It has seemed to be a pretty "natural direction" for humanity so far, at least, and technical progress continues to give humanity so much while costing us so little.
To me it seems no more bizarre a view that technical progress is a good direction for humanity to take as believing that education should become better over time, our life expectancy should continue to go up over time, or that, one day, it'd be kinda nice to travel to the stars. All those things need technical progress.
I can't help noticing that the natural tendency of the human species is to expand and adapt - that is what we are. I also notice that the various movements that advocate more basic living patterns have never really caught on.
So you are going to have two options:
1) Refuse to do anything about power, let it get more and more expensive until enough people die that you have a solvable problem
2) work on making it cheaper
I am sure the greens would say also:
3) everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts. Oh and all those nice rich and powerful people will also be joining in and not just taking advantage
and I will say
good luck with that (oh and if you try to achieve 3 without peoples buy in but rather through legislation you effectively are back to option 1)
it's 1 or 2 - and 1 is going to be f@#king awful so let's get working on cheap power
The challenge will be to have enough power at all.
The time of cheap oil seems to be over.
For the rest: You know that you don't know what will happen. So why do you make blanket statements like that?
For example: Some analysts claim that solar energy will solve all energy problems in ten years. Maybe some of the small fusion projects will work? Thorium? And so on.
Edit: Yeah, since Germany has panicked like a herd of cattle, the time limit is so short that there is very little to do. But the way the electricity prices will go, solar will become attractive earlier.
Germany plans to roll out the whole set of renewables (wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, ...) over the next FOURTY years to get from 16% (actually currently it may already be at 20%) near to 100%.
Thorium is providing a contribution to generating electricity in an amount worth mentioning when? In fifty years? Thirty? How many Thorium reactors will be online within the next ten years? One? Two? Three? That's nothing that would be contributing to the energy needs we have in 2020.
But I agree it's going to be a struggle and one that may go badly wrong for a while.
But the key thing here is that we have to get the knee jerk politics out of it. It doesn't matter if there is global warming or not because if we stay dependant on fossil fuels there are just going to be endless conflicts over the them, if the greens can persuade everyone in the whole world to live a life of abstinence that's cool - but we need to bet that they can't - because their failure mode is that we all die horribly.
Serious? That's a huge claim. yet, so many people do live this "quieter" life. I am striving to live that life. There is quite a growing community (at least in British Columbia) of people concerned with things like food security and climate change.
Ever since I was young, I was disgusted by the City. Yes, this is not a popular view, but I am in no way choosing to live "a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts." The city was never meant for me.
Though, I'm not really sure what movements you are referring to? Do they include those that suggest consuming less? Or are there some movements somewhere suggesting you start living by candle light?
Sorry, if this comment is off-topic from the article, but it seems wildly bold for you to claim that a way of life is against natural instincts. I strive to live a life combining the joy, satisfaction and security of producing my own food, and living with the land as well as benefiting and perhaps contributing to advancements (particularly with water and power management).
Look around at the planet. Humans are everywhere it is possible to be. Something drove us to do that. And given it is quite unlikely that there was a meeting 100,000 years a go in Africa where we as a species decided - "let's give overrunning the whole planet a go" I think that "instinct" for want of a better word is what drives that. Living in a sustainable way does not come naturally to humans - I'm betting you are well educated and have reasoned long and hard about it.
Yes there are people like you who chose to be sustainable. But unless you get everyone to do it then we are screwed. Because it's an all or nothing plan. And you may love making your own food but by the same token I am really glad someone else is doing it for me. I find it boring and a waste of my time - I want to just be able to get food when i need it without thinking about it. My interests lie elsewhere.
Likewise the global trend is too the city. Every bit of research points to massive urbanisation http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percenta...
We has a species do have the ability to overcome our animal urges but if you don't solve the power problems you are doing to need everyone to do it and the failure mode of that is massive suffering. There are various sustainable living and back to nature and even so called luddite movements and have been for quite a while but I still don't see them being a significant force.
