4 ms·

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. I

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.
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  Thank you for your reply. I think we need to cut down on what we are talking about here because the focus is being lost. First and foremost I will not yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations. Second, you brought up nuclear waste disposal in oil wells as a hand waving suggestion. I had no intention of changing the subject. I should not have responded to this disposal comment. There is quite a concerted effort to stop the countries you mentioned achieving nuclear arms, and it may stop them, so it's not irrelevant to the oil well point. It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. This whole oil well thread of conversation is irrelevant however, in my opinion. I suggest we drop this element of the conversation, because it will not lead anywhere fruitful, I believe. 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?

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.

eliasmacpherson 15y ago
Thank you for your reply. I think we need to cut down on what we are talking about here because the focus is being lost. First and foremost I will not yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations. Second, you brought up nuclear waste disposal in oil wells as a hand waving suggestion. I had no intention of changing the subject. I should not have responded to this disposal comment. There is quite a concerted effort to stop the countries you mentioned achieving nuclear arms, and it may stop them, so it's not irrelevant to the oil well point. It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. This whole oil well thread of conversation is irrelevant however, in my opinion. I suggest we drop this element of the conversation, because it will not lead anywhere fruitful, I believe. 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?