4 ms·

My initial position (model) is that markets exists and can operate within a meta-process called a state (a defined territory dominated by a single military forc

My initial position (model) is that markets exists and can operate within a meta-process called a state (a defined territory dominated by a single military force). State has a physical dimension/extension, while government as an organization of abstract ideals does not (apart from humans as agents). I take this to be an important point in thinking about energy:availability-security-costs (I stress against that this is a model of reality). As you know, technological progress in the physical dimension of the problem, ie. industry in general, specifically energy industry (coupled with mining industry as they go hand in hand), is much more constrained, slower and a difficult problem compared to the "soft" (if you will) technologies such as internet, cell-phones, and such. At the same time industrialization and industrial processes are the wealth generators, and those ensure that a state will/can exists in a competing natural world. So, all this to say that markets to be "regulated/directed" by politicians are the solution is in fact the very disease/problem. It is a physical impossibility by the nature of state (as defined in this model). Therefore, it cannot work, and will not work as we have seen so far (which to some degree validates this rather simple model). Any attempt at trying to make it work would be very inefficient (which is why communism/totalitarianism is so resource inefficient and polluting -- and finally leads to dissolution of the state itself). Nor do I claim to have some enlightened answers to offer under this model. The truth of the matter is that people, we individually, are agents of action ultimately. We have to have a freedom from government intervention to pursue profit (here goes market economy advocacy), while the state itself will consume a lot of energy to enable this activity. Sure there is more to be addresses, but I hope I made my opinion clear that I do not see politics interfering with markets being the answer in the long term for the 3-energy-trifacta availability-security-costs].

PaulHoule 5y ago
There are counterexamples: the adoption of multiple technologies to reduce NOx and hydrocarbon emissions from ICE automobiles by more than 100x, the rapid phase-out of CFCs dangerous to the ozone layer. You're right to point out that the CO2 problem is complicated by the size of the material flows. The mass flow of the fuel is a lot, and if you were to capture CO2 from burning fossil or bio-fuels and pump it underground you'd have to handle a larger mass of CO2. (When I lift a gas can above my shoulders to fuel my tractor, I think of how the gas pump hides the mass of the fuel you put in your car, which is roughly the vehicle's weight per yet) Battery technology seemed to "hang in the air" and make little progress from 1970 to 1990 the way that 8-bit computers seemed frozen from 1979 to 1989. (Jobs was horrified in 1980 that the Apple ][ was obsolete but it wasn't until IBM PC AT clones became affordable that you were able to buy a new computer that was both compatible with and better than the one you bought two years ago.) Now it seems possible with some development in material science that sodium could replace lithium in batteries, flow batteries could be a thing, air cathode batteries could be a thing. Back in the day it seemed 90% of the literature on batteries was for those 'reserve' batteries used in missiles, today there are major developments in batteries every year. There is the gospel (good news!) that "nuclear waste" contains 95%+ of the energy from the original fuel and is a very large prize of fuel already mined and above ground if we master breeder cycles, high temperature reactors (including molten metal and salt), fuel processing and Brayton-cycle turbines. (like a stopped clock the energy literature still compares nuclear costs to coal, but coal has been uncompetitive with turbines fired with natural gas since... about the time we stopped building nuclear power plants) The paradox is that countries recover quickly from war and natural disasters (e.g. would be able to afford infrastructure investments required by the unnatural CO2 disaster) but recover slowly from financial crises. The above technology is feasible (even the pump CO2 underground bit) but doesn't get applied because of social reasons (a cheaper alternative in the short-term exists.) I see the crux is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action one could point to many other applications of that theory (e.g. a majority can oppress a minority physically but has limited room to improve its standard of living that way) but climate change is the one that could wipe us out. Seen that way a big problem is the existence of multiple states. For instance the US emits 15% of the CO2 which is outsized for our population, but if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow it would be insufficient to solve the problem. It's like a kindergarten classroom where there is always one kid that's a troublemaker. Back in the Trump administration, the US was contemptuous about taking action and that made it easy for (say) Germany to talk a good game while taking irresponsible actions such as shutting off a major form of carbon free energy. Now the US is better but it will be China or India or Saudi Arabia or maybe France that plays the heel next.
- goatsneez 5y ago
  It appears we would agree that technological innovations (problem solving) is the unique human activity on which our hope should be placed for thriving civilization and it should be enabled for individuals to pursue their goals. Im aware of most of the individual examples you presented, and the are to the point. Nevertheless, I think I lead us away from the main point with my context setup. My reading of the problem of climate is at odds with the mechanical view of in-animate mater supposedly controlling the stability. I am closer to the ecologists (majority of) which point out that the biosphere stabilizes the climate, therefore CO2 by itself is not at all an issue (if there is biosphere healthy/functional enough to respond -- that is the core of the issue, and it is overlooked in the purely mechanical outlook). For if the biosphere is not properly functional in regulating the water cycle (upon which all the other cycles depend) no amount of technology (at the current and foreseeable future) can cope with. If I was to react to the last point "logic of collective action", by taking a step away to get a larger view, cooperation is not possible (would not be self-organized from independent units/agent) without competition. Cooperation is only to get comparative advantage of a unit in an environment against other such units over physical resource (to be read as a biology statement not political, but it is clear). In a population of units (and groups) there will be variance (diversity is the modern word) - which is a double edged sword (as you point out). However, no biological system can be 100% correlated across its dimensions of operations, it would not survive, could not respond to changes, and dis-function of one units would imply the same for all the rest by definition. So while human mind may think it desirable, I do not think it is natures way (to get rid of trouble-makers, though Im against moralizing nature).

