rational way possible. Not in the way dictated by the free market.

People will naturally conserve it.

You mean that people will just not be able to afford it. If they really conserved it the price would have stayed the same. When it gets too expensive they are too late.

What does it mean for the economy when the prices of energy triple? Would we be richer or poorer? Or are you denying this will happen? If so then you contradict yourself because you first acknowledge that eventhough the energy price got higher people didn't start to conserve it.

I don't need to.  I've repeatedly denied that anyone can have a really acccurate view of what the future will hold.  Could people in 1800 have any idea about oil being used as a major power source or nuclear fission?  Why are we any different today?

Then how do you know it will be solved. Granted, if we get a new source of energy then we may or may not know about it. Actually, people knew long before 1800 that oil could be burned for energy. But at this point in time we do know that we either collect energy from the sun, directly or indirectly. Or that we turn matter into energy. We can calculate the amount of energy the sun puts into the earth and we do also know fusion will not be available before 2050.

So what is the proper level of energy that we should be using?  Please give it in Kilowatt hours per person.

That depends on how many sources of sustainable energy you have. At this point in time, in holland, we shouldn't depend on more that 400 KWh a year per person. At least, we can't expect to use more than that in the future. This number should be significantly increased before 2050. Now people in the EU are actually trying to get to do this.
Of course unsustainable energy can be used as well. But on the long term we cannot last on that. You think it will be solved automatically. I think we should think about it now. Furtermore since we already need to decrease CO2 to prevent destroying the ecosystems.

I don't think you are a nihilist.  I do think that if you logically and rationally extrapolate from your fundamental views, you would be one.

I can guantee you that you should think I am one because I can't imagine someone getting more rational and logical then I already am.

And no, I'm the one arguing for quality of life in this debate.  You are arguing that we should impoversh the world to prevent a catastrophe that we have no reason to believe will happen.

If you think people getting rid of your second car and not driving around for fun is impoverty then fine. But at this point in time people are still dying because of their poverty. Really, I don't see any problem with impoverishing those that use too much energy.
No, you aren't arguing about quality of life. You limit yourself to economics, which are totally irrelevant.

Economics 101.  The economy doesn't have interests.

Then let's call it 'the effects of the economy'. This is getting silly...

People have interests and should have the freedom to pursue them.

Once again you don't have an understanding of what the economy is.  Let me repeat myself.  The free market economy is nothing more than what occurs when individuals are free to produce and consume what they want to.  Any movement away from this is a restriction of freedom.  What you want, is the government to step in and tell us what we can and can't do.  You believe that people will be better off because of your intervention, but you are wrong.  They will be left worse off for it, and more importantly less free for it.  You don't think people are acting as you think they ought to, so you want to force them to follow your beliefs.  It's truly the story of almost all social movements of the 20th century.  It's paternalism.  Daddy knows best.

Again, stupid rant about your own political views. I don't even want a government. You want one. You are the daddy knows best guy. But you don't even realise this.

I never said the government should make restrictions. I said that there is a problem with climate change that is dangerous for the human species. And that there is an energy problem that will make us all poor when we run out of 'free energy'. Every physicist knows there is no 'free energy'. But 'free energy' is a consumers reality today.

In the political system I would propose corporations do not exist. This does not mean people have limited rights. It means that corporations don't have more rights granted to them by special laws giving them more rights than people. Also, all organisations will be democracies instead of tyrranies. This means that the interest of the people is actually considered instead of the interests of the corporations and the stock market.

[musik_man]

I am sorry but you misunderstood, probably intentionally. We know the climate is going to change and we know any change is for the worse. You asked for details. But we do not have or need details. The fact that we don't know the actual details doesn't mean thinking it is a problem is irrational fear. This is absurd.

We don't know that any change is for the worst.  The only evidence of that that you've given is a reference to possible animal extinctions.  The sad thing is that you've gone as far as to proclaim that climate change poses an existential threat to humanity without any credible evidence.  Please, explain why it is impossible that climate change might not benefit humanity?  Why is the exact temperature we have today the optimal one?

