5 ms·

I was driven to sign up and comment by your snide remark about cholera being "imported from India, as it happens". But you do make some important points too, th

by srinR 13y ago

I was driven to sign up and comment by your snide remark about cholera being "imported from India, as it happens". But you do make some important points too, though spoiled somewhat by the introduction of John Michael Greer, whose involvement with what I call 'non-evidence-based healing techniques' does not make him much credible. About your important points: yes, the industrial revolution (roughly 1750-1950 as you say) was when most scientific, industrial, medical and engineering advances were made, and this happened in England, the US and Western Europe. All true, but, even here, it was not as if these changes were driven solely by a spirit of inquiry or general altruism, and it was not as if the rest of the world had no role to play. It was greed and the competition amongst nation states that drove a lot of the change; and it was financed to a large extent by systematic exploitation of people from other parts of the world - through colonisation, slavery, etc. India itself was under British colonisation during most of this period (1750-1950). And whole swathes of Africa and Asia were similarly colonised in that period. About cholera, if it was "imported from India", it was the British themselves who did the importing of it and their people suffered the consequences. On the other hand, the indigenous people living in Australia and the Americas did not ask the British and Europeans to come to their lands and bring in small pox with them, but they did anyway; and it devastated whole populations there.

waps 13y ago
Exactly. So if the greens' claims about solar power are true, then the -major part of- the pollution will soon stop. If they're false, it's a lost cause. People are not going to lower their living standard, especially not in India, to comply with new limitations. So let's see.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  If renewable energy doesn't live up to hopes, what's at fate is the future of industrialized civilization (and possibly the human species). I've got my own very serious doubts as to how much energy can be delivered, and at what EROEI, from renewable / sustainable sources. The good news is that we've got technology, science, and understanding now which we didn't have 250 years ago, and the odds are very good that they'll survive even a profound decline in industrial and economic capacity. But to think that national and/or global economies will continue plugging away without energy sources of some stripe (and fossil fuels are going to become untenable whether for environmental, supply, extraction cost, EROEI, or other bases) is sheer fantasy.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Curated: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214314/-World-s-Largest-Coal-Company-Turning-to-Solar-to-Lower-its-Utility-Bills http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214314/-World-s-La... A remarkable statement from the largest coal company in the world. Coal India produces more than 80 percent of India’s coal, and not only is it turning to solar as an efficient business practice, it understands India cannot power itself by coal.
dredmorbius 13y ago
your snide remark about cholera being "imported from India, as it happens" Not snide. A statement of historical fact, noted for irony given the nationality of the person I was responding to. I was relying principally on James Burke's statement in episode 7 of The Day the Universe Changed, "What the Doctor Ordered": http://fixyt.com/watch?v=wM2UZ26b1EQ http://fixyt.com/watch?v=wM2UZ26b1EQ (19 minutes) It's readily corroborated: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_cholera.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_cholera.htm Cholera is a disease caused by the bacteria Vibrio cholera. The disease first emerged in the 1800s from Calcutta, India where it had caused disease for centuries. Since then, 7 cholera pandemics have swept through the world. I'll note that even recent epidemics are traced to south Asia. The cholera epidemic in India was imported from Bengali UN relief workers: Cholera strains isolated in Haiti were genetically most similar to strains detected in Bangladesh in 2002 and 2008; thus, cholera was most likely introduced into Haiti from southern Asia (2). Despite the genetic similarity in the strains, no attempt was made by the researchers to ascertain and rule out the source of the outbreak in Bangladeshi policemen stationed at Mirebalais between September and October 2010. Another, although less likely, source for the introduction of cholera into Haiti could have been travelers or relief workers who may have recently been to southern Asia. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310591/ I'm not blaming India for the epidemic, and I'm well aware that England was engaging in uninvited management activities in the region at the time. Though it's interesting to note that one of the first effects of globalization was importation of a mass epidemic -- we're dealing with similar issues today (various influenzas, SARS, AIDs), and there were earlier and other cases (syphilis imported from the New World, smallpox exported to it). On Greer: he's very unorthodox. I'd suggest weighing his concepts on their own merits, and as I've noted in another response, the idea of catabolic collapse is really him putting an identifier and mechanism on a trend and mechanism others have noted. it was not as if these changes were driven solely by a spirit of inquiry or general altruism I am making absolutely no assertion that this is the case generally. The question of why industrialization emerged where and when it did is a fascinating one. I've been revisiting Burke's Connections and viewed The Day the Universe Changed both of which spend a great deal of time covering this period. I'm well aware of the social inequities which accompanied the transition. In the large view, though, that's incidental to the larger problem: we (humans) have to figure out how the hell we're going to get past a confluence of multiple impinging crises: dwindling fossil fuels, climate change, other resource limits (water, topsoil, phosphorus, copper, "peak everything"), and underlying all of it, a fundamental problem of population, per-capita resource consumption, and equity in allocation both within and between nations. I'm very strongly pessimistic for the future, spanning a period probably roughly paralleling the duration of the Industrial Revolution -- the next 250 years. Though depending on what decline scenarios you subscribe to the fall could be more or less gradual. One very real possibility is that the developed world make concessions to the undeveloped / developing world in terms of carbon emissions. Another is that the parties fight it out. Pursuing growth for its own sake will, simply put, backfire in the worst possible way. It's one of the larger prisoner's dilemma games ever constructed. On Greer, what specific references do you have to his "non-evidence-based healing techniques"? I haven't run across those myself yet (he's a recent discovery of this past year).

