3 ms·

I read it a few times before I replied. Andi was making a comment about the costs of energy for us and for future generations. Andi was saying that ignoring the

I read it a few times before I replied. Andi was making a comment about the costs of energy for us and for future generations. Andi was saying that ignoring the cost for future generations is typical behaviour of people "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's easy to see that better technology can be more efficient. 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. EU, US and Asia are all guilty of creating percentage wise more pollution and using percentage wise more energy over the last ten years, have a look at the PDF.

berntb 15y ago
Let me tell you a story about Sweden. 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.
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  I appreciate the story about Sweden. 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.
  - berntb 15y ago
    >>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 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.

berntb 15y ago

Let me tell you a story about Sweden. 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.

eliasmacpherson 15y ago
I appreciate the story about Sweden. 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.
- berntb 15y ago
  >>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 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.