3 ms·
Remarkable that you're getting downvoted for this. The availability of energy substrate is almost entirely the reason why there are ~8 billion people today and
by ravenstine 4y ago
Remarkable that you're getting downvoted for this. The availability of energy substrate is almost entirely the reason why there are ~8 billion people today and not just under a billion. Infrastructure wouldn't have scaled this much, and neither would have agriculture, thanks to fossil fuel; both the ability to transport and fertilize crops (see the Haber process) on a massive scale originally became possible because of oil.
Restrict the flow of energy and you restrict the growth of civilization. To some, that's a good thing, and others bad. That's not really relevant. Little of what even modern primitivists and luddites value would be possible without energy being harnessed.
And yes, energy should come from wherever it makes sense as opposed to the "money for nothing and the chicks are free" attitude the West has in seeking clean energy. In some parts of the world, petroleum will continue to make sense until technology progresses to the point where it no longer does. In other places, solar makes sense and we should go with that. Use nuclear, and use other energy tech to fill the gaps. A nation that produces a lot of sugar cane may decide to use ethanol (see Brazil). Allowing sensible choice and application of energy allows us to try many things out, smooths the transition towards future energy advancements, and improves national security. Instead of focusing on the negatives, we need to give both present and future energy more credit for what it's given us. By constantly finding reasons why a energy tech is bad, we tread water. We're addicted to the "perfect mind-state" and no-human-impact perspective, and it's created an inferior outcome. Those who dote on negatives like "But EV batteries are heavy and not energy dense!" and "But nuclear waste!" and "But it wouldn't be viable without subsidies!" and "But it's not zero carbon!" are focusing on the wrong thing.
- hotpotamus 4y agoWhat is the purpose of the growth of civilization?
- ravenstine 4y agoDoes it need a purpose?
- hotpotamus 4y agoWell, if that purpose is consuming all available energy, then it seems you'll have a tautology on your hands. But otherwise, I don't know. I haven't really noticed one yet, but you seem to imply that it's a goal.