(February 2, 2017 at 11:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(February 1, 2017 at 10:18 pm)Industrial Lad Wrote: How do you not see that if you are right and global warming is due to increased carbon emissions the only way to stop this is to reduce the population? Or learn a cheaper way to 'scrub' carbon from oxygen that will work on a planetary scale?
I am not recommending a long-term reliance on fossil fuels. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions then we need to develop and start to use technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. And since solar, wind, geothermal and the like are not realistic options, that leaves only one remaining option within reach: nuclear power. It would be pretty cool if fusion energy became available but that's not viable...yet.
I'm old enough to remember when passive-solar, earth-homes, and super-insulation were seen as necessary routes for reducing energy consumption. Seems silly today. Other indirect technological advances that are already making bigger difference than those kinds of hippy-dippy solutions. Examples include "lights-out" factories, LED lighting, and digital commuting. It remains to be seen but I think additive manufacturing will greatly reduce the impact of fulfillment and shipping. My point is that most environmental groups are anti-technology and actually impede the progress that would produce the very goals they seek. Or they embrace technologies, like hybrid cars, that are actually worse for the environment just so they can virtue signal how much they care.
I think anyone who cares about human rights should find population control scary. The measures required to effectively implement those programs sound a lot like forced sterilization, eugenics, and "soylent green". Tax incentives and/or penalties to promote lower birth rates don't have a particularly good history either. They tend to distort the social structures in very negative ways. Top-down coercive government interference will never be as effective as improving the standards of living of third-world countries. The declining birth rates in Europe, North America, and Japan are sufficient proof. And maybe just maybe someday, space colonization will be an option. The meek shall inherent the Earth; the rest of us will go to the stars.
So I think it is ironic that I'm being called backwards thinking just for being Christian when in fact I seem to be the biggest advocate for overall technological progress and improving standards of living in the third-world. Right now we are on track to have a labor-less society (for good or ill). If so then the real challenge is figuring out how to share that blessing, if it is one, with the less fortunate.
(February 2, 2017 at 11:17 am)Faith No More Wrote: ...tell me how you plan to make nuclear reactors invulnerable to natural disaster....A major reason that battery technology has been slow to evolve to the point of usefulness is because big businesses like the oil companies have done everything thing in their power to stifle research and development.
FNM, I know you have the best intentions. The solutions you seek will not come from saying no, no, no, and then blaming big corporations. People need to get out into various industries, including the energy sector, and push to make a positive impact within the system. You say nuclear isn't safe. Fine. Let's work to make it safe. That's what humans do. They solve problems and when the solutions create new problems we solve those too. Landfills are filling up? Make packaging materials biodegradable and then convince companies that they will save money by not over-packaging. Urban heat islands and overloaded municipal sewers? Make green roofs and recyclable thermo-plastics more attractive options than traditional modified-bitumen.
I have worked on LEED certification projects and preformed life-cycle analysis for various building materials. I've converted entire buildings from T-12 to T-8 fluorescent. Now am managing the transition of all my companies facilities to LED lighting. My guess is that facilities managers, motivated to save their organizations money, have done more to save the planet than all the environmental lobbyists put together. Hopefully, you are doing something in your organization too. if not, get out there. Make something happen. Don't tell other people what they shouldn't do. They probably already know and are working on it from within. Times are tough. Money is tight. Everyone wants to spend less and a really really good way to do that is to get the most out of the resources you already use.
I literally did not say what I'm quoted a saying. I think Drich has said it at least 3 times now.