We know very well that lowering CO2 expulsion will improve the situation so your argument doesn't work. Actually, it is silly. You claim that we don't need to know the effects of increasing CO2 levels as long as it is a side effect.  I don't. We expulse CO2 which increase the levels in the atmosphere. I say that we should know it is harmless before we do it. Even if we don't know the effect we shouldn't do it. And of course we know very well what kind of influences it may have.

I was refering to the energy crisis, not global warming.

I don't claim I can predict the future. You claim one doesn't need to know that a problem gets solved to know that it will. This is, again,  absurd.

You are completely misinterpreting me here.  I claim that the markets inherent structure allows it to produce solutions to problems without any sort of grand plan.  It's decentralized information. 

There are tons of problems that don't get solved. Why would it be only natural for these problems to be solved? They don't even need to be solved? Why wouldn't the market just ignore it?

There are obviously problems in the world.  I don't claim that the market will solve everything and lead to a utopia.  Capitalism can't make the world perfect, but it will contribute far more to solving these problems than any other system in virtually all cases. 

Pardon me? His problem was that he didn't account for new technology. That is what you said before. My scenario is independent from technology as I looked at the limitations of the sun putting energy in the earth.

So we should stop using any non-renewable sources of energy because they will eventually run out?  The scale of time to run out of all fossil fuels and nuclear material is incredibly vast.  The idea that we should be planning for a time that is thousands of years in the future is utterly ridiculous.  For all we know, we'll be mining Mars and the asteroid belt by that time.  If non-renewable energy runs out(which it will have to in the ultra-long run even if we 'conserve' it), we'll use renewable energy.  This is exactly what you want anyway.  It makes little sense to use exclusively renewable resources so that people, who live in a future with technology that will be unimaginable to those of us today, can use them.  You basically want to transfer money from our current society and give it to people in the future who will be much more wealthy.

So you are actually reading and understanding what I am saying!? No no, you can't be serious. If you do then why the level of your replies is so low?

This is so petty.  Grow up.

You really do have a religious belief in the free market, don't you? First off, the free market and actual kapitalism don't even exist so I do not understand what they have got to do with this discussion. Let alone how they could offer a solution if they did.

Newtonian physics doesn't actually exist.  Does this mean that I would be stupid to use it?  As far as how they offer a solution, I've explained that mulitple times.

Obviously the free market doesn't pick the path that is best for everyone. Free market isn't operated by the interest of the collective. It is operated by supply and demand. I don't see how a system can solve all our problems because it is operated by supply and demand. Maybe you don't understand the free market that well.

The free market has done an astounding job of advancing the interests of the people.  It's the force that pushed the Western world into the state of incredible wealth that it has today.  No other system has created results anywhere near this. 

You misunderstand how supply and demand.  Let me explain.  Supply dictates how much cost goes into creating any given level of a product.  Demand is how much of the product will be consumed at any price level.  Working together they balance the costs of creating something and how much people want it; thereby, serving the interests of society.

No, there is a driver but he isn't looking out of the window. He is looking at a computer screen showing supply and demand so that he can jump out of the truck just before it hits the concrete block.

My apologies, but this analogy makes no sense on any level.

If more energy is needed than is availible the price will go to infinity. Obviously that cannot happen. So people have to give up their need for energy because the price gets to low while it is rising. This means ordinary people can no longer drive their car. Which means they can only work close at home. Goods that are transported large distances become very expensive. Now you may argue that humans will organise themselves in another way but that is only natural and not the point. The point is that their potential is limited. I don't see how you can claim that because people adjust no potential is lost. You keep talking about these people that talked bout overpopulation and famine. It is not like famine doesn't happen in this world. I don't get the point at all.

And you accuse me of not understanding the market...  Their isn't a certain level of energy needed by society.  Society balances out the costs and the demand for energy and sets a certain level of consumption.  The only goods whose prices could rise infinitely without a drop in consumption are food and water.