There is nothing wrong with what you are doing at all but do you think you can convince everyone you know outside of your community to join in?
Perhaps it's better to look at "destroying our planet" (or whatever) as a byproduct? Like you said, we didn't decide this in Africa, it's just a result of our drive to advance our way of life. But, now preserving our environment and adopting more sustainable practices is the next frontier in advancing our way of life.
Also, isn't the basic animal instinct to survive? Scientists claim with the 2C threshold (I think this covers it slightly, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm) that we are at a time where without change, we may not survive (in large numbers at least, and in some years)? Maybe the instinct doesn't act on a tribal or global scale, but only personal. Like when a tiger is coming after you.
And, of course, I don't expect everyone to grow their own food. But, there are people who love farming, and if we help these young people get into it, they can provide on a smaller scale, within each community.
I suppose my point is, sure humans have the instinct to advance their way of life, but that does not necessarily go against producing ones own food, or living a quieter and simpler life.
I don't believe that sustainable ways of life will prevail before any fall. Look at the fishing in the North sea - despite the stocks being pretty much destroyed the fishermen who have taken the fish continue to argue their case to take the very last few because they don't want to change their way of life. This is sadly all too common.
There are people who can see all this working on tech - I think the best bet (ie the one were more of us survive) is if there are some decent breakthroughs. Knowing what I do about projects in progress and the work being done I think there is a good chance this will work out. The reason is that this isn't just a stopping us dying scenario this is making lots of money for lots of people scenario.
If we have to sort ourselves out after a fall - well you may be right. But only for a while. It is almost certain that sooner or later some person or other will look at the next valley or over a sea and think: "hmm what would happen if I went over there. I guess I'll need X Y Z" where X Y Z is some bit of basic tech that doesn't exist yet. and the human race will be off again.
We're tenacious buggers us humans. I don't think it's time to give up and sit quietly by the fire just yet....
(oh and also the very diversity - look at what you are into and what say, I am into - an entrepreneur, a technologist and an optimist - and our different views. That very difference means that we have a "portfolio" strategy as a species. Our eggs are in millions of baskets. There may be a catastrophe and you with your abilities to cope on your own resources will just carry on trucking. Something else my happen and some other group may thrive. It will be a damn hard job killing the lot of us - even for something as resourceful as the human race itself)
I am looking at human nature and saying that you are not going to change it and therefore you are going to need to work around it.
"We need a circular flow of recycable materials" is a technical solution too. And perhaps is the right answer.
Then only thing I am saying is that this lovely green view of us all living in harmony with the planet is complete rubbish. Because it does not take into account human nature. Yes I agree that some people can live like that - some very well indeed. But you can not make all do so.
You also have a very fixed idea of what cheap energy involves: "because they exploit materials that can be exhausted". I had in mind things like photovoltaics, wind - I live surrounded in all directions by wind farms and there is an immense amount of investment going on, modern nuclear tech - have you seen Bill Gates talk on this?
This is not a dogmatic view. If you came to me and could show that you could genuinely do it in a different way without relying on mass education and changing the way people normally behave then cool - I'll be on board.
Your idea that my views are a religion is a dogma in itself
What is worse is that this is why we are likely to be more screwed than we should be this problem: for a lot of solutions they some how need to stop all of the other solutions because they don't match ideals. I am not advocating a single solution - I want as many people as possible trying. I am not even saying don't try to get everyone living in a sustainable way - I recycle, when I finally get round to buying a house I have every intention of having a crack at doing my own power generation. All I am saying is that any plan that involves changing the behaviour of every single human being on this planet is not going to work under any circumstances - and when the failure mode of that being your only plan is so serious then people need to be pointing this out.
(Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.)
:-)
Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there is no low energy using society, where anyone would want to live (except the local junta). (And the expensive alternative to nuclear is coal, which is arguably worse with its climate effects.)
(UPDATE: Although you can also have expensive energy that is unpleasant!)
>>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy?
I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-)
I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)
A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness.
Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-)
Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.)
Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."
>>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development.
It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence...
