Originally posted by sh76 Well, assuming all of that isn't going to happen, I'll bet scientists can find a work-around that will last at least a century or two.
The problem here is that an economy based on the concept of 'permanent growth' is driving us to deplete our resources and destroy the planet. It is an example of direct causation, from one to the other. Rather than engaging in the challenging work of altering that self-destructive behavior, though, you want a magical, scientific cure that will allow you to keep engaging in the same behavior without having to pay the penalty.
It's like an obese person who, rather than changing their eating habits, tries all the newest diet pills in the vain hopes that they can lose weight while still gorging themselves. It doesn't work for them and it won't work for humanity. A culture of conspicuous consumption within an economy of permanent growth will always outstrip science's ability to keep pace. Ecological devastation will be the inevitable result, whether it be in 50 years, or 200.
Originally posted by rwingett The problem here is that an economy based on the concept of 'permanent growth' is driving us to deplete our resources and destroy the planet.
Since people value sustainability, having a more sustainable economy with the same output of goods and services would actually amount to economic growth. Your posts show a clear misunderstanding of what "economic growth" means (or perhaps, giving you the benefit of the doubt, a criticism of how economic growth is measured).
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Since people value sustainability, having a more sustainable economy with the same output of goods and services would actually amount to economic growth. Your posts show a clear misunderstanding of what "economic growth" means (or perhaps, giving you the benefit of the doubt, a criticism of how economic growth is measured).
I'm really not sure what your point is here; to carry the conversation forward, or to provoke me into lashing out in a hysterical manner. The content of your post is too trifling for the former, and you pull too many punches for the latter. Suffice it to say that certainly not everyone recognizes the value of sustainability, and that a sustainable economy cannot sustain the continued consumption of 1.5 earths.
Originally posted by rwingett I'm really not sure what your point is here; to carry the conversation forward, or to provoke me into lashing out in a hysterical manner. The content of your post is too trifling for the former, and you pull too many punches for the latter. Suffice it to say that certainly not everyone recognizes the value of sustainability, and that a sustainable economy cannot sustain the continued consumption of 1.5 earths.
Not everyone cares equally about sustainability, obviously. But clearly, there is a "net care" among people; I don't think there are people who want less sustainability. Since a more sustainable economy would thus amount to fulfilling of a desire, this amounts to economic growth (although such growth is hard to measure and thus often ignored by economists and policymakers alike).
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Not everyone cares equally about sustainability, obviously. But clearly, there is a "net care" among people; I don't think there are people who want less sustainability. Since a more sustainable economy would thus amount to fulfilling of a desire, this amounts to economic growth (although such growth is hard to measure and thus often ignored by economists and policymakers alike).
I think you're being a little loose with the definition of 'economic growth.' I'm using it as an economist would - to mean ever greater levels of consumption. To equate a sustainable economy with 'growth' is to render both terms unintelligible.
Originally posted by rwingett I think you're being a little loose with the definition of 'economic growth.' I'm using it as an economist would - to mean ever greater levels of consumption. To equate a sustainable economy with 'growth' is to render both terms unintelligible.
What do you mean by "consumption"? As measured by what?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra What do you mean by "consumption"? As measured by what?
Look...the Detroit Tigers just went up 2 games to 0 against the Oakland A's in the playoffs. I'm not exactly sober at the moment. If you have a point to make, then please do so more expeditiously. I do not have the patience to led through your various hoops.
Originally posted by sh76 Yeah, it worked so well I still don't have the foggiest notion as to what you're talking about.
Look up censorship in the dictionary. All news is censored. Either by the editor, the owners, the government, or even 'market forces'. This censorship is far more significant than most people realise. It can be quite eye opening to watch one new channel for a while, then switch to a news channel from another part of the world.
But my comments were mostly directed towards the fact that in the US, both the government and some of the media, have specific policies towards censoring information about global warming and Al Gore was one of the few people who got past that censorship and got well known as a result. In the rest of the world, we knew about global warming for decades and what Al Gore had to say was nothing new. We only ever hear about him from surprised Americans who act like Al Gore came up with it all by himself (and possibly invented the internet too).
So here are two posts on that Kentucky piece of shyte legislation.
I imagine this is only a first step on a road to eliminating evolution from being taught in Kentucky. Students are going to be very confused by all this. Which is precisely what those assshole legislators want.
If global warming exists and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, then there is only one solution which is cease to burn them; to facilitate this the world needs alternative energy on a colossal scale. Covering the landscape in those ridiculous wind-farms or solar panels is obviously out, leaving nuclear power as the only realistic alternative.
Originally posted by divegeester If global warming exists and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, then there is only one solution which is cease to burn them; to facilitate this the world needs alternative energy on a colossal scale. Covering the landscape in those ridiculous wind-farms or solar panels is obviously out, leaving nuclear power as the only realistic alternative.
1. Everyone knows that global warming exists and that it is caused by man (not just burning fossil fuels, but many of his other activities too such as burning forests and farming.)
2. Ceasing burning fossil fuels is not the only solution, but it is the best in the long term. (partly because we will eventually be forced to stop anyway as they run out).
3. There is nothing ridiculous about wind-farms and solar panels and there is nothing obvious about them being 'out'. Nor are they the only alternative to nuclear energy. I do however support the use of nuclear energy.
Originally posted by sh76 As you know if you care about this sort of thing, this year saw the Arctic ice minimum absolutely shatter the old record - according to some sources, the record was broken by 18%.
Even for people who were once ambivalent about the AGW issue (including myself), the evidence is becoming ov ...[text shortened]... ts can think up. It's not time to implement those plans yet, but it's time to develop them.
This is one data point in human history. Not saying it's not real, but as an engineer who thinks that it's not entirely impossible that man had something to do with climate change, I'm still trying to get over those emails admitting that the data was doctored.
Originally posted by sh76 Fox News said that "in some states the teaching of Darwins theory has been removed from the curriculum"? That's news to me.
It's true that some states have tried (usually without success) to present an intelligent design theory as an explanation to the origin of life, but that is very far cry from removing Darwinism from the curriculum. Darwinism does not co ...[text shortened]... dict intelligent design and AFAIK nobody wants to stop teaching evolution in public schools.
Some states (textbooks) have diluted the teaching of evolution, including giving the perception that there is significant doubt about the validity of evolution in the scientific community, or that it is only one idea. Yet, the truth is that while there are aspects of evolution that continue to be debated, evolution is accepted as fact and as the only viable explanation of the origin of life in the established scientific community and by the vast majority of biologists and scientists generally.
Originally posted by moon1969 Some states (textbooks) have diluted the teaching of evolution, including giving the perception that there is significant doubt about the validity of evolution in the scientific community, or that it is only one idea. Yet, the truth is that while there are aspects of evolution that continue to be debated, evolution is accepted as fact and as the only viabl ...[text shortened]... stablished scientific community and by the vast majority of biologists and scientists generally.
Diluted in your opinion. Stating that evolution occurs but that there exists a theory that the rules of evolution were initially set in motion by a deity of some sort or even that human beings were created whole may not be a good idea according to you, but is hardly the same as denying evolution.
Arctic Ice Minimum
07 Oct '12 14:09
Back to Top