5 ms·

There's definitely enough blame to be spread around between several countries for the current mess we're in and for the people suffering from fracking, that I d

There's definitely enough blame to be spread around between several countries for the current mess we're in and for the people suffering from fracking, that I don't know how this could be fixed and make everyone happy. If there was enough cheap, clean, abundant energy for everyone, we wouldn't be in this mess, but since the global energy demand is much higher than the supply of clean energy, it's natural that the less wealthy and influential people and nations get the short end of the stick in the process of supplying enough energy for everyone. Also, capitalism and highly profitable energy production require that the supply be controlled in order to always be below the demand, see the OPEC cartel, so barring momentary fluctuations due to unforeseen events, we'll always have an energy shortage to a degree no matter what. I don't know how this can be solved so that everyone wins and everyone is happy, without creating more global turmoil in forms of economic depression, wars and climate change.

s5300 3y ago
[dead]
quickthrower2 3y ago
Late stage capitalism. Money will find the dirty way to get the gas that makes most profit I guess. Governments should probably encourage more solar, more heat pumps, less gas usage. For the environment and national security.
- C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
  It's hilarious that you would attribute that to capitalism when the Fossil Fuel and Gas industry was one of the most subsidised industries over the last 100 years. Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :)
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :) Was that ever the case? I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another.
    - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
      > I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another. That might be a necessary evil but has nothing to do with Capitalism. Throughout the time we've seen different degrees of government involvement in the market. Capitalism claims the less government involvement, the better. There can be a discussion if a purely Capitalistic market (0 government involvement) can exist but claiming government helped industries are the result of capitalism is just wrong. Capitalism is financial democracy. The market (aka the people) vote with their money. If a company goes down, that's ok, another one will replace it if it was a company that produced a necessary product. The Government getting involved in this process is very anti-capitalistic. Takes away the freedom of people to vote with their money and instead incentivizes companies to ignore the people and just lobby and play the system that the government put in place. So calling that Capitalism when it's the very thing Capitalism tries to avoid is an anti-truth.
      - mempko 3y ago
        You do realize that governments created both markets and capitalism right? Markets are older than capitalism and have been tools for governments to provision themselves. In fact, anthropologists couldn't find a society that voluntarily chose markets. Markets are a product of conquest. Capitalism is a product of the feudal system collapsing. Capitalism cannot exist without a strong government because it requires markets, a legal framework that allows you to own property, and a working financial system.
        C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
        I don't know exactly how you define markets or capitalism but I'm pretty sure when small tribes meet and exchanged merchandise (money was not even a thing then) that's a text book definition of a market. And a Capitalist market at that, 0 government involvement. The person who had the best cows was getting all his/her's cows sold while the person who's cows were not taken care of was run out of business. That's Capitalism in it's essence. That's long before even the concept of a country existed.
  - Theizestooke 3y ago
    They're fine with subsidies when it suits them.
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    Only some factions of capital use that rhetoric, and often don't even mean it. Capitalism is only maintained through state power exercised by the capitalist ruling class.
    - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
      > Capitalism is only maintained through state power exercised by the capitalist ruling class. Your confusing Capitalism with Government Aided Corporatism :)
      - FiniteField 3y ago
        This is the same argument that communists use all the time "Socialism/Communism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best" "Well, there were some pretty bad aspects of the USSR and communist China, maybe we should take heed of those." "Actually, I now choose to define communism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of State Capitalism and not applicable to real communism." --- "Capitalism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best" "Well, there are some pretty bad aspects of the capitalist systems, maybe we should take heed of those." "Actually, I now choose to define capitalism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of Corporatism and not applicable to real capitalism."
        C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
        Fair point. That might be the case... I fail to see how Capitalism inevitably requires Big Government in the same way that Communism inevitably requires centralized power but it might be my problem and you might be right. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it. I always thought about it as an indirect connection. Capitalism -> Economic Prosperity -> People become more socialist -> Big Government that undermines Capitalism. But that might be wrong. Have to think about it some more. Thank you for your reply!
  - mempko 3y ago
    Have you talked to actual capitalists? Like, people who actually own capital? They don't want handouts to their competitors, but want them for themselves. If you own a business, of course you want government subsidies. But wait, you are probably talking about market purists. Those don't really exist in the business world.
    - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
      I mean, it would be stupid if the government involved itself into the market to not take advantage of that. What exactly are you proposing? That a company would want the competitors to get handouts and not want them for themselves? That's dumb. So of course if you take it as a given that the government will manipulate the market, companies would want to take advantage of that to get a leg up. Companies that are market purists don't exist? Any company that outperforms their competitors wants the government to stay out of it. Any company that's behind will want the government to step in so they can take advantage of that and not get run out of business.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Regulatory capture is part of capitalism
    - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
      Didn't find any mention of capitalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture. Not sure on what basis you make this statement.
- Teever 3y ago
  I'm so tired of the phrase 'late stage capitalism' as if someone can just throw it out on the table like it's a reverse-uno card and it ends the discussion. There's so much more to this topic than just 'late stage capitalism'
  - FiniteField 3y ago
    Not to mention that the phrase has existed for over 100 years, which is quite a long "late stage" for an economic system that's arguably only a few hundred years old. It's used in conversations like religious doomsday predictions, to conjure up the idea that the collapse of capitalism (and subsequent revolution) is coming Any Day Now. It wears especially thin when people use the phrase to imply that companies overlooking the environment in the following of money is a brand new thing.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Thanks you actually made me laugh out loud with the uno reference. I did say a little bit more. I guess I played another turn in the uno game.
koheripbal 3y ago
The only clean energy that is capable of producing constant power is nuclear power.
- alternative_a 3y ago
  The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible. The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.
  - polotics 3y ago
    Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.
    - alternative_a 3y ago
      Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood. “Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about. Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.

