<DrumBeat: September 23, 2006 The Oil Drum Close the CAFE Loophole>
<DrumBeat: September 23, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 25, 2006>

232 comments on DrumBeat: September 24, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

odograph on September 24, 2006 - 8:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
With that definition I am much closer to agreement.  With current tech, we'd need a great deal of societal transformation (and moderation of birthrate) to "prosper" beyond the age of fossil fuels.

There are still some possible replacements though.  They aren't where I'd count them as done deals, but neither are they to where I can write them off, and lock into a future without them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 24, 2006 - 10:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There are still some possible replacements though. They aren't where I'd count them as done deals, but neither are they to where I can write them off, and lock into a future without them.

Versus :

I went to the beach today with my nephew, and then we went for a hike through the park and over the river, finally playing frisbee on a green lawn.

I'd like that to be possible 10 generations from now.

Doesn't matter if you are contradicting yourself in the very same responses thread as long as you can defend "business as usual until technology saves us".
Hey, jerk!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 25, 2006 - 8:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's not a contradiction, and it's the difference between "will" and "might" help us.

The only person who can say new breakthroughs over the next century will "not" help us is the one who knows them all.

Do you?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 26, 2006 - 1:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
it's the difference between "will" and "might"

WELL SAID!

The only person who can say new breakthroughs over the next century WILL help us is the one who knows them all.

Do you?

Plus, these "breakthroughs" better show up in no more than one or two decades, NOT "the next century".
What is the Plan B in case no "technological miracle" happens?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 26, 2006 - 4:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
who can say [whether] new breakthroughs over the next century WILL help us

Some readers here at TOD may not appreciate that there is a world of difference between coming up with a "technological breakthrough" and getting that breakthrough recognized, implemented, and implemented to sufficient scale to make a difference.

It's sort of the proverbial line about a tree falling in the woods and no one being there to truly hear it fall. In that case, does it really make a "noise"?

Assuming some scientist does come up with a breakthrough. There are so many scientists vying for attention that the one breakthrough may get drowned out in the noise.

And even if some people do take notice, do they have sufficient capital resources to make it happen and then to make it happen to scale? None of that is a given.

So we better have some Plans B, C and D. Even the success of a Plan B is not a given. Remember Murphy's Law. Things can go wrong. All of them at once!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 26, 2006 - 10:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What's your point?
Trying to "outdoom" me?

There are so many scientists vying for attention that the one breakthrough may get drowned out in the noise.

A very serious risk which is not acknowledged by many...
A lack of imagination about the potential uses of real breakthroughs whereas "Star Trek science" has a huge following.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 26, 2006 - 9:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You aren't remembering my position very well.  I support powerdown now.  I don't count "chickens before they're hatched."

Are you pretending something else?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kevembuangga on September 26, 2006 - 10:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You aren't remembering my position very well.

Yes I do : "I don't think it is moral to deny anyone growth."

I support powerdown now.

Powerdown WITH growth, anything goes to stick with "business as usual".
Idiocy or mendacity?
It's not likely idiocy...

I don't count "chickens before they're hatched."

Yeah! Not counting, only saying there might be plenty of chickens.

Are you pretending something else?

I am "pretending" that you are a TPTB sponsored bastard.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 26, 2006 - 11:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's a good memory, and if we look into it a bit, there is an explanation.

I don't deny anyone growth, but I argue for better forms of growth.

I argue for better paths to happiness:

http://odograph.com/?s=happiness

If you look, you will also find the TOD posts where I suggested that GDP is not the best measure of happiness, or growth.

Of course, if you forget all that, you can pretend something else.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on September 27, 2006 - 6:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I have no problem with the delinkage between energy supply and growth, economic or otherwise.

As a reduction in our energy supplies comes closer, energy prices will go up. This will encourage people to do more with less. I expect that the world may produce less steel, less large cars, less manufactered foods, and transport less low value junk around the world.

But that doesn't have to lead to an economic slowdown.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 27, 2006 - 8:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The happiness research seems to agree broadly that a nation needs a certain degree of wealth to keep its people alive, healthy, and happy.  The crux of the argument, when happiness research becomes politics, is about how wealth contributes to happines, and if we should be concerned with diminishing returns.

If everyone is fed and cared for, drilling oil on the beaches, or chopping down the last forests, might have a detrimental effect on happiness (esp. that of future generations), while still boosting GDP.

I break with the CATO, libertarain, end of this, when they argue for ever-higher GDPs as a path to ever-higher happiness.

I don't know, maybe some are angry with me here because I don't want to set myself up as emperor and "deny" anyone what I think is a bad choice (chasing diminishing returns on a hedonic treadmill).  They're angry because I just suggest something else to think about.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 26, 2006 - 11:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In particular:

http://odograph.com/?p=373

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

232 comments on DrumBeat: September 24, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version