Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
It's really a myth that space travel costs a huge amount in terms of energy or money. NASA budget: $16 billion, DOD: $419 billion. In fact we squander the Earth's resources creating weapons.
The cost of energy per launch is actually a minor component. Space travel is expensive because of the complexity, and the fact you have to get from ground to orbit in one go (or vice versa), and the whole system has to be designed for that. If there is a problem during flight, there is virtually no opportunity of making a controlled landing.
Ironically, it's because of the military incentive to create weapons (e.g. V2 and ICBM) that enabled space programs at all. So the question is really, would we ever prioritise space travel instead of wasting resources on weapons?
Unfortunately, probably not, which IMO is why significant space travel remains unlikely. Same conclusion, I guess, but different reasons.
Of course putting a person into orbit costs far less than putting a person on a train and sending them to Newark. We all know that. Heck, we should all put rocket motors on all our vehicles!!
Heck, I could probably get all the way to Cleveland with that kind of pocket change.
Gosh. I suspect the space shuttle bus could carry, tops, one hundred people. My guess is if we converted all the available energy on the planet into rocket fuel, we might get a million people into orbit. And, of course, that would not cost us anything. Heck, just think how many bombs we would have built if not for this grand plan of space travel.
Whooops! I forgot. We probably should build some sort of destination up there in the great unprotected space desert. That means sending stuff into space. Lots of stuff. HUGE quantities of stuff. That means fewer passengers. LOTS fewer passengers.
But on the positive side, at least we have a really great history of not fouling our nest. Because, if we were nest-foulers, we would be screwed in space where we would have to recycle EVERYTHING. We would really have to take care of our newly-settled space environment, since we would not have this already exquisite machine known as earth to clean up after us. But we do that already, right? We clean up after ourselves, right?
I have a really great plan. Let's send the engineers into space. Why? They really like this kinda stuff -- Star Trek and Star Gate and all the masturbatory tech fantasy. And, because they have such confidence in their ability to create tech without fouling the earth nest, they should be just fine out there where they get to start with a blank slate. Hey!! Guess what, Melvin? You're GOD!!! And, I'm sure they will create a great civilization out there in spaceland. No more philosophers to question their basic premises, no artists to document their folly, or woolly-headed humanities professors to stumble over on their way to techno ejaculation. And, once the engineers are out of the way, maybe we can rummage through the environment and make sure that all their assurances that what they do is harmless was actually true.
I can see it now. Late at night, we earthlings will look up into the sky and see a speeding twinkle of light arcing across the heavens and we will tell our children all about the curious race of technofixers, a race of gods, who came to the planet many, many centuries ago and boasted they could engineer better than the gods who made this planet. They worked and worked and worked until their hands were filthy and their pocket protectors blue with ink, and they destroyed the planet and announced, "It is good." Then they got back into their rocket ships and returned to heaven, leaving us poor mortals to clean up their mess.
Please never give up, I'm sustained by these periodic "dark sarcasms."
Another version, might be true
I wouldn't normally respond, but your guess is so wildly wrong, it's probably the wrongest guess I've ever seen, anywhere. I realise your rant need have no basis in plain facts, but there is a limit. As TOD is concerned with energy, and values facts over lunatic raving, I thought I would indulge you.
As mere superlatives are inadequate to describe how wrong you are, I will use numbers.
It would take about 0.001% of annual energy use to launch 1 million people into space. Or, we could launch about 95 billion people per year into space - more than 10 times the whole population.
This, perhaps, says a lot more about how much energy we use on Earth than anything else.
I've absolutely no idea where you got this hare brained idea about sending 1 million people into space anyway? We are talking about colonising other planets, you only need a few hundred for that. People have a tendency to multiply, y'know?
It is always amusingly ironic when people use the internet to complain about engineers. I should really contact the High Priest of Engineers and have your Technology Permit revoked. ;)
I was merely stating that I wish Hawkins would devote more of his HUGE brain to working on the problems and issues we are having here on our beloved planet than just give up on it and say, "Let's hitch a ride to another one and start over".
And, in less something is changed with our collective thought processes, we will still just be exporting the same mentality that ruined the first planet we inhabited.
You have misinterpreted what Hawking said. Eventually all life on Earth will be extinguished, certainly in about 4.6 billion years time when the Sun becomes a red giant, but quite possibly before that. Therefore in order to survive as a species, at least a few humans would have to travel to other solar systems. That is just simple logic.
More practically, there are some huge problems facing civilisation that will definitely occur within the next 50,000 years. It is quite likely we will be snuffed out well before we have been able to ruin the Earth irrevocably. So let's not get too worked up about travelling to Barnard's Star just yet, ok?
As for Hawking's HUGE brain, he can do with it whatever he damn well pleases, as far as I am concerned.
50,000 years?
What about 50?
Singularitarian, Eh?
The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years.
We have already used up a few millions years, don't worry about 4.6 billion years!
I guess the rest of us starve while all these privileged folks get shot into space.
Not nearly damned fast enough, I'm afraid.
Of course I did, I'm an engineer, aren't I? I don't even make a guess without having done a rough calculation.
I still don't understand why you want to launch all these people into space. What is the point?
It's kind of sad though – if it weren't for us engineers and there were only journalists and English instructors, none of this would have happened. We'd all be sitting around in animal skins (well, maybe not, as there would be no tools to make them) reading poetry and making beautiful drawings on the cave walls. Because as we all know, journalists and English instructors would never use fossil fuels, and could never have contributed in any way to the problems the world faces now. No, it's the engineers – especially the ones who read science fiction when they were young.
Seriously, what I see in all of your comments is someone who thinks they have no blame in all this mess – no sir, its THEIR FAULT! My kind are different, and we're INOCENT! Complete stereotyping of a large part of the population, as if somehow engineers are actually a different kind of human from everyone else. What crap. I'm an Engineer. I read. I can write. I appreciate art and music. I work with my hands. I plant trees in my woods. I love animals. I love my kids. I don't fantasize about technological solutions to the problems we face, although I would imagine that technology will play a part.
And you sir, are the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancements of the human race. You use this technology every day, and are more than happy to have it, in spite of your pathetic protestations.
The word is "hypocrite".
In other words, you're telling me I should shut up because I have to live in your world. You see, I must use fossil fuel in order to survive, not because I am making a specific choice, but because I was raised with this. I do not have those skills necessary to survive as a hunter gatherer. But, more importantly, engineer man, incapable of foreseeing the results of his monkeying around, managed to kill off the natural world to such an extent that I could not live off the natural environment even if I had the skills. Of course, you choose to believe that "engineering" means any built environment. That is rather a poor way to spread the blame. I guess anytime I use a bow drill to make fire, I get to claim membership in the IEEE.
You see, the problem is you cannot possibly believe that what you do you may be evil, and you must harrumph and point and bellow. You must. My world view is so different from yours it may as well be from an alternate universe. The paradigm I'm advocating is so radical that you cannot possibly comprehend it. To use your reference frame, it would be like you showing up on a completely primitive island in a spaceship, and the natives, to your utter bafflement, could not understand your self-anointed technical and moral superiority. Of course they don't see you as you see yourself. And you, reading my writings cannot possibly see what I am saying.
You are not an inherently bad person. That would be silly. The problem is you are incapable of seeing how our technological road has led to this truly screwed up planet where people actually feel that this planet-wrecking technology is good and that we, the hapless denizens of your built world should thank you for doing such a good job of wrecking things because we got STUFF. Fat lot of good that will do when millions die due to the shortsighted philosophy of man the engineer. That is the true irony. You cannot see the destructive effects of your efforts. You truly look about you in bewilderment when my little mosquito stings of insight catch those sensitive spots that still bespeak the natural world. You ask, "Why, oh why, does that bad man gripe about all the cool stuff? Why can't he see all our good things? Why can't he bow down to us?"
I can't because I see what you won't or can't see. Now I am faced with the dilemma of somehow conversing with you, a member of Flatland. You only see a tiny cross-section of my thoughts and may never be able to grasp these fundamental truths I offer.
I can't bow down to the engineer worldview because I have spent so much time trying to understand it, and once I did, I realized it was a lot like making that choice faced by Neo -- take the red pill or the blue pill. Once you know, you can't go back.
So, since I cannot go live in a natural world that remains complete enough to quit your world, I must be, as you say, a hypocrite. Here I am using this swell STUFF to write this message to you, knowing full well that you, down there in Flatland, will never be able to comprehend this message.
I would note also that Native Americans were also the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Of course, most of them are dead. I must note that the people who used to live around Chernobyl were also the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Then there are the slaves we shipped around, and yes, they were also the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Don't forget the millions who died in both World Wars. They were the beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of years of technological advancement. Who else? Cambodians? The killing fields? The Armenians?
The list goes on. But the truth is we are bloodthirsty lot, and though technology made this wholesale slaughter possible, it is only an extension of our Neolithic origins. Should all post oil technology somehow disappear, the killing would go on.
No. The main beef I have is with the willful ignorance of those who cannot acknowledge the obvious end result of our growth at any cost society. That is what makes me sad. Those who mistake attacks on their profession as personal attacks, who cannot understand the underlying stakes, or understand the use of metaphor will never be able to rise to the level of hypocrite. They are neither informed enough or intelligent enough to rise to that level. No. They are milling around amongst their little clique, harrumphing about their wounded pride while the earth turns to complete crap.
Congratulations.
In fact, I would probably agree with many of your ideas - while I have not used a bow drill yet, I'm very into hand tools and moving towards simple, low energy ways of doing things - but you cannot seem to present them without striking out at others. Which only makes it obvious what you're really all about.
So in short, if you want to make a difference, drop the chip off your shoulder. And recognize that maybe, just maybe, there are other people out here who "get it" just as much as you do.
The other irony I have consistently noted is that he uses a computer and the Internet to post these diatribes. You what's really funny, though? It is unlikely that he would have ever been born if he had his way about technology. The world wouldn't support nearly as many people. I guess then he wouldn't have much to complain about. :-)