I know there's a lot of heat under the earths crust, just not how easy it is to be turned into usable energy. NASA's estimates are theoretical I presume? How practical is it to tap into it, what is the technology and engineering needed to do this? And especially, how much does it cost? There's always a cost to extract the energy, if possible at all. That's what is needed in this debated, you can't just say magma energy solves all the problems and expect everybody to take your word on it.

That's a truism, I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of having endless potential solutions waiting to go, and only the time and resources to develop one, but okay, sure - tell me, why would a nasa approved technology with the potential to provide near limitless clean energy, not be a priority? — karl stone

Every country has to come up with a plan to scale down use of fossil fuels and retain energy security at the same time. There's were the agency is at for the energy-transition (and that will probably not change any time soon), and also the bottlenecks for political will, budget and resources.... To make that plan they need to figure out their equation about cost, security and pollution of different energy-sources.

From what I gathered geothermal seems to make a lot of sense if you're close to continental plate fault lines. For other locations you need to drill a lot deeper, figure out how you get hot water out without causing seismic activity etc... I assume there's a reason it's still in a development-fase in a lot of countries where hot water doesn't literally gush out of the ground like in Iceland.

So the reasons for some countries not making it a priority would be costs of building the plants, research cost and time, and security issues etc... It might make more sense to build nuclear plants for instance. But look I'm no specialist and one does have to look at the numbers, case by case probably.

What if there's not enough time? Would you regret the wasted effort? — karl stone

Well yes, assuming financial, human and material resources are finite... we do have to make choices between what kind of things we will prioritize.

If it turns out geothermal doesn't get there in time, and the earth overheats, and societies collapse because climate change stresses get to much, then investments into geothermal, and mitigation in general, maybe could be better spend (at least for some part) on adapting to climate change instead.

If the whole thing goes south we presumably would have little use for high-technology energy sources.

The question is how does this scale up fast enough to replace fossil fuels before climate spirals out of control?

Geothermal is good for what, not even 0.5% of world energy generation at this moment? Do we even have enough engineering and building capacity to build what we need in any reasonable timeframe?

Pointing to a theoretical possibility means nothing if it isn't practically feasible. The practical details are exactly what matter here. We do need to do the math in this debate, otherwise it is magical thinking.

Similar exercises have been done with solar, wind and nuclear, and ridicules amounts of facilities need to build to be carbon free by 2050, and those are technologies that don't need any R&D anymore, and we could implement everywhere right away.

Bitter Crank, and authors like Vaclav Smil, are absolutely right to be sceptical about these kinds of proposals, if one looks at the numbers.

2. I think you have missed the point. — Wittgenstein

Maybe, then again maybe you are also missing a point if you think you can neatly untangle instrumental and intrinsic valuation in Nietzsche. As the philosopher with a hammer he saw his task as sounding out ideals/values (yes it was a sounding hammer, not a sledge hammer) to see whether they where ultimately hollow, or whether there indeed was something to them.

Part of sounding out a value like equality is looking at it from multiple perspective, which typically would include also looking at what said value ultimately entails practically in a society, or in a person. Sure he didn't like equality, but I don't think you can't separate out his 'pure' distaste of the value equality from its material, practical and economic consequences. I think all of that is locked into his perspectival evaluation of it.

If we should want to have a charitable look at the argument, maybe we should let the man speak for himself, since he did happen to make this exact argument in the greek state which boils down to this:

1. Life, suffering etc, can ultimately only be justified through art.
2. Slavery is necessary to enable a few to focus on creating said art.

"In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority be slavishly subjected to life’s struggle, to a greater degree
than their own wants necessitate. At their cost, through the surplus of their labor, that
privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to
satisfy a new world of want."

Since 1) is essentially a value-judgement one maybe could just say that one doesn't care about art or high culture, and the rest of the argument looses its potency.

2) is more of a statement of fact that one could maybe discredit (or credit) on empirical grounds. Essentially he saying that 1) you need specialisation to be able to create good art 2) which requires that some are relieved from the daily struggle for existence 3) which in turn requires that a part of the population produces more/is forced to produce more than it needs for itself.

Maybe this could be true in ancient times, like Greece, but certainly this isn't true anymore in fossil-fueled post-industrialised societies. Because of the amount of energy per capita we have access to, we essentially have all the energy slaves we want, Energy can be translated directly into work, which basically could free up almost everybody to produce art if we wanted to.

A caveat to this story maybe is that going forward, huge amounts of energy is not necessarily garanteed since we kind of have to de-carbonize rather quickly and all (most, sorry nuclear) energy-dense sources of energy are carbon-based.

