5 ms·

> it also enabled crazier ways of using fuel Which massively raised the quality of life most humans can live in, in various direct (we can transport a wide vari

> it also enabled crazier ways of using fuel Which massively raised the quality of life most humans can live in, in various direct (we can transport a wide variety of foods quickly) and indirectly. The question is how we can feed this "addiction" (stupid word: you're also "addicted" to breathing and eating) yet ever more whilst reducing or eliminating the negative externalities. A low energy use society is also poor society which is also, in most of the ways you presumably care about, a bad society. And I don't mean poor as in dollars.

developer93 4y ago
"A low energy society is a poorer society" while you're right in general, in the west we can live far more efficiently than we do without really impacting our quality of life via things like longer product life cycles, more public transport, living closer to places we need so we don't have to travel so far every day, better distribution of resources. These things could be improved if society took enough interest. Still might not be enough and we have to beware of efficiency increases getting swallowed by increased use, but my point was it's not 100% true.
- philistine 4y ago
  There are signs that we are transitioning to all of these. For example, demographic growth is at best neutral in everything but cities; that means people are using less land and are closer to their needs. The problem is the pace at which this transition is happening. It’s not fast enough to stop a really bad future.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    And we're all going to starve in the 1800's, too.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Those grim predictions were only pushed back by the exploitation of nonrenewable resoruces. Coal-fired furnaces produced iron ploughs. Strip-mining guano from South American deserts and Pacific islands fertilised fields until Haber and Bosch discovered how to turn nonrenewable natural gas into ammonia fertiliser, and munitions. Steam-powered, and later electrified, pumps, irrigated fields regularly. Chemical pesticides eliminate insect pests (and disrupted ecosystems). Vast new farmlands in the Americas fed Europe (pity the natives who'd been there before). Powered farm equipment displaced human and animal power on the fields. Rail and refrigeration moved food across continents and oceans to hungry mouths, without spoilage. Virtually all of that entailed utilising resources at rates faster than they could be replaced: coal, oil, gas, guano, topsoil, fertilisers, groundwater. There were also advances in cultivar selection, in hybridisation, in weather forecasting, in general farming techniques, and the like. Many of those relied heavily on reducing defencive and other metabolic loads on crops (e.g., staving off insect pests, or sending deep roots for uncertain water) and directing more energy into producing grain yields. This is a gain in efficiency, but a loss in resilience. (See Howard Odum for more on this.)
      - jtbayly 4y ago
        It sounds like you’ve got a prediction to add to the list. Go ahead. I’ll write it down with a calendar reminder to see if you’re right.
        dredmorbius 4y ago
        Sorry?
        jtbayly 4y ago
        You said the predictions that food was unsustainable just got delayed by doing other things that are unsustainable. So it sounds like you’re convinced we’re still all going to starve. I was just curious when this is going to happen.
        4y ago
pfdietz 4y ago
If I replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs, I use less energy (yes, even with elasticity of demand) yet I'm better off, not poorer. The notion that any reduction in energy use is bad is wrong.
- zaroth 4y ago
  LED lighting is a perfect example of how technology can eliminate any trade-offs for becoming more efficient. I would say EVs are another. This is definitely not always the case, but any time that it is, I think market adoption will be swift and eventually universal. For me, the take away is that ultimately to be successful the efficient and sustainable choice needs to be the better choice on the individual level.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    30 years ago my neighbours didn't have garden lighting running until midnight every night. Today they do. That's only one example of a lighting application which LEDs have enabled. It's just not that we crank up the lumen output in every lighting fixture (though that happened in many cases). It's not just that we've started illuminating parts of our houses, offices, and exteriors which were never previously illuminated (though that's also happened). It's that activities and populations which never previously could afford to run a 60W bulb now have multiple 10W LEDs. Those might be mains or battery powered (or a combination). There's also the reliability factor. Mains power which shuts off for hours per day is useful, but has limits. Mains power which shuts off for only a few minutes or seconds per year is far more useful. Access to electricity has increased from 78% to 90% of the global population since 2000. That's nearly a billion more people with access to lighting. Kenya is a reasonably modernised country in Africa, with 47 million citizens. Its total electric generation capacity is about 2.6 GW (roughly the equivalent of a single major US or EU power station). That works out to 55 watts of power per person. Less than a single 60W light bulb. (Actual peak demand was 1.9 GW, November, 2019, or 40 watts/person.) With such a limited supply, availability of LED lighting could very well lead to far more lighting, and a shift from other energy uses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