This is a whole different kind of discussion. I am not arguing for one political system or the other. I don't care about who takes the descisions. I am arguing for the dangers of climate change. The moment the US grain belt has turned into the american sahara, the moment all the costal areas become part of the ocean, the moment no farmer can still do its job because of the climate change then there will not be an economy at all. Animals don't have economies. Ancient humans also do not have economies. There will be no supply. It will be impossible to transport goods from an area of surplus to an area of scarity.

Haha, when global warming has turned the world into a post-apocalyptic nightmare...  Please give us the evidence that climate change will halt farming instead of opening large areas that were formerly too cold for farming.

But when we talk about the current economy and short term changes like the energy needs of the future. It is not about what happens with supply and demand. It is about what happens to the stock market. It can crash down because of a silly rumour, evaporating billions in hours.

Please, tell me when the market has crashed because of a silly rumor.


You are right. But I am not claiming that we will all be dead in a 100 years. I claim that nuclear weapons and climate change are the two threats to human civilisation.

It is so funny that you continue to follow your own dogma. Who is conserving energy? Does it matter for a company building television that their tv wastes some energy which price is still affordable today? No it doesn't matter a bit. So how would they care?

If it is cheaper to pay for the energy loss than to build a more efficient TV, the company won't care.  And that's the right decision.  There is no real reason to conserve energy other than your fears that it will suddenly run out.

What!? No wonder you can't stop with viewing human civilisation as an economy. For you they are the same thing. If you don't take this back I will stop arguing because then you are so deluded it will have no more use.

What is the economy if it is not the interactions of society in producing and consuming goods?

People are already dying because of pollution caused by industry and cars. I don't see how and why they will save their skin. Let alone which economic princible will be responsible for this.

Capitalism has shot life expectancy up by decades.  I'd gladly take a few deaths from pollution in exchange for modern medicine.

First off, people aren't rational. Second, there is a difference between a human and a costumer. Humans want to safe their skin and be more rational and do something for the enviroment, conservation, reduce animal torture. But costumers only look at prices and their buget, not caring how it is producted.

People aren't completely rational, but it is the best assumption to make in describing their economic interactions.

And price is indicative of how something is produced.  Society could never function if everyone was forced to know the intimate details of how every product they use was created.  Price tells us what matters, how much money was needed to produce it.  Now as far as pollution is concerned, that is called 'tragedy of the commons.'  The simple solution, is to tax pollution so that consumers have to pay for the costs of pollution.

What animal torture has to do with this, I don't know.

But how do you know that the Chinese and Indian people will be able to live at the standards of living in the west today? You don't. And how much shock the energy problem will have on the economy on a whole.

Anyone who says they could guarantee that Asia will have Western living standards is lying.  All we can do is find the system most likely to make societies wealthy, and a brief glance at history ought to show that capitalism is the best choice. 

And please, you've only made vague references to some future energy problem.  I don't think there will be one in the next few centuries.  If you think that we are on the brink of an energy crisis, I'd only ask you to remember what I said earlier about the track records of people predicting crisises of that sort.

No. But this just shows that suppy and demand have nothing to do with it. We only have a limited amount of fossil fuel. We should use it in the most rational way possible. Not in the way dictated by the free market.

What is the 'rational' way of using fossil fuel?  Should we use it in such quantities as to make it last 100 years?  Why not 200?  300?  1000? 10,000?  Don't you think that this will be complicated by the fact that we don't even know what the total amount of fossil fuel on earth is?  People have claimed that we were on the brink of running out of oil since the late 1800's.

You mean that people will just not be able to afford it. If they really conserved it the price would have stayed the same. When it gets too expensive they are too late.

What does it mean for the economy when the prices of energy triple? Would we be richer or poorer? Or are you denying this will happen? If so then you contradict yourself because you first acknowledge that eventhough the energy price got higher people didn't start to conserve it.

Sorry that bolded statement is just wrong.  People don't conserve it in such quantities as to keep price the same.  Draw a supply and demand curve.  At the intersection you'll have the current level of consumption and price.  Move the supply curve left.  The price rises and the amount used falls all other things equal.

Then how do you know it will be solved. Granted, if we get a new source of energy then we may or may not know about it. Actually, people knew long before 1800 that oil could be burned for energy. But at this point in time we do know that we either collect energy from the sun, directly or indirectly. Or that we turn matter into energy. We can calculate the amount of energy the sun puts into the earth and we do also know fusion will not be available before 2050.

People didn't burn oil for energy until the 1850's when oil wells were first created.  Until then oil was used for lighting and was supplied by whales. 

How do you know when Nuclear Fusion will be available?  A crystal ball?  And if it's as early as 2050, we'd be very well off.  We have more than enough fossil fuel and fissionable material to last until then.

That depends on how many sources of sustainable energy you have. At this point in time, in holland, we shouldn't depend on more that 400 KWh a year per person. At least, we can't expect to use more than that in the future. This number should be significantly increased before 2050. Now people in the EU are actually trying to get to do this.
Of course unsustainable energy can be used as well. But on the long term we cannot last on that. You think it will be solved automatically. I think we should think about it now. Furtermore since we already need to decrease CO2 to prevent destroying the ecosystems.

In thousands and thousands of years, when we've stripped the earth of all fossil fuels and nuclear material, we may be forced to use renewable energy.  That's hardly a reason to drastically reduce our use of non-renewable energy now.

[musik_man]

If you think people getting rid of your second car and not driving around for fun is impoverty then fine. But at this point in time people are still dying because of their poverty. Really, I don't see any problem with impoverishing those that use too much energy.
No, you aren't arguing about quality of life. You limit yourself to economics, which are totally irrelevant.

You can't selectively impoverish the Western world.  The world's economy is linked, and if you shoot the West in the foot, you shoot the Third World in the foot.

Again, stupid rant about your own political views. I don't even want a government. You want one. You are the daddy knows best guy. But you don't even realise this.

I never said the government should make restrictions. I said that there is a problem with climate change that is dangerous for the human species. And that there is an energy problem that will make us all poor when we run out of 'free energy'. Every physicist knows there is no 'free energy'. But 'free energy' is a consumers reality today.

In the political system I would propose corporations do not exist. This does not mean people have limited rights. It means that corporations don't have more rights granted to them by special laws giving them more rights than people. Also, all organisations will be democracies instead of tyrranies. This means that the interest of the people is actually considered instead of the interests of the corporations and the stock market.

Please explain your political system.  It seems to be one that you've made up on your own, so obviously I can't know much about it, and therefore can't really respond to it.

BTW please don't break down my replies into individual sentences and respond to the them as such.  The smallest unit I write in is the paragraph.  You break them up and then act confused about exactly what I meant.  Perhaps you'd have a better idea, if you evaluated them in context.

Haha, I had to break this into two posts because of its size 

[ahinton]

Is anyone else allowed to join in at this point, or has this thread already turned into a kind of Grand Duo Concertant?

(That's not, however, to say that, in so being, it is short on important and interesting points...)

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Is anyone else allowed to join in at this point, or has this thread already turned into a kind of Grand Duo Concertant?

(That's not, however, to say that, in so being, it is short on important and interesting points...)

Best,

Alistair

 

[prometheus]

We don't know that any change is for the worst.

We do. Any change wil require adaptation, which will cost money and thus damage the economy.

The only evidence of that that you've given is a reference to possible animal extinctions.

Humans are also animals. If you admit animals could die out then you acknowledge humans can die out.

The sad thing is that you've gone as far as to proclaim that climate change poses an existential threat to humanity without any credible evidence.  Please, explain why it is impossible that climate change might not benefit humanity?

How can it be benefitial?

We already know humans will die out because of climate change because it kills almost all species. But now we have gone as far as causing or strenghtening one.