It is not that I am opposed to his philosophy and the idea of the 'overman' but I am thinking that it is a rather elastic idea, open to being stretched in many directions. — Jack Cummins

Yes I'd think he did that on purpose. Being a prelude to philosophers of the future and a beginning of re-evaluation et al., it has to be a bit non-specific if he wants it to be of use.

The overman is an ideal, a value, something to strive for... his tentative attempt at re-evaluation of values.

He thought western culture and philosophy was focused to much on static a-historical identities, on fixed being.

'Über' is 'over'. The over-man stands for a man that overcomes (his being). Being is becoming is the formula for this re-evaluation.

Capitalism may not be perfect but it is the only way to run a free society. — Dermot Griffin

Why do you think that? Sure, maybe you could say there were some failed non-capitalist experiments, but 'only way' seems a bit definitive.

Also, is freedom then the only, or the highest value, to which a societal organisation should be evaluated?

I dunno, maybe we are on a somewhat different wavelength, I wasn't really referring to any kind of monasticism at all. The point or problem, as I see it, is precisely not found in any kind of individual solution or orientation, but rather a lack of direction that is shared or communal if you will. This doesn't even have to be transcendental, religious or even political, just that people apparently have a need to feel part of some greater whole, on whatever scale that may be.

Capitalism and liberalism seem to have pushed individuation to the extreme so that there doesn't seem to be anything shared left at all. I think we are social cultural beings, are evolved to function that way, and are incomplete without some social, cultural sphere wherein we are raised and can thrive.

Maybe its the other way around? Maybe continual erosion of all that was communal/shared in favour of the individual has left a void, to which all of these movement sought some kind of solution?

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Xtrix

It is the issue of our time, but what should be done about it is not that clear. 'Act accordingly' sounds a bit like the solution automatically follows from the problem.

Without trying to be exhaustive about it, part of the problem is that energy is life, and fossil fuels are the most dense, convenient energy-source we have, and also the basis on which our entire globalised system is built.

Anyway, i'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about it, just that exactly what is the real question here.

We can only deal with the Earth's ecology from the reality of where it is right now rather than mull over exactly who is responsible for past damage done to the Earth due to industrialisation or past/current systemic desire for prioritising economic growth.
Any new/current technology developed/continued must now take ecological consideration to be a major factor when deciding whether or not a technology should be used or developed further.
This has to be a major tenet of 'true socialism.' All true socialisms must earn. learn and demonstrate 'Green credentials.' The SNP and the Green party in Scotland's attempt to find common ground is a good step in this direction. — universeness

What about continued damage done by industrialization going forward?

There seems to be a tension in socialism, where on the one hand industrialization is the source of all evil and on other hand it's also the reason socialism exists to begin with (as a reaction to industrial capitalism). Does socialism need to keep it going, or assumes that it will, albeit with redistributions and/or changes in power relations?

What if choices need to be made between material wealth provided by industrialism and ecological damage done by it? Or maybe put another way, would a socialist support de-industrialisation or de-growth for ecological reasons, even if that would mean making people poorer?

I guess my question is about how these values actually relate to eachother in socialism?

No, you misunderstand me. I am convinced by all of Carl Sagan's great demotions. I do not assign prime importance to the human race from a Universal perspective. I think we are significant as we give meaning and purpose to the Universe, that it might otherwise not have, especially if we are currently the only intelligent life in the entire Universe (which I think is highly unlikely considering the number of planets it has). I also recognise the importance of protecting/understanding/progressing the sentience of all other lifeforms on Earth. That hasn't yet turned me vegetarian or vegan but that's a whole other debate I am always willing to take part in.

I do not advocate for a true socialism which 'ignores the cost of the rest of the whole.'
On the contrary, earlier on this thread, I typed about my limited interest in the cultures of GrecoRome, Germany etc as cited by Xtrix and my preference for those tribal groups who tried to live in harmony with the environment and did not seriously damage it.

I therefore reject your accusation that socialists ignore ecological threats to our planet. Any true socialist must be fully cognisant of climate change. We are not motivated by a desire for personal wealth/power/status, If any true socialist demonstrates such desire then they instantly forfeit their claim to the true socialist label. Capitalists rape our planet for profits not true socialists. — universeness

I did think of socialism as a 'progressive' ideology, as the progressive abolition of social and material limits for everybody. And construed as such that does kindof assumes material progress provided by industrialism and economic growth. And that seems hard to reconcile with living in harmony and within the limits of ecosystems...