s5300 3y ago

[dead]

quickthrower2 3y ago

Late stage capitalism. Money will find the dirty way to get the gas that makes most profit I guess. Governments should probably encourage more solar, more heat pumps, less gas usage. For the environment and national security.

C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
It's hilarious that you would attribute that to capitalism when the Fossil Fuel and Gas industry was one of the most subsidised industries over the last 100 years. Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :)
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Capitalism is against government helping any kind of company :) Was that ever the case? I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another.
  - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
    > I can't think of many industries that didn't see direct help from the government in one way or another. That might be a necessary evil but has nothing to do with Capitalism. Throughout the time we've seen different degrees of government involvement in the market. Capitalism claims the less government involvement, the better. There can be a discussion if a purely Capitalistic market (0 government involvement) can exist but claiming government helped industries are the result of capitalism is just wrong. Capitalism is financial democracy. The market (aka the people) vote with their money. If a company goes down, that's ok, another one will replace it if it was a company that produced a necessary product. The Government getting involved in this process is very anti-capitalistic. Takes away the freedom of people to vote with their money and instead incentivizes companies to ignore the people and just lobby and play the system that the government put in place. So calling that Capitalism when it's the very thing Capitalism tries to avoid is an anti-truth.
    - mempko 3y ago
      You do realize that governments created both markets and capitalism right? Markets are older than capitalism and have been tools for governments to provision themselves. In fact, anthropologists couldn't find a society that voluntarily chose markets. Markets are a product of conquest. Capitalism is a product of the feudal system collapsing. Capitalism cannot exist without a strong government because it requires markets, a legal framework that allows you to own property, and a working financial system.
      - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
        I don't know exactly how you define markets or capitalism but I'm pretty sure when small tribes meet and exchanged merchandise (money was not even a thing then) that's a text book definition of a market. And a Capitalist market at that, 0 government involvement. The person who had the best cows was getting all his/her's cows sold while the person who's cows were not taken care of was run out of business. That's Capitalism in it's essence. That's long before even the concept of a country existed.
- Theizestooke 3y ago
  They're fine with subsidies when it suits them.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  Only some factions of capital use that rhetoric, and often don't even mean it. Capitalism is only maintained through state power exercised by the capitalist ruling class.
  - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
    > Capitalism is only maintained through state power exercised by the capitalist ruling class. Your confusing Capitalism with Government Aided Corporatism :)
    - FiniteField 3y ago
      This is the same argument that communists use all the time "Socialism/Communism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best" "Well, there were some pretty bad aspects of the USSR and communist China, maybe we should take heed of those." "Actually, I now choose to define communism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of State Capitalism and not applicable to real communism." --- "Capitalism is great and we should all live under that system as it is self-evidently the best" "Well, there are some pretty bad aspects of the capitalist systems, maybe we should take heed of those." "Actually, I now choose to define capitalism as a perfect, not-yet-realised ideal. Any criticism you have of the closest existing system is actually a criticism of Corporatism and not applicable to real capitalism."
      - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