Why is the exact temperature we have today the optimal one?

It isn't. There is just a limited range. When the temperature gets outside that range the ecosystem will collapse. This means that all species will have a problem surviving.

You are completely misinterpreting me here.  I claim that the markets inherent structure allows it to produce solutions to problems without any sort of grand plan.  It's decentralized information. 

But you admit that free market isn't solving either climate change or the energy problem right now.

but it will contribute far more to solving these problems than any other system in virtually all cases. 

Why is that? I thought that capitalism was favored because it substains itself after the proper laws have been put in place and are enforced.

So we should stop using any non-renewable sources of energy because they will eventually run out?

We should increase sources of renewable energy.

The scale of time to run out of all fossil fuels and nuclear material is incredibly vast.

We will never run out of fossil fuel because in about 50 to 200 years it will be too expensive.

The idea that we should be planning for a time that is thousands of years in the future is utterly ridiculous.

Not if you realise the energy we are using now has been gathering over millions of years. It is very strange to use a energy reserve that fast.

For all we know, we'll be mining Mars and the asteroid belt by that time.

There is no oil there, of course. Futermore, one needs energy to put something in orbit.

Newtonian physics doesn't actually exist.  Does this mean that I would be stupid to use it?  As far as how they offer a solution, I've explained that mulitple times.

Uuh, we are talking about two different things here. If capitalism was a model of reality then it was the wrong model because you know as well as me that free markets are very rare and that all big players on the international markets would have gone bankrupt at one time if it wasn't for state support.

The free market has done an astounding job of advancing the interests of the people.

But the russians got the first man into space. This is accomplished by humans, not by a system.

It's the force that pushed the Western world into the state of incredible wealth that it has today.  No other system has created results anywhere near this.

Do you really think the west has wealth because of kapitalism? The west was already dominating the world before the word capitalism was ever used. We own our wealth as the world as a whole to fossil fuel. Without it we have no energy at all. And the west became richer then the rest of the world because of their climate. And once they got on top they got even richer using imperialism.

You misunderstand how supply and demand.  Let me explain.  Supply dictates how much cost goes into creating any given level of a product.
Demand is how much of the product will be consumed at any price level.  Working together they balance the costs of creating something and how much people want it; thereby, serving the interests of society.

Supply and demand serves society? It is just the process that determines the cost of something in a particular market.

My apologies, but this analogy makes no sense on any level.

The point is and remains that the moment the ecology collapses and increasing CO2 levels is still economically feasable it will continue.

And you accuse me of not understanding the market...  Their isn't a certain level of energy needed by society.  Society balances out the costs and the demand for energy and sets a certain level of consumption.  The only goods whose prices could rise infinitely without a drop in consumption are food and water.

No there isn't. But the point of all this was the rest of the world getting as wealthy as the west. So the level of energy is the western energy. Of course the price doesn't rise infinitely. But it would if demand stayed the same. Therefore demand lowers. And this means that the level of wealth lowers as well.

Haha, when global warming has turned the world into a post-apocalyptic nightmare...  Please give us the evidence that climate change will halt farming instead of opening large areas that were formerly too cold for farming.

There will be no water. There will be no fertile land. Crops will die out. And then people will have to move. to other areas, yes. We are talking about dynamic systems. If all farmers of the world need to move to Russia and Canada then what does that mean for the world economy?

Please, tell me when the market has crashed because of a silly rumor.

Before the invasion of Iraq started. It has happened with individual stocks as well.

If it is cheaper to pay for the energy loss than to build a more efficient TV, the company won't care.  And that's the right decision.  There is no real reason to conserve energy other than your fears that it will suddenly run out.

But energy will run out. Your system, and you as well, argue for wasting energy and resources. I oppose that. So we agree. You just have a different moral judgement. You don't care. I do. Why didn't you admit this before, instead of trying to get me strangled in a senseless debate about politcs?

What is the economy if it is not the interactions of society in producing and consuming goods?

