=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Mr Grufty Jim Sir !!
Log In to post a reply
39 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Annexus Quam
926 posts

Re: Paranoid
Dec 08, 2001, 14:52
Thanks for that lengthy chain of 'enlightening' details. Interesting, the point about energy that you've touched.

A few points...

1. The oil companies, I am sure you will agree with me, already are aware of this impending disaster (?)

What's (or what'd be) their next game?

2. 'the abundance of cheap oil that has allowed our population to reach the heady heights of 6 billion'

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that overpopulation has little to do with wealth, when we consider that most overpopulated countries are poor. Or perhaps you are referring to overpopulation in rich countries during the industrial revolution, in which case I'd say the opposite has happened in the long run. Overpopulation'd be a factor which quickly recedes once the country develops.

3. '...he arrived at a top-end maximum figure of 2 billion people living at sustenance level if we make efficient use of all the energy falling from the sky. more comfortable numbers around half a billion would allow those people to live to a decent standard'

But isn't this 'nightmare scenario' already among us? Only a small percentage of the world is living at sustenance level!

Shouldn't factors like WASTE be taken into account too? Of course, I doubt that a totally non-oil-dependent economy would be sustainable for 6 billion people (supposing they all get 'rich' in the next, what, 50 years?!) living the way we live now.

There are also huge differences in the amount of energy we use among various countries, the US 'using' (or should I say, 'wasting') double the amount per capita as other developed rich nations.

Energy efficiency is the answer (?) - even with renewable sources the 6 billion+ would live at ease? Perhaps (aaah, utopia) the very same rich countries who are talking of impending disaster should start introducing measures so as to save instead of waste, lest more and more arguments in favour of nuclear energy begin to crop up again, as is happening in California right now. No-one sees the root cause of the problem - waste.

I doubt that the catastrophe would have the same effects if an energy efficient policy was introduced. Saving 50% of energy would certainly be a different scenario!

I'd appreciate your comments on this, Mr GJ. I am in need of arguments against energy cynics and corporate puppets. I'm also talking from a layman perspective.
In reply to:
Re: Paranoid (grufty jim)		 Replies:
just my thoughts, you understand (grufty jim)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index