But I suppose there are different blends of socialism. I wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything, my bad.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialist don't seem to get.
— ChatteringMonkey

Well, it depends. Economic growth leads to disaster. It depends on how much of the natural world you fuck up. If you use smaller and fewer instruments, it will not go wrong. I think we are perfect as we are. No need for improvement. Maybe build a super large particle accelerator. To prove preons. Costs 100 billion only. — EugeneW

Sure I could live with a little fucking up, I'm no fanatic.

Large particle accelerators are fine, as are nuclear powerplants ;-).

Giving the human race a chance is a matter for every one of its members that has the cognitive ability to consider it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I don't accept the term utopia and I don't desire such. I desire continued effort to improve the lives of all human beings so that fewer of us live with constant despair or/and suffering. Such despair can even have the horrible effect of turning good, deep thinking humans into misanthropic, pessimistic, antinatalists. — universeness

The human race is not alone, but part of a larger whole. 'Being part of' means it is nothing without it, cannot exist without it.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialists don't seem to get.

But since you were already listening to that song in the 70's and 80's, I probably won't change your mind at this point ;-).

Thank you too.

Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer. — universeness

Nice rant, seriously I can appreciate some real passion shining through. It made me think of this songs :



[...]
In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
[...]

Ultimately I'm probably more of an ecologist than a socialist. The laws of physics, ecology and biology take precedence over what we want, over what we can agree to.

I do want to give man a chance, I really do, but I don't think it's up to me... Socialist utopia may just not be in the cards.

Take care.

So yes, we have to look to the long term and create checks and balances backed by global legislation which will outlast individual human lifespans. — universeness

Part of the problem, and reason, we don't already have that is because what 'we' decide is partly determined by those that are in power. At no point in history we get to actually step outside these power-dynamics, and draw up these rules from some fair and balanced point of view.

And global legislation is even more difficult because you need actual consensus for that, because there is no decision organ with majority rule or something like that...

I mean I agree that this is how you would need to do it (if you could do it), on a global level, but that isn't going to happen it seems to me. The last 50 years we saw the opposite movement with globalization and neo-liberal abolishment of barriers.

Yes and I agree that such is necessary and will always be so but it's the checks and balances which will prevent the historical abuses of power we have memorialised. I can describe the kind of checks and balances I am typing about if you wish. I have done so in other threads. They are not of course from my original thinking, they have been around for centuries and attempts have been made to establish and apply them. Most Western political systems have quite good examples but few have the power or structure they need to effectively prevent abuses of power or the excesses of unfettered capitalism. — universeness

We probably only would know if they work if they have been put into practice. As a legal practitioner, if there is one thing I have learned it is that people always find loopholes to circumvent the rules. People seem to think rules are the solution to everything, they rarely are.

We don't currently, your right, but we must get it right or we will not survive as one human race, living on one little pale blue dot of a planet. We are all responsible for Putin who now threatens the existence of our species. One pathetic little prat should never have been able to do what he is doing. — universeness

Yeah, after WWII never before we had so much consensus and momentum to draft up systems to prevent future atrocities. But even then the powers that be couldn't resist the temptation to introduce rules that consolidated their power, essentially making the UN toothless going forward.

Geo-politics is a game of countries doing what the can get away with. Only when something really really bad happens, I could see countries actually coming together to draft something up that is fair and balanced.

No it doesn't, for me, it proves that we need to demand economic parity for all human beings and only allow authority which is under effective scrutiny and can be removed EASILY due to the checks and balances in place against abuse of power/cult of personality or celebrity/mental illness/attempts to establish totalitarian regimes or autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies. — universeness

Like I said what we want doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we can do. I probably agree all of that would be nice in theory, I'm just not so sure we can get there.

One snowball can create an avalanche. I don't dismiss the 'wishes' or determinations of any individual or a group you define as 'we', as impotent. Doing so, can often allow the nefarious to gain power and influence. I act based on my 'wishes.' — universeness

If we are talking about societal structures, it's about the long term, right? Maybe the founders of google had all the best intentions, and with those initial intentions amassing power seems a good thing... problem is they aren't going to be in power for ever even if the structure keeps on existing. After Lenin came Stalin.

Like I said in my response to Xtrix, when you get to a certain number of people hierarchies seem to become necessary. And with that kind of power relations, some will have more power to determine how the system looks like going forward. And because of that, a certain type of personality seems to rise to the top etc etc...

I don't think we have as much control over these systems as we'd like to think, and no matter the original intentions, it seems like it tends to go in certain directions.