It is merely the interactions of goods.

Capitalism has shot life expectancy up by decades.  I'd gladly take a few deaths from pollution in exchange for modern medicine.

It's not one and the other was well. One can choose not to pollute while researching medicine. But apperently you think capitalism can't. I think that researching new medicine doesn't meant we have to kill people through pollution.

People aren't completely rational, but it is the best assumption to make in describing their economic interactions.

You attacked my for not using real science while it was actually published in Nature. And then you didn't even admit you didn't know my source. You didn't even ask for it. And now you defend things that would be strongly disallowed in science. Not many laws and principles of economy would be able to stand up to science. But this study about extinction did.

And price is indicative of how something is produced.  Society could never function if everyone was forced to know the intimate details of how every product they use was created.  Price tells us what matters, how much money was needed to produce it.  Now as far as pollution is concerned, that is called 'tragedy of the commons.'  The simple solution, is to tax pollution so that consumers have to pay for the costs of pollution.

I don't seen any solution here. As for taxing for pollution; isn't that something you don't want to government to do? Shouldn't people take responsiblity for themselves?

Society wouldn't function? You mean our society ie capitalism. Yes, if people knew how their stuff was produced they would stop buying everything.

What animal torture has to do with this, I don't know.

Animal factories.

Anyone who says they could guarantee that Asia will have Western living standards is lying.  All we can do is find the system most likely to make societies wealthy, and a brief glance at history ought to show that capitalism is the best choice. 

But does it also promote equal wealth? Because if it doesn't the system causes war.

And please, you've only made vague references to some future energy problem.  I don't think there will be one in the next few centuries.

Just look at the predictions of the oil price. Like I said before, most ministers of energy in Europe do think there is a problem.

If you think that we are on the brink of an energy crisis, I'd only ask you to remember what I said earlier about the track records of people predicting crisises of that sort.

It is not that much about when it will happen. It is about that it will happen. Every civilisation will cease to exist at some point in time. Look at history.

What is the 'rational' way of using fossil fuel?  Should we use it in such quantities as to make it last 100 years?  Why not 200?  300?  1000? 10,000?  Don't you think that this will be complicated by the fact that we don't even know what the total amount of fossil fuel on earth is?  People have claimed that we were on the brink of running out of oil since the late 1800's.

It is not that much about fossil fuel. It is that fossil fuel is a 'present' of the millions of years it was stored up. We just can't count it as our actual energy production. So if you look at production and usage then there is a big gap that needs to be covered.

We must reach substainable energy before we run out of cheap energy. Ask anyone who is knowledgable about the subject and they will admit that at the moment it is neither technological nur financial feasable to produce all our energy through substainable sources.

Sorry that bolded statement is just wrong.  People don't conserve it in such quantities as to keep price the same. Draw a supply and demand curve.  At the intersection you'll have the current level of consumption and price.  Move the supply curve left.  The price rises and the amount used falls all other things equal.

You are right. And that is the problem. The free market doesn't solve the problem. It describes, predicts and explains the price. People aren't conserving energy. Many governments tax car fuel but people continue to drive everywhere. They all whine about how expensive it is but no one stops driving their car. The free market doesn't force people to use their resources in a constructive way. And you already admitted this before. You claim that you just hope that a solution is found at that time.

People didn't burn oil for energy until the 1850's when oil wells were first created.  Until then oil was used for lighting and was supplied by whales.

Pardon me? The ancient persians used oil. The chinese drilled for oil 4th AD and who knows how much earier. In the 8th century Badghad had roads paved with tar. The list goes on. People have been using oil since it has been found. There is even an ironic mentioning of it in one of the records about the crusade which hints at the cause of the 'modern crusades'. 

How do you know when Nuclear Fusion will be available?  A crystal ball?

Thats what the people researching it claim; not before 2050.

And if it's as early as 2050, we'd be very well off.  We have more than enough fossil fuel and fissionable material to last until then.