>>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention
Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.)
Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.
Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment. Perhaps the quotes confused you, they were there to give context.
Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium? Storage will need to be guarded, keeping a list of what has been stored provides an incentive for terrorists but offers the possibility of future reuse.
Noted, go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years, much worse in many regards. I refer you back to pdf I already linked for energy consumption.
There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
AGAIN, "In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence".
You just made another claim. If you want to show a thesis, then quote the relevant part and show it. Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
From the rest of his comments, where he seems to think that natural resources will disappear if they are used, he has no clue about anything. (Hint: People are mining scrap heaps, etc.) He was against cities -- where each individual use less land and resources than people living in the countryside (or maybe he just want to kill everyone in cities -- where are they going to go, otherwise?)
>>Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium?
First, you changed the subject. I assume you yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.
Second, nothing are going to stop e.g. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea from building nuclear power plants and getting bombs. That cat is out of the bag. So that is irrelevant.
>>There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies
Afaik, western societies pollute less and less over the last 50-60 years. I gave examples. (The energy use is increasing, but less and less for each additional unit of GNP.)
>>go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years
When the economy reaches a certain level, countries start to invest in clean technology, etc. China has already started. The dirtiest phase is industrialisation -- it is still better than what was before.
To bring some focus to this discussion: you have said that I have made two separate claims. I made one single claim. The claim I continue to make is that: Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. The second time I mentioned this, was as clarification to the claim.
Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. As I see it, that is the claim I am making, and that quote is the evidence to back up my claim. This is not a second or third claim, this is the claim I have been making all along.
If you could please, tell me what separate claims you think I am making.
I don't think you can make a rule out of the claim that western societies' pollution has decreased over the last 50-60 years. You've given an example, I've given counter examples, i.e. it is not a rule. We can get into an example war, where I can give more and more examples of pollution increase, and you can give more and more examples of pollution decrease, and there's no point in it. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
Just because China has started to invest in clean technology (clean in some circumstances means nuclear, I assume you don't mean that), doesn't mean it's going to use it, and it doesn't mean it's pollution and energy usage will reduce. I've invested in pink socks, am I going to wear them?
I will read Andi's other comments now for better or worse. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Is that clear?
(I know what Andi wrote, I quoted it in the comment above...)
He talks about future generations -- and against technological progress being important; he is arguing against cities and some back-to-nature garbage. A confused Luddite.
He is of course welcome to go back to being too poor for education and having 30% child mortality. But he'll have to kill off most of the population that can't survive in his world, Khmer style.
Which was what I rested my case on before. You could have asked for links to his comments, instead of ignoring them in your answer.
(I meant that you repeated your claim again, without any support. Like here. Not made a new one. Sorry for any confusion.)
>>It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium.
So the West should close down a large part of the energy production -- because radioactive materials might, in ten years time, end up with dictators. The really unpleasant dictators already have nuclear reactors (and bombs, in at least two of the three cases mentioned). (I know that Pakistan isn't formally a dictatorship right now.)
That is just not coherent.
(The point about oil wells was more of a proof of principle which I've seen geologists argue -- it is not popular locally, because political parties has married another solution. We can get rid of radioactive materials, if we absolutely have to. It is not a good idea, yet.)
>>Just because China has started to invest in clean technology ... doesn't mean it's going to use it
Sigh... And China might also stop growing food?
China has to implement clean tech -- since the economy will grow multiple times the coming decades and there are already bad environmental problems.
It is just too expensive not to do it. (Popular unrest, public health and destruction of farming land.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12595872
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis
And why isn't nuclear clean? Check how many people coal kills in China/year...
And so on, I'll probably not check if this is answered.
You seem to have some narrative built up of how the world will progress. e.g. pollution and energy use, what China is going to do, what would happen if they don't, what happens if nuclear power is abandoned, how China's economy will develop over the next few decades. And if you don't mind me saying so, you cannot see into the future, you are far too sure of yourself. Coal can be a lot cleaner than it is in China. However that country's disregard for its miners and workers, betrays a certain level of contempt for human life. Do you think that China will operate nuclear reactors as clean and as well as the rest of the world? Nuclear is not clean, clean is a classical propaganda term for nuclear, like pro choice and pro life camps in an American abortion debate. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology, not for China, any of the countries you mentioned, not for anywhere.