        Fair point. That might be the case... I fail to see how Capitalism inevitably requires Big Government in the same way that Communism inevitably requires centralized power but it might be my problem and you might be right. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it. I always thought about it as an indirect connection. Capitalism -> Economic Prosperity -> People become more socialist -> Big Government that undermines Capitalism. But that might be wrong. Have to think about it some more. Thank you for your reply!
- mempko 3y ago
  Have you talked to actual capitalists? Like, people who actually own capital? They don't want handouts to their competitors, but want them for themselves. If you own a business, of course you want government subsidies. But wait, you are probably talking about market purists. Those don't really exist in the business world.
  - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
    I mean, it would be stupid if the government involved itself into the market to not take advantage of that. What exactly are you proposing? That a company would want the competitors to get handouts and not want them for themselves? That's dumb. So of course if you take it as a given that the government will manipulate the market, companies would want to take advantage of that to get a leg up. Companies that are market purists don't exist? Any company that outperforms their competitors wants the government to stay out of it. Any company that's behind will want the government to step in so they can take advantage of that and not get run out of business.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Regulatory capture is part of capitalism
  - C0mm0nS3ns3 3y ago
    Didn't find any mention of capitalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture. Not sure on what basis you make this statement.
Teever 3y ago
I'm so tired of the phrase 'late stage capitalism' as if someone can just throw it out on the table like it's a reverse-uno card and it ends the discussion. There's so much more to this topic than just 'late stage capitalism'
- FiniteField 3y ago
  Not to mention that the phrase has existed for over 100 years, which is quite a long "late stage" for an economic system that's arguably only a few hundred years old. It's used in conversations like religious doomsday predictions, to conjure up the idea that the collapse of capitalism (and subsequent revolution) is coming Any Day Now. It wears especially thin when people use the phrase to imply that companies overlooking the environment in the following of money is a brand new thing.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Thanks you actually made me laugh out loud with the uno reference. I did say a little bit more. I guess I played another turn in the uno game.

koheripbal 3y ago

The only clean energy that is capable of producing constant power is nuclear power.

alternative_a 3y ago
The notion of clean in context of energy is environmental in nature. Nuclear is “clean” in context of green house effect and carbon footprint only. It is not clean in the wider scope of Earth’s environment. For it to be truly clean, we need to address operational risk and by product disposal to an extent that damage to the environment, thus “clean”, is effectively impossible. The ‘substantial’ aspects of nuclear energy place generational demands on humanity and whoever will inherit the earth after humans. No other energy source places this burden on humanity. None.
- polotics 3y ago
  Not at all true that nuclear puts more generational demand that any of the other energy sources, taking scale into consideration. Just compute how many wind-turbine poles, how many eventually-leaky solar panels, how much surface of land used up, or flooded, for a given MWh of generated power: Nuclear is arguably least impact. And scrubbing CO2 is going to be a massive undertaking, most likely will not be undertaken, again the generational impact is enormous, a lot more than some localized dump with Cesium, even if not buried as it should, and will, be.
  - alternative_a 3y ago
    Be honest. Are you worried e.g. that some future post Armageddon creatures are going to bring disaster to themselves because of mucking around with some remnants of wind turbines out in the sea? The risks of nuclear fission by products are open ended. The effects you are mentioning are all bounded, and well understood. “Substantial” aspects mean nuclear fission by products. This matter is just that: matter. It exists regardless of any other consideration. It comes into being because of the fission process. This coming into being creates the “burden” I was talking about. Until we can safely send them to orbit and then to deep space it will not be “clean”. Of course then we’re polluting deep space.