4 ms·

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My point was that energy can be saved. I guess I tend to think more abstract than you. For example, population co

I don't understand what you are trying to say. My point was that energy can be saved. I guess I tend to think more abstract than you. For example, population could be reduced by dropping a nuclear bomb - boom, energy saved. (I'm too lazy to go into details of population control here...). That's of course not the solution I propose, it just abstractly proves the point that energy can be saved. In fact, as you mention with the washing machines example, the majority of people seem to get by on very little energy (even less than is required to power a washing machine). All I said is that saving energy is another option, besides building more nuclear power plants or burning more coal. And you seem to have missed that washing machines are not the major factor in power consumption that you make it out to be. "it will never be enough to significantly impact the the total energy used in the world" People will simply use all the energy they can get (even if you build lots and lots of nuclear power plants). That doesn't imply that they couldn't get by with less.

pdkl95 11y ago
> population could be reduced by dropping a nuclear bomb Some of us are trying to discuss solutions, not fantasies of genocide. > All I said is that saving energy is another option And I'm saying the only reason you say that is because you're living an incredibly privileged life. For most of the world, "less energy usage" means hard decisions like if they have enough food to eat. For someone who claims to think abstractly, you seem to have a serious problem thinking about energy from any other point of view than what is presumably your own ethnocentric perspective. > And you seem to have missed that washing machines are not the major factor in power consumption that you make it out to be. Do you know how I can tell you still haven't watched Hans Rosling's explanation of this problem? Washing machines (and related basic-standard-of-living technology) is probably going to account for about 1/3 or 1/2 of the increase in energy usage of the world in the next several decades. Energy expensive technologies (e.g. airplanes) are not relevant, because only a small number of people will gain access to the necessary wealth in the same time period. To be very explicit, the energy saving that are possible - which should still be done - form the tiny number of people with enough privilege to regularly pay to waste energy is tiny. > they couldn't get by with less Go watch that video. Look really hard at what it's like to waste your days washing your cloths instead of, say, getting an education. What specific energy use is being wasted? What "optional" thing should they stop doing? What, exactly, should most of the women in the world (who are currently in this situation) do to reduce their energy use? Assuming you are not a terrible personj that says they should have to stay living in poverty or simply be bombed (your other "option"), where specifically should these people - that is, the 3-4 billion people currently living under these conditions get their energy? (there are only 3 options: nuclear, coal/gas, or "they don't get to enjoy an industrialized lifestyle") Hopefully, answering these questions should reveal to you why "lower energy use" is not an alternative. > People will simply use all the energy they can get That may be true for you, but you shouldn't project your beliefs onto others.
- facepalm 11y ago
  Em, I didn't suggest the 3rd world should save energy. Stop with your washing machine already.
- facepalm 11y ago
  So I finally watched that talk to the end (had only watched the beginning). I generally like Rosling, but that talk seems a bit low on details. Your interpretation seems wrong - washing machine people only use 2 units of energy, the rich use 6 units. So there seems to be a lot of potential to save right there. While more people will move up to washing machine level, at the same time things could get more efficient and more green energy could become available (it's not clear where Rosling gets his projections from...). Rosling seems to be angry at some economics students who he claims wanted to deny the world washing machines. You adopted his anger and now you think everybody who says "save energy" wants to deny people washing machines. There is simply no basis for that (and I wonder if those selfish economic students actually exist - Rosling is a cool guy, but also a show man, perhaps he invented them for a good story). Washing machines are actually not that sophisticated, by the way. I think the first ones even operated without electricity. It's basically a drum spinning in a bowl of water, with some fancy chemicals added to the mix. Perhaps somebody should invent a "3rd world washing machine" to help all those women out.

pdkl95 11y ago

> population could be reduced by dropping a nuclear bomb Some of us are trying to discuss solutions, not fantasies of genocide. > All I said is that saving energy is another option And I'm saying the only reason you say that is because you're living an incredibly privileged life. For most of the world, "less energy usage" means hard decisions like if they have enough food to eat. For someone who claims to think abstractly, you seem to have a serious problem thinking about energy from any other point of view than what is presumably your own ethnocentric perspective. > And you seem to have missed that washing machines are not the major factor in power consumption that you make it out to be. Do you know how I can tell you still haven't watched Hans Rosling's explanation of this problem? Washing machines (and related basic-standard-of-living technology) is probably going to account for about 1/3 or 1/2 of the increase in energy usage of the world in the next several decades. Energy expensive technologies (e.g. airplanes) are not relevant, because only a small number of people will gain access to the necessary wealth in the same time period. To be very explicit, the energy saving that are possible - which should still be done - form the tiny number of people with enough privilege to regularly pay to waste energy is tiny. > they couldn't get by with less Go watch that video. Look really hard at what it's like to waste your days washing your cloths instead of, say, getting an education. What specific energy use is being wasted? What "optional" thing should they stop doing? What, exactly, should most of the women in the world (who are currently in this situation) do to reduce their energy use? Assuming you are not a terrible personj that says they should have to stay living in poverty or simply be bombed (your other "option"), where specifically should these people - that is, the 3-4 billion people currently living under these conditions get their energy? (there are only 3 options: nuclear, coal/gas, or "they don't get to enjoy an industrialized lifestyle") Hopefully, answering these questions should reveal to you why "lower energy use" is not an alternative. > People will simply use all the energy they can get That may be true for you, but you shouldn't project your beliefs onto others.

facepalm 11y ago
Em, I didn't suggest the 3rd world should save energy. Stop with your washing machine already.
facepalm 11y ago
So I finally watched that talk to the end (had only watched the beginning). I generally like Rosling, but that talk seems a bit low on details. Your interpretation seems wrong - washing machine people only use 2 units of energy, the rich use 6 units. So there seems to be a lot of potential to save right there. While more people will move up to washing machine level, at the same time things could get more efficient and more green energy could become available (it's not clear where Rosling gets his projections from...). Rosling seems to be angry at some economics students who he claims wanted to deny the world washing machines. You adopted his anger and now you think everybody who says "save energy" wants to deny people washing machines. There is simply no basis for that (and I wonder if those selfish economic students actually exist - Rosling is a cool guy, but also a show man, perhaps he invented them for a good story). Washing machines are actually not that sophisticated, by the way. I think the first ones even operated without electricity. It's basically a drum spinning in a bowl of water, with some fancy chemicals added to the mix. Perhaps somebody should invent a "3rd world washing machine" to help all those women out.