4 ms·
But it's all considered in a vacuum. Even though the majority of the population don't understand the problem, this is ok. We have an economic system that benefi
by zemaj 16y ago
But it's all considered in a vacuum. Even though the majority of the population don't understand the problem, this is ok. We have an economic system that benefits those who predict impending needs and place themselves in situations to provide for them.
Take a look at the green industry ramping up. In the not too distance future, I think most of us here expect oil replacement to be highly profitable.
I disagree with these doomsday predictions from pure arithmetic. It seems to me that the reverse is true - exponential "problems" provide the core drive for our economy. What drives the entire start-up industry? I'd say it's identifying profitable exponential growth scenarios and providing for them. To me, this explains how primarily capitalist countries tend toward stability, until them become strangled by ever increasing regulation (that's not to say I'm against regulation in general, but I think we need to be as proactive about removing it as we are about adding it [wow, I went off topic there]).
- KingOfB 16y agoI agree to some degree. I feel like this guy thinks he's playing sim-city and setting the population growth rate. Tell me he doesn't remind you of the domestic advisor!
- skybrian 16y agoYes, many people are working on solutions, but I think the point is that for green industry to succeed, growth in energy consumption has to actually stop, and preferably reverse. It's good to be clear about about the goal.
- ars 16y agoThat's not a good goal. And besides not being good, it's also impossible if you are trying to avoid mass catastrophe. Economic development directly correlates with energy use. To reduce energy use you would either need a massive depression, or for a lot of people to die. But the news isn't all bad - nuclear power is both green, and sufficiently available to allow us to continue energy growth. So I would make that the goal.
- code_duck 16y agoNo, to reduce energy use you'd need for people to take conservation seriously and to dramatically improve efficiency. Plenty of energy is wasted on inefficient cars, poor insulation, wasteful industrial processes, and so on.
- skybrian 16y agoIn the short term, sudden changes in energy consumption are very disruptive. (For example, see gas prices and the auto industry last year.) But a longer-term, gradual shift towards less energy usage need not be.
- seabee 16y agoTo be clear, is this because green energy is (yet) incapable of satisfying our current needs, or purely because our ability to generate green energy is as finite as from oil?
- skybrian 16y agoActually, what I meant to say is that fossil fuel consumption has to stop growing and preferably decline. But there are limits to green energy too. For a British take on this: http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
- oops 16y agoNote that he does say in the video that these are not predictions* , and that it's just arithmetic. He goes on to pretty much agree -- in a less specific sense -- with what you've said: "the consequences of the arithmetic will play a major role in shaping our future." * Except for the petroleum graphs. Video 8/8 1:00-2:00ish.
- wazoox 16y ago> To me, this explains how primarily capitalist countries tend toward stability Except that doubling GDP, resource consumption, etc every 20 years hardly can be called "stability".