|
U-Know! Forum » What is better than Capitalism? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 21:29
|
||
|
How come we have twice the proven reserves of oil today that we had 30 years ago? In spite of the fact a lot of the reserves from 30 years ago have been used up? Look at the chart here: http://www.apme.org/media/public_documents/20010918_091529/PEI1B.pdf And that's just oil -- natural gas "proven reserves" are growing even faster. Why? Because we're better at finding the stuff than we used to be. Technology again. And refining is more efficient than it used to be -- that will also continue to improve. Have you seen any of those hybrid cars on the road yet? They get twice the fuel efficiency of old-fashion IC engines, and produce less polution. That's only the beginning . . . Find more . . . produce it more efficiently (less waste) . . . use less . . . eventually switch to alternative energy systems (it all comes from the sun one way or another anyhow) . . . yes I think in 100 years we won't be needing "oil" anymore. People have been predicting doom & gloom & the "big crash" since the 1800's . . . still no sign of it.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 21:47
|
||
|
Association of Plastics Manufacturers? I can only be forgiven for maintaining a degree of doubt regarding their 'argument' for producing plastics from oil. What about http://www.dieoff.org/ Hybrid cars are still thousands of times less efficient than HPV's, although we cannot pedal (unless one is a world-beating gossamer-light HPV pilot) from London to Washington, neither can we drive there. We have to do everything TODAY, with the minimum effort, in order to pay for the things that we want that can do everything TODAY, with minimum effort, i order to allow us to enjoy ourselves enough for it to be an incentive to do everything TODAY, with minimum effort, in order to earn enough to... It doesn't make sense? I mentioned ages back the concept of annexing a desert in order to use photovoltaic cells to split hydrogen and transport it to fuell cells, yet I 'm prety sure that was disproved as energy inefficient. The problem is our lifestyles are (by large) energy inefficient. This warrants a whole other thread methinks.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 21:55
|
||
|
A funny joke, true. Does a good job pointing out the problems with "aquisition for aquisition's sake" but I think that is more of a cultural than economic issue. It kind of misses the point because obviously we can't all live the easy life of the Mexican fisherman in the story. Think of a city like London or New York -- 10 million people in a crowded area are all supposed to get their own boats and catch a few fish every day? Not feasible in any way. In order to support the population we have, people need to specialize. One guy builds a whole lot of boats, another guy catches a whole lot of fish, etc. Farmers out in Sussex (is that a rural area?) or Nebraska ship in grain (cuz the fish supply around London/NY is limited and you don't want to over-fish) and so forth. Of course you can say "we should all go back to nature and lead simple lives" but again I don't see how that can be accomplished without the death of millions. Think of someplace as densely populated as China -- it was only through "modernisation" of their economy that they've finally been able to feed everyone in the first place! (There was still mass starvation even under Mao.) Basically . . . you can't go back without reducing the earth's population a LOT. There is no way but forward.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:03
|
||
|
Think of a city like London or New York -- 10 million people in a crowded area are all supposed to get their own boats and catch a few fish every day? Not feasible in any way. Exactly, that's what expansionist capitalism does, it creates a machine that we have to live in.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:06
|
||
|
If oil production is going to "peak around the year 2010 and then fall off" then it won't take too long to know who'd wrong or right (historically speaking.) ;-) As far as long-term energy solutions go, the best place to collect solar power is in outer space (no atmosphere to disperse it, not conflicting with any land usage on earth.) The only problem is how to get it back to earth efficiently (I heard one theory about using "microwaves", don't know how feasible that is.) Obviously that's a far-off solution. There is also the idea of Nuclear Fusion (and before you freak out it's nothing like FISSION which is what they use in nuke plants today.) It would produce more energy and no radioactive waste. But it'd probably be real dangerous -- again space might be the best place to put fusion reactors. Sounds far-fetched but of course 50 years ago we hadn't even managed to put a satelite or a person in orbit yet . . . who knows what we'll be able to accomplish in space in the next 50 years.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:09
|
||
|
You'd rather more people would have died off from starvation and disease? Cuz that's the reason our population has grown so large in the past century or two. No way back without killing a lot of people . . .
|
|||
ron 706 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:12
|
||
|
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe? you're shitting me rite? i happen to live down river from a major plastic/chemical plant, although they have NOTHING to do with the fact that the water is unpotable, and the city has the highest incident rate of cancer in the mid-atlantic... rite... from what i have been able to surmise (from folks i figure know what they are talking about) everything thats gonna be found, has been found... http://www.dieoff.org/#oildepletion ...and yes i've seen hybryd vehicles... both of them... did you see the teaming masses exiting manhattan perhaps?... no segways... no hybryds... i certainly salute your optomistic attitude, but saddly i don't share your pov, which is fine, that's wot it's awl about... i just don't see 300 millon people suddenly realizing that we need to change our ways... and i don't see the politicians letting on nor do i see the corporate oil folks telling it like it is... thunderdome here we come... that's of course if we don't involk any of the other impending ecological disasters that we're flirting with... x
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:13
|
||
|
That joke was not a way of saying we had to go backward. It was a way of saying we do not HAVE to all be mass consumers. We cannot 'go back to nature', nature is held in contempt of our collective ego. We like to think that there were no happy, productive people before industrialisation, and the only way forward is by filling up the 'space' with more and more consumers, longer and longer lives, and unchecked 'growth'. 'Growth' means everything, from employment to increased military hardware. I actually believe that sustainable technology can eventually give us the means to enjoy a more natural environment again. I am not an advocate of the 'box' concept of life, living and working in boxes with boxlike transit systems. A full and active, harmonic life means being part of the natural world we live in, not to just supplant it with man-made goods. Don't ask me how to qualify this, it just DOES, ok! Enhancement and harmony is a real goal I believe, not violent growth and development for the sake of profit alone.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:13
|
||
|
That joke was not a way of saying we had to go backward. It was a way of saying we do not HAVE to all be mass consumers. We cannot 'go back to nature', nature is held in contempt of our collective ego. We like to think that there were no happy, productive people before industrialisation, and the only way forward is by filling up the 'space' with more and more consumers, longer and longer lives, and unchecked 'growth'. 'Growth' means everything, from employment to increased military hardware. I actually believe that sustainable technology can eventually give us the means to enjoy a more natural environment again. I am not an advocate of the 'box' concept of life, living and working in boxes with boxlike transit systems. A full and active, harmonic life means being part of the natural world we live in, not to just supplant it with man-made goods. Don't ask me how to qualify this, it just DOES, ok! Enhancement and harmony is a real goal I believe, not violent growth and development for the sake of profit alone.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 09, 2003, 22:21
|
||
That's dirty arguing, based upon assumptions. In order to keep certain rich landlords alive, I've had to watch me and my family slave for years, especially my father, in a filthy, dark, car factory. Plenty of my family have died too from industrial accidents and diseases. Of course people die, that's the order of things, we are in the ridiculous situation where we democraticaly choose HOW people die. It's all down to figures. It's all down to money. I don't want to go backwards, I want to move forwards. And I don't see how right now, that's why I started this discussion. Keep it coming!
|
| Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