Perhaps you are conflating historical aristocrats with modern celebrity culture. The French aristos only had interest in what their fellow aristos thought of them or/and the King/Queens inner circle. They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake. — universeness

Well sure, I'm under no illusion that they have been a particularly nice group of people, but the fact that they were overthrown because of their aloof attitude kindof proofs my point, namely that they have to take the wants of the peasantry into account at least to some extend.

I never said I fully believe the basic assumption either (check my last line), but I do think maybe there's something to it. 'That something' is always hard to determine and certainly hard to proof because we are speaking of complex emergent structures... who really knows what the limits are?

And look, if your only argument is that you don't want it to be so - which it usually is when people fight these things with a lot of zeal - I kindly bow out of the discussion. What we wish has nothing to do with what is necessarily the case...

What?? Give me a historical or current example of a well-behaved aristocratic family who were benevolent/altruistic/philanthropic towards the majority and I will provide many, many other examples of historical aristocratic nasties. — universeness

I'm not saying aristocrats are altruistic philanthropes, I'm just saying that there are limits to what they can get away with because they at least have to uphold some public image, unlike faceless capitalists who operate entirely behind the scenes.

I personally don’t think we can make that assumption. It’s not simply about removing suppression— it’s also about positive design: beliefs, values, culture, education. Actively encouraging other values like love, compassion, good will, tolerance, strength, confidence — this is just as important as removing factors that suppress these values. — Xtrix

I think I agree. Question is maybe how does one organise those into a society, practically?

We moderns and atheists usually don't have much time for tradition or religion, but at least those did provide a positive account..

Now we only have secular states that have to guarantee neutrality and plurality, and can't give any 'thick' account of what values our societies should be build around. This has its benefits no doubt, but then again maybe that did open us up for capitalism to fill in the void.

II can’t help but be reminded, again and again, of both Plato and Nietzsche when it comes to a vision of what society could be like. They tend to favor aristocracy. So do I — but in the very long term. In the meantime, I think communalism is the proper direction as a countervailing force to the extreme form of capitalism we’ve been living under. — Xtrix

I think scale is important.

Maybe in smaller groups with little specialisation some form of communalism was the default organisational form. Maybe that is indeed even our dominant instinct because we presumably evolved in such circumstances..

But I think as soon a we pass a certain number of people, as soon as we started organising into cities, some form of hierarchy perhaps became necessary, or at least more practical.

And if we need to have these type of power relations anyway, an aristocracy probably makes sense lest we devolve into an other type and even less desirable form of oligarchy.

The French might fight against you on that idea. I would help them do so.
Why would you favour an aristocracy? at any time? — universeness

All systems tend to oligarchy.... combined with.... noblesse oblige.

Now we nominally have democracy, but in practice power seems to be in the hands of a few capitalists anyway.

So even though the system was supposed to be something else, we still ended up with some type of oligarchy.

The difference then is that now the oligarchy consists of nameless capitalists who have no public image or values to uphold, because 'technically' they aren't even in power.

Aristocrats at least has a reputation and values to uphold by virtue of the official position they hold.

If we need to have an oligarchy, aristocracy would seem to be one of the better versions of that.

Anyway, this ofcourse assumes we always end up with an oligarchy, which isn't a given by any means,... but this would be a reason to favour it.

People who take 18th century values seriously are against concentration of power. After all the doctrines of the enlightenment held that individuals should be free from the coercion of concentrated power. The kind of concentrated power that they were thinking about was the church, and the state, and the feudal system, and so on, and you could kind of imagine a population of relatively equal people who would not be controlled by those private powers. But in the subsequent era, a new form of power developed — namely, corporations — with highly concentrated power over decision making in economic life, i.e., what’s produced, what’s distributed, what’s invested, and so forth, is narrowly concentrated.

The public mind might have funny ideas about democracy, which says that we should not be forced to simply rent ourselves to the people who own the country and own its institutions, rather that we should play a role in determining what those institutions do — that’s democracy. If we were to move towards democracy (and I think “democracy” even in the 18th century sense) we would say that there should be no maldistribution of power in determining what’s produced and distributed, etc. — rather that’s a problem for the entire community.

And in my own personal view, unless we move in that direction, human society probably isn’t going to survive.

I mean, the idea of care for others, and concern for other people’s needs, and concern for a fragile environment that must sustain future generations — all of these things are part of human nature. These are elements of human nature that are suppressed in a social and cultural system which is designed to maximize personal gain, and I think we must try to overcome that suppression, and that’s in fact what democracy could bring about — it could lead to the expression of other human needs and values that tend to be suppressed under the institutional structure of private power and private profit.