by srinR 13y ago

waps 13y ago

Exactly. So if the greens' claims about solar power are true, then the -major part of- the pollution will soon stop. If they're false, it's a lost cause. People are not going to lower their living standard, especially not in India, to comply with new limitations. So let's see.

dredmorbius 13y ago
If renewable energy doesn't live up to hopes, what's at fate is the future of industrialized civilization (and possibly the human species). I've got my own very serious doubts as to how much energy can be delivered, and at what EROEI, from renewable / sustainable sources. The good news is that we've got technology, science, and understanding now which we didn't have 250 years ago, and the odds are very good that they'll survive even a profound decline in industrial and economic capacity. But to think that national and/or global economies will continue plugging away without energy sources of some stripe (and fossil fuels are going to become untenable whether for environmental, supply, extraction cost, EROEI, or other bases) is sheer fantasy.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Curated: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214314/-World-s-Largest-Coal-Company-Turning-to-Solar-to-Lower-its-Utility-Bills http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214314/-World-s-La... A remarkable statement from the largest coal company in the world. Coal India produces more than 80 percent of India’s coal, and not only is it turning to solar as an efficient business practice, it understands India cannot power itself by coal.

dredmorbius 13y ago

your snide remark about cholera being "imported from India, as it happens" Not snide. A statement of historical fact, noted for irony given the nationality of the person I was responding to. I was relying principally on James Burke's statement in episode 7 of The Day the Universe Changed, "What the Doctor Ordered": http://fixyt.com/watch?v=wM2UZ26b1EQ http://fixyt.com/watch?v=wM2UZ26b1EQ (19 minutes) It's readily corroborated: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_cholera.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_cholera.htm Cholera is a disease caused by the bacteria Vibrio cholera. The disease first emerged in the 1800s from Calcutta, India where it had caused disease for centuries. Since then, 7 cholera pandemics have swept through the world. I'll note that even recent epidemics are traced to south Asia. The cholera epidemic in India was imported from Bengali UN relief workers: Cholera strains isolated in Haiti were genetically most similar to strains detected in Bangladesh in 2002 and 2008; thus, cholera was most likely introduced into Haiti from southern Asia (2). Despite the genetic similarity in the strains, no attempt was made by the researchers to ascertain and rule out the source of the outbreak in Bangladeshi policemen stationed at Mirebalais between September and October 2010. Another, although less likely, source for the introduction of cholera into Haiti could have been travelers or relief workers who may have recently been to southern Asia. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310591/ I'm not blaming India for the epidemic, and I'm well aware that England was engaging in uninvited management activities in the region at the time. Though it's interesting to note that one of the first effects of globalization was importation of a mass epidemic -- we're dealing with similar issues today (various influenzas, SARS, AIDs), and there were earlier and other cases (syphilis imported from the New World, smallpox exported to it). On Greer: he's very unorthodox. I'd suggest weighing his concepts on their own merits, and as I've noted in another response, the idea of catabolic collapse is really him putting an identifier and mechanism on a trend and mechanism others have noted. it was not as if these changes were driven solely by a spirit of inquiry or general altruism I am making absolutely no assertion that this is the case generally. The question of why industrialization emerged where and when it did is a fascinating one. I've been revisiting Burke's Connections and viewed The Day the Universe Changed both of which spend a great deal of time covering this period. I'm well aware of the social inequities which accompanied the transition. In the large view, though, that's incidental to the larger problem: we (humans) have to figure out how the hell we're going to get past a confluence of multiple impinging crises: dwindling fossil fuels, climate change, other resource limits (water, topsoil, phosphorus, copper, "peak everything"), and underlying all of it, a fundamental problem of population, per-capita resource consumption, and equity in allocation both within and between nations. I'm very strongly pessimistic for the future, spanning a period probably roughly paralleling the duration of the Industrial Revolution -- the next 250 years. Though depending on what decline scenarios you subscribe to the fall could be more or less gradual. One very real possibility is that the developed world make concessions to the undeveloped / developing world in terms of carbon emissions. Another is that the parties fight it out. Pursuing growth for its own sake will, simply put, backfire in the worst possible way. It's one of the larger prisoner's dilemma games ever constructed. On Greer, what specific references do you have to his "non-evidence-based healing techniques"? I haven't run across those myself yet (he's a recent discovery of this past year).