I will de-construct Andi's comment that is so contentious for you: Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.
The crucial words here are 'stuck in a view' and 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' It the phrase 'stuck in a view' links this sentence to the following one:
>>This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
Here he states that people 'stuck in this view' this 'classical view' see 'technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take' and this is the crucial link back to the first sentence, because people are stuck in this view 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' 'technical progress' here is dependent on the nuclear reactors of the first sentence.
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations.
to be more specific: This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations.
It's really telling that you berate me for ignoring Andi's comments while I go to look at them, when at the same time saying my claims have no support(in what way - you never said what part is unsupported?) and then informing me that you are probably going to leave the conversation altogether, and ignore my reply to you completely.
To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you disagree with this statement?
Creative way of reading Andi's comment. Congratulations. I can see how someone could formulate a position like that, given that he/she is used to argue with people with certain opinions.
The problem, as I noted twice above, is that the other comments shows that Andi is a crazy Luddite which argues against cities. No facts, no references -- lots of claims. (There is a lower environmental impact with half the population in cities than if you spread them out all over the countryside. At leasts without doing a Green Khmer reorg...)
Here is a link:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601330
Now I have repeated that point three(?) times. You have acknowledged it without touching it twice. I've given a link. Enough.
And yes, it is theoretically possible that the Chinese commit a country-wide economic suicide by not starting to clean up e.g. pollution from coal. But stupidity is not the common sin of the Chinese leaders... (Strip mining and destroying inner Mongolia is another matter.)
Or are you claiming it is economically efficient to not clean up and accept health problems for a large part of the work force? Sure, the Chinese leadership is competent and would be cynical enough... That would be interesting -- do you have references?
Andi did not argue against all technical progress, he argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations.
One more time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree with this statement or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine I can get a lot more references, more recent but that just about sums it up!
Here is another weird Andi comment, which relates to his original claim -- and show you to be wrong.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601341
>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion.
So you are wrong -- Andi really meant what he said.
So much for your claim of proof.
(I accept that, given enough strange people to argue with, a reasonable person -- a non-Luddite/-econazi -- might have written what "Andi" wrote. Even if it seems unlikely. But "Andi" is not reasonable...)
>> Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant
See above -- Andi is just plain weird, your guess is very unlikely. Also, you made that claim without touching that I've commented on his weird comments three times, even gave a link.
My troll detector isn't sensitive enough.
>> ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations
And for nuclear power -- you haven't show that there is a net cost to future generations (not just creation of useful materials for their accelerator reactors).
Note also that the present humanity do research and infrastructure now, which will make future generations' lives better. (Which certainly is a religious view, according to Andi.)
(Also, there are lots of radioactive materials in nature. See my proof-of-principle solution.)
This poorly constructed sentence shows me to be wrong does it? It somehow refutes my claim? How exactly? Have you ever heard the phrase quasi-religious? Perhaps you should have some sympathy for someone with Andi's dearth of vocabulary. It adds nothing to his earlier comment and takes nothing away from it either.
You are making Andi out to be the unabomber, he does seem like a reasonable person - you are completely overreacting to all of his comments for some utterly bizarre reason. His comments are irrelevant to what we are talking about. Your whole basis of argument now is that Andi is some sort of certifiable nutcase. Time and again I've said his comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided?
Even if you were somehow magically correct in delivering a devastating psychoanalysis of Andi, over the internet based on some comments, you can't argue with this: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. But you continue to. Do you disagree with this statement? It's what I'm calling you out on, and you seem to have a massive problem with it.
What proof of principle solution? Your oil well suggestion is no solution to anything. Are you referring to something else perhaps?