It will take a lot of time before our whole world energy demand can run on fusion. So it will be far too late to soften the impact of the lack of cheap oil. Fission produces radioactive material so it also isn't a possibility. Of course you will argue against this based on self-interest. Furtermore, there is only fission material for 40 to 60 years.

I can try to predict what will happen. We will be using fission on a grand scale before 2050, creation a lot of waste and creating tremendous damage to the earth on the very long scale. Then we may make it to fusion in time.

In thousands and thousands of years, when we've stripped the earth of all fossil fuels and nuclear material, we may be forced to use renewable energy.  That's hardly a reason to drastically reduce our use of non-renewable energy now.

That's when you find it acceptable to strip the earth of all its resources. I think that is very wrong.

[thalbergmad]

 

[kony]

I'm surprised to find that people understand "capitalism" as the social structure or economic structure of the west. that's not true. what you have in the US and Europe (mostly) is a mixed economy. By the way, China and India are both mixed economies too. This argument about supply and demand, capitalism, etc is rubbish and I urge you to stop.

That's like those idiots who think democracy is the opposite of communism and that democracy is better than communism.. lol.

Oh, one last thing, I read something about how capitalism is the source of European wealth. Also, that Europe was the most advanced in pre-Capitalist era (which began 1600s). This is rubbish. The middle east and Asia were far more advanced than Europe starting from about 1000BC, continuing to the 1800s.

It is only because the Europeans were eagerly fighting each other for centuries in the last millenium that they forced each other to develop more efficient methods of killing (guns, cannons, etc.) that they were able to go colonise Africa, Asia, Americas, etc. And this started 1500 ish?

Hmm I wish China would get a move on with that booming economy. Apparently it will still be a bit less than 3 decades till it overtakes the US. And with India, Japan and South Korea, looks like after 180 years of European ruling, it's back to Asia.

Now that's an interesting thought.

[musik_man]

Kony, let's take socialism to mean state control of industry.  In the US, the government pays for the military, roads, education.  In Europe you could add health care.  The rest of spending is only transfer payments(like Social Security.)  I don't see how this is mixed.  Only a few items are under direct government control.

As far as supply and demand go, unless the US government institutes price controls(as it did in the 1970's), they still apply.

I can't wait until China's economy surpasses America's.  People made the same claims about the Soviet Union in the '70's, Japan in the '80's and the EU in the '90's.  Unfortunately, until they free their economies, this will never happen.

[pianolearner]

The rise of global terrorism, escalating tensions between Israel and Lebanon, nuclear brinksmanship from Korea, militia clashes in Somalia and George Bush's war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What is going on? Are we at the brink of a third global conflict?

Add to that climate change, AIDS and the threat of a deadly new influenza pandemic.

We've also got genetic engineering, global surveillance, reproductive cloning on the horizon and news that a man can open his email with a computer chip implanted in his head.

Hello the new millenium! (And we were worried about Y2K)

You forgot two other very serious threats

1) Mass extinction by Asteroid or Comet impact.

2) Overpopulation. But we are working towards an effective solution 
https://www.overpopulation.org/whyPopMatters.html

[yooniefied]

Add to that climate change, AIDS and the threat of a deadly new influenza pandemic.

I just read an article the other day that the AIDS population has dropped by over 40% in the last 10 years and that it will continue to decrease. That is incredible, especially after the pandemic we saw in the 1980's.

People are more vocal about it now and if they seek medical care, the treatment is really progressive.

I'd be more worried about Ozone than AIDS...

[lisztisforkids]

I just read an article the other day that the AIDS population has dropped by over 40% in the last 10 years and that it will continue to decrease. That is incredible, especially after the pandemic we saw in the 1980's.

People are more vocal about it now and if they seek medical care, the treatment is really progressive.

I'd be more worried about Ozone than AIDS...

  Thats cuz so many people have died from the disease.. And not taking into account the huge rise in India and China. No, AIDS aint going away anytime soon.