=
×

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
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

response part 2 (other ting)
Dec 13, 2001, 16:14
>
> 3. I believe we are seemingly bound/hypnotised to
> be committed to a 'infinite growth' policy on
> earth, this is very much Western thinking, so it's
> no surprise that we want our cake and eat it.
> Thing is, with overpopulation, longer lifespans,
> massive-scale energy projects, and all the power
> in the hands of the few, it's a perfect recipe for
> disatster. I believe it's crucial to look at
> providing long-lasting small-scale renewable
> energy options, and to SERIOUSLY begin some
> positive thought about where, as a race, we are
> heading, rather than being led by the nose up a
> one way alley that narrows at the end. What do
> you think?
>
actually, i don't think we're being "led" at all. i get the feeling that our civilisation is sleep-walking towards a cliff. if there are a bunch of rich guys puffing expensive cigars in darkened rooms who are leading, or pushing us anywhere, then they're not doing a great job of self-preservation. if market capitalism collapses due to an energy shortage, then bank-balances and stock portfolios ain't gonna save anyone. that's a tad simplistic, i know, and the super rich will certainly be the last to feel the bite of a major crash; but those hypothetical people - if they really have so much power - could be doing a lot more to preserve their way of life than is being done now.

so i really do think it's just collective carelessness and ignorance, rather than wilful malice, that will scupper us. not to say that there's not plenty of powerful people who have a lot to answer for... but i doubt any malicious conspiracy exists.

i don't think that centralised energy projects are _by definition_ a bad thing. fusion - for example - could best be done by building large generation facilities along the coast (in fairly remote locations - see my previous post regarding fusion safety, etc.) and using the electricity to power and heat our homes, and run industry. with such unlimited electricity supply, hydrogen would then become a possibility for fueling transport (forget cars though; buses would be the order of the day - along with electrified trains and trams).

the other applications for oil and gas would still have to be dealt with of course (agricultural products, plastics, etc etc) and that might still be very problematic.

that's all pie-in-the-sky without those fusion generators though; but i'm keeping my eyes peeled for them.

>
> Personally I have nothing against re-employing
> the ENTIRE PR and advertising industry in
> hamster wheels, generating energy for a year-long
> global festival/summit where all countries can
> discuss where we want to be going. Drinks
> provided free by Bush, who also serves and has no
> say in the matter. &c...
>
ah, what a glorious vision of the future. :)

sadly there are a few of flaws which of you're no doubt aware... those people in the hamster wheels are using muscle energy to produce electrical energy. that muscle energy comes from chemical energy supplied by food... and food production and distribution is kind of a big problem in the post-petroleum paradigm...

still, a nice thought!

>
> PS I'm a secret luddite, but if technology can
> outweigh it's costs with benefits (rarely seen)
> I'm all for it.
>
i'm not. i'm a huge fan of technological development. i don't think we evolved these comparitively massive brains and the power for rational / scientific thought for no good reason. that we've generally misused our intellectual powers and squandered our opportunities isn't technology's fault. it's ours. and it's very sad.

as for question 2...

the answer shall be revealed to us all, late december 2012.
In reply to:
Re: Z Accelerator (morfe)		 Replies:
Re: response part 2 (other ting) (FourWinds)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index