PaulHoule 5y ago

There are counterexamples: the adoption of multiple technologies to reduce NOx and hydrocarbon emissions from ICE automobiles by more than 100x, the rapid phase-out of CFCs dangerous to the ozone layer. You're right to point out that the CO2 problem is complicated by the size of the material flows. The mass flow of the fuel is a lot, and if you were to capture CO2 from burning fossil or bio-fuels and pump it underground you'd have to handle a larger mass of CO2. (When I lift a gas can above my shoulders to fuel my tractor, I think of how the gas pump hides the mass of the fuel you put in your car, which is roughly the vehicle's weight per yet) Battery technology seemed to "hang in the air" and make little progress from 1970 to 1990 the way that 8-bit computers seemed frozen from 1979 to 1989. (Jobs was horrified in 1980 that the Apple ][ was obsolete but it wasn't until IBM PC AT clones became affordable that you were able to buy a new computer that was both compatible with and better than the one you bought two years ago.) Now it seems possible with some development in material science that sodium could replace lithium in batteries, flow batteries could be a thing, air cathode batteries could be a thing. Back in the day it seemed 90% of the literature on batteries was for those 'reserve' batteries used in missiles, today there are major developments in batteries every year. There is the gospel (good news!) that "nuclear waste" contains 95%+ of the energy from the original fuel and is a very large prize of fuel already mined and above ground if we master breeder cycles, high temperature reactors (including molten metal and salt), fuel processing and Brayton-cycle turbines. (like a stopped clock the energy literature still compares nuclear costs to coal, but coal has been uncompetitive with turbines fired with natural gas since... about the time we stopped building nuclear power plants) The paradox is that countries recover quickly from war and natural disasters (e.g. would be able to afford infrastructure investments required by the unnatural CO2 disaster) but recover slowly from financial crises. The above technology is feasible (even the pump CO2 underground bit) but doesn't get applied because of social reasons (a cheaper alternative in the short-term exists.) I see the crux is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action one could point to many other applications of that theory (e.g. a majority can oppress a minority physically but has limited room to improve its standard of living that way) but climate change is the one that could wipe us out. Seen that way a big problem is the existence of multiple states. For instance the US emits 15% of the CO2 which is outsized for our population, but if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow it would be insufficient to solve the problem. It's like a kindergarten classroom where there is always one kid that's a troublemaker. Back in the Trump administration, the US was contemptuous about taking action and that made it easy for (say) Germany to talk a good game while taking irresponsible actions such as shutting off a major form of carbon free energy. Now the US is better but it will be China or India or Saudi Arabia or maybe France that plays the heel next.

goatsneez 5y ago
It appears we would agree that technological innovations (problem solving) is the unique human activity on which our hope should be placed for thriving civilization and it should be enabled for individuals to pursue their goals. Im aware of most of the individual examples you presented, and the are to the point. Nevertheless, I think I lead us away from the main point with my context setup. My reading of the problem of climate is at odds with the mechanical view of in-animate mater supposedly controlling the stability. I am closer to the ecologists (majority of) which point out that the biosphere stabilizes the climate, therefore CO2 by itself is not at all an issue (if there is biosphere healthy/functional enough to respond -- that is the core of the issue, and it is overlooked in the purely mechanical outlook). For if the biosphere is not properly functional in regulating the water cycle (upon which all the other cycles depend) no amount of technology (at the current and foreseeable future) can cope with. If I was to react to the last point "logic of collective action", by taking a step away to get a larger view, cooperation is not possible (would not be self-organized from independent units/agent) without competition. Cooperation is only to get comparative advantage of a unit in an environment against other such units over physical resource (to be read as a biology statement not political, but it is clear). In a population of units (and groups) there will be variance (diversity is the modern word) - which is a double edged sword (as you point out). However, no biological system can be 100% correlated across its dimensions of operations, it would not survive, could not respond to changes, and dis-function of one units would imply the same for all the rest by definition. So while human mind may think it desirable, I do not think it is natures way (to get rid of trouble-makers, though Im against moralizing nature).