developer93 4y ago

"A low energy society is a poorer society" while you're right in general, in the west we can live far more efficiently than we do without really impacting our quality of life via things like longer product life cycles, more public transport, living closer to places we need so we don't have to travel so far every day, better distribution of resources. These things could be improved if society took enough interest. Still might not be enough and we have to beware of efficiency increases getting swallowed by increased use, but my point was it's not 100% true.

philistine 4y ago
There are signs that we are transitioning to all of these. For example, demographic growth is at best neutral in everything but cities; that means people are using less land and are closer to their needs. The problem is the pace at which this transition is happening. It’s not fast enough to stop a really bad future.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  And we're all going to starve in the 1800's, too.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Those grim predictions were only pushed back by the exploitation of nonrenewable resoruces. Coal-fired furnaces produced iron ploughs. Strip-mining guano from South American deserts and Pacific islands fertilised fields until Haber and Bosch discovered how to turn nonrenewable natural gas into ammonia fertiliser, and munitions. Steam-powered, and later electrified, pumps, irrigated fields regularly. Chemical pesticides eliminate insect pests (and disrupted ecosystems). Vast new farmlands in the Americas fed Europe (pity the natives who'd been there before). Powered farm equipment displaced human and animal power on the fields. Rail and refrigeration moved food across continents and oceans to hungry mouths, without spoilage. Virtually all of that entailed utilising resources at rates faster than they could be replaced: coal, oil, gas, guano, topsoil, fertilisers, groundwater. There were also advances in cultivar selection, in hybridisation, in weather forecasting, in general farming techniques, and the like. Many of those relied heavily on reducing defencive and other metabolic loads on crops (e.g., staving off insect pests, or sending deep roots for uncertain water) and directing more energy into producing grain yields. This is a gain in efficiency, but a loss in resilience. (See Howard Odum for more on this.)
    - jtbayly 4y ago
      It sounds like you’ve got a prediction to add to the list. Go ahead. I’ll write it down with a calendar reminder to see if you’re right.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        Sorry?
        jtbayly 4y ago
        You said the predictions that food was unsustainable just got delayed by doing other things that are unsustainable. So it sounds like you’re convinced we’re still all going to starve. I was just curious when this is going to happen.
        4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

If I replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs, I use less energy (yes, even with elasticity of demand) yet I'm better off, not poorer. The notion that any reduction in energy use is bad is wrong.

zaroth 4y ago
LED lighting is a perfect example of how technology can eliminate any trade-offs for becoming more efficient. I would say EVs are another. This is definitely not always the case, but any time that it is, I think market adoption will be swift and eventually universal. For me, the take away is that ultimately to be successful the efficient and sustainable choice needs to be the better choice on the individual level.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  30 years ago my neighbours didn't have garden lighting running until midnight every night. Today they do. That's only one example of a lighting application which LEDs have enabled. It's just not that we crank up the lumen output in every lighting fixture (though that happened in many cases). It's not just that we've started illuminating parts of our houses, offices, and exteriors which were never previously illuminated (though that's also happened). It's that activities and populations which never previously could afford to run a 60W bulb now have multiple 10W LEDs. Those might be mains or battery powered (or a combination). There's also the reliability factor. Mains power which shuts off for hours per day is useful, but has limits. Mains power which shuts off for only a few minutes or seconds per year is far more useful. Access to electricity has increased from 78% to 90% of the global population since 2000. That's nearly a billion more people with access to lighting. Kenya is a reasonably modernised country in Africa, with 47 million citizens. Its total electric generation capacity is about 2.6 GW (roughly the equivalent of a single major US or EU power station). That works out to 55 watts of power per person. Less than a single 60W light bulb. (Actual peak demand was 1.9 GW, November, 2019, or 40 watts/person.) With such a limited supply, availability of LED lighting could very well lead to far more lighting, and a shift from other energy uses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya