The Oil Drum

Wow. Thanks, Alan.

I guess we're saved. No need to worry about food, water, the oceans, shortages of materials, pollution, disease, and overpopulation as long as we have engineers!!

That we can do the things you advocate is quite frankly tediously obvious. I have never said we could not trip the techno-fantastic given an infinite planet. I've always pointed out the inherent physical problems with techno-fetishist's grow-at-any-cost scenario.

Why are you trying to save the technology? That's my question. It seems weird that engineers are more concerned with keeping the technology than working out truly sustainable systems. Why don't you try to work out engineering solutions that work with nature rather than against nature? Here is a test of each engineering solution: All of its components must be one hundred percent renewable. All effluvia that is poisonous, or does not occur in nature, must be used in some other process until the only effluvia created is completely pure. In effect, pure water or air. All energy used must come from the sun (not fossil sunlight), yet must not negatively affect the environment. For example: tidal energy will change many organisms' environments. Will this negatively affect the environment? All tech must be locally produced. Each micro climate must be assessed to determine optimum human population, the more tech, the less people.

I realize that many technophiles love to point out that anything created by man is "technology," and I agree. But there are qualitative and moral differences between technologies that destroy the environment and those which are part and parcel of the environment. (It is here that many "scientists" and "engineers" love to quibble over definitions.) To these people I say, go ahead, play your games. Meanwhile, the adults will be over here talking about serious things.

Clearly any man-made chemical that leads toward the destruction of an exquisitely complex life-support system is bad. Chlorofluorocarbons are a good example. Carbon in the atmosphere is another. Some people will say, as a few have, that the earth is warming due to natural factors, believing that that gives them leave to produce more CO2. But the logic here falls down. If nature is causing warming, dangerous warming, why in the world would we want to increase that warming by introducing even more carbon into the atmosphere?

The same sort of thinking prevails regarding "technology." The immature "scientists" and "engineers" who would pooh-pooh those who wish to limit technology lay claim to the same absurd argument: to wit, if any human creation is technology, then if we ban the technology we want, we have to ban ALL technology. Again, I have always admitted that my suggestions for sustainability necessarily include technology. The difference is that, in my thinking, technology must be considered within the totality of its purview. A dam built at one end of a river system affects the entire system. That affected river system will affect the entire watershed. That affected watershed will affect neighboring watersheds. And, ultimately, it will affect the entire world. Luckily, for us, the world is a large place and if we were to only build one dam, the averaging effect of this one variable introduced into a sea of variables, would seem to have little consequence. But, we are no longer a planetary population of one billion. We are 6.5-6.8 times that and rising on an exponential curve. Without the mechanical leverage of fossil fuel/sunlight, we will fall back within normal population levels. The only question is will we destroy the earth as our population declines? We have already decimated the seas. Desertification proceeds apace. Water woes are ahead.

Will we continue to work against the flow of nature and by doing so destroy it, or will we embrace our nature, embrace all nature, and in doing so enrich it and ourselves?

While the issue of technology is not a black and white issue, destroying the environment is.

Remember, no environment means no people, let alone tech.

There. I have offered solutions.

I think that my suggestions may help to prevent an engineered apocalypse. (Though I think it may be too late.)