I'm sure they have pulled and will continue to pull lots of useful materials out of the areas and people near e.g. Fukushima and Chernobyl that our past, current and future research will make useful for future generations: cancerous thyroid glands, contaminated milk, water and aquatic life with 2Sv of radiation in it, irradiated metal and farmland.
To demonstrate that there is a net cost of nuclear power to future generations: accept that nuclear plants are supported by tax breaks, and the cost of shutting down nuclear plants is so great that it cannot be undertaken by their owners and caretakers. This must be undertaken by the state taxpayer. After they have been shut down, the waste cannot be processed by current technology and must be stored and protected by the taxpayer. When the plants are no longer generating profit - the vain hope for the enterprise to benefit future generations is that someone invents some way of processing their waste. This is the same vain hope those had when they built these reactors in the the 50s/60s/70s. Sure, they produced power for a few decades - the waste however will cost taxpayer money for millennia.
I will repeat myself again, perhaps you may notice this time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I argued against what "Andi" wrote, which was hard to read differently than being Luddite.
You gave a strained explanation of what "Andi" wrote.
Then you claim it isn't relevant that Andi wrote other strange things that supports "Andi" being stupid &&/|| Luddite.
Sigh...
You also ignored my points about R&D investments with cheap energy building future ... never mind, I've been trolled enough.
You then moved on to trying to make Andi out to be some sort of miscreant to justify your argument. Andi didn't write other strange things. What Andi wrote in the first place wasn't strange either, Andi has not shown himself to be a stupid luddite.
In future if you are going to quote what I write or anyone else writes you would do well to include in full the part of the sentence you are responding to:
>>Time and again I've said [Andi's] comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided?
I've said that the other things that Andi wrote were not relevant, and that they aren't strange. You can't say that I accepted he wrote other strange things, again we are back to you trying to put words into other peoples mouths.
You made no points about R&D, I asked you twice about your proof of principle solution and can find no comments by you referring to them, you are being extremely cheeky accusing me of ignoring things.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm getting deja vu here: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601354
And here is the first: "This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2599193
So he obviously meant exactly what he wrote. Not about nuclear technical progress.
The other comments shows that "Andi" really has those opinions was "irrelevant", yes? :-)
For the rest: Copying links here made me tired of repeating arguments. Bye.
Again I will help you with your obvious difficulties in reading comprehension, although I cannot help you with your stubbornness.
In the link you pasted Andi makes a short comment about education being more important than technical progress (especially technical progress at all costs). This is not anti research, and this is not Luddite. It's pro education! It's very important to read those last three words 'at all costs'.
If you have a look here at a comment in the same thread:
>> Of course it is OK and important - especially for the poorer countries - to make power cheaper. But NEVER at all costs.
See the phrase 'at all costs' he used in the later comment you refer to? Nowhere does he make an argument against all progress, he's arguing against ignoring the the cost ('at all costs') of nuclear reactors for future generations. He even argues for making power cheaper for people in poorer countries. Hardly the behaviour of a Luddite, don't you think?!
So these comments are irrelevant to our discussion, and they do not show Andi to have Luddite opinions.
Here's the question that you have gone to enormous lengths to ignore - one more time, and strangely, I amn't tired asking you again:
There is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I made fun of a guy that wrote anti-technological arguments about expecting technical solutions to problems as being a "religion".
The guy wrote the same thing in multiple other comments.
You call me on that -- and write WALLS of text, insisting that the first comment was only about nuclear tech and that the other comments (note, pluralis) are irrelevant for other unlikely reasons.
If you didn't put time into writing well, I'd be certain you're a troll.
So congratulations, you got another comment out of me. I must assume that is your motivation into writing possible explanations for what "Andi" really means, when he wrote the same thing multiple times.
Andi really didn't write what you say he did, and he certainly didn't write "anti-technological arguments about expecting technical solutions to problems as being a "religion"." in one comment or multiple other comments. It's really pointless to try and put words into people's mouths like that.
I'll take your admission about how you 'made fun of a guy' as you agreeing that is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.