This is interesting in that it kindof lays bare some of the assumptions that are being made in enlightenment/liberalist ideology.

Maybe it is the obvious thing to try when confronted with concentrated power, to try to get rid of it, and try to distribute it evenly over the population.... that sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface at least.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating however and experiments to achieve this, haven't been all that successful historically it seems to me. Maybe one can argue over whether it's the idea or the execution that failed... but my intuition is that it's no fluke that capitalism developed in the society that championed individual liberties over everything else.

Power hates a vacuum. If we destroy traditions that uphold certain values, something else will look to fill the void. Maybe it is the case that commerce/capitalists could jump in an manipulate the rest of society precisely because it didn't have to compete anymore with traditional value-systems that have been systematically destroyed after the enlightenment?

The idea of liberalism, enlightenment and democracy seems to be predicated on the assumption that the good parts of human nature automatically will come to the fore if only we could end oppression and suppression of said values. Can we really make that assumption?

We've had the technology for many decades. The only reason it's not fleshed out is because there wasn't any weapon capability as a byproduct. You know, if you have a normal nuclear power plant, you could use some of the nuclear matter used for nuclear weapons as a side gig. Thorium is too good for bad nations. — Christoffer

The main reason I'd say is that the government isn't embarking on big societal projects like it used to, the socio-political climate has changed ;-). I doubt that technology is ready to start building actual functioning plants, but I'm not an expert so I could be wrong on that.

It's a push in that it demands another solution. And "scramble" to stay afloat is not really true. An economic crisis may look like the one in 2008, but did that "scramble to stay afloat"? There's still plenty of capital to invest in new solutions, it's just that the financial world always need to balance the entire economy so as to not break regular folks. However, since regular folks seem to not care about climate change and politicians are not willing to do what it takes, a crisis that pushes everyone out of their comfort zone will lead to hard times in the short terms, but better times after a few years. Also remember the jobs that gets created by investing in new technologies. — Christoffer

This is all assuming the crisis won't be much worse and debilitating for years.

And this is what I think gets pushed when we can't rely on oil and gas. People feel the ground shake under them and they will start investing much quicker. — Christoffer

Gasprices rose something like 400% last year without the war or sanctions, one would think that would be incentive enough to try something else.

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions,
— ChatteringMonkey

This is doubtful. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention (not talking Zappa here, who was extremely creative himself). Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think the saying really applies here because there's no invention that can deal with that necessity short term. It's not like there is a lot of unexplored territory in energy-physics where one might expect radical new technologies just around the corner. Every new development costs exponentially more resources now, in fundamental research, in time and R&D, precisely because so much has already been put in over the years. All the 'low hanging fruit' is long gone. If some new technology could provide us with more energy, I'd fully expect it to take 50 to 100 years to develop. By then we'll be living in a totally different world I'd expect.

But sure, long term maybe it will spur the EU to reconsider it's energy-strategy. I'd argue that this is already happening, as climate change is putting pressure on fossil fuels and people are starting to realize that renewables can't really replace them. This is one more argument for nuclear, which seems to be the only technology (maybe with fusion in the future) that can provide us the energy we need. In short I'd argue that the necessity is already there, but we need time and resources to do it. A severe economical crisis with no doubt nasty political consequences, would probably not help, is my guess.

I think you should check that again. — Christoffer

I did check it, a lot... renewables just will not work on the scale needed. And even if they would, you'd need huge swats of land for it which would be an ecological disaster on it's own. Nevermind the waste afterwards, and the sheer amounts of resources needed to keep building them in large enough quantity...

And it doesn't matter, it has to be done anyway, whatever people think about it or however hard it hits the economy, it has to be done in order to decrease the rate of climate change. — Christoffer

We need to do whatever is the least worst, which is not as clear-cut as one might think ;-)

On top of that, since the investment in improvements of renewables has skyrocketed in a very short period of time, all while we just recently had a major step forward for fusion energy, which changed the projected time-frame for when we might solve that problem. If nothing else we also have Thorium nuclear power with power plant designs that can utilize nuclear waste almost until they're half-lifed to irrelevant levels before storage. — Christoffer

From what I've gleaned, renewables can only be part of mix at best, fusion is still 50 years into the future even with recent improvements, and the new type of nuclear reactors are not entirely ready to be used either. Anyway I agree that nuclear is the way to go, but this is not something that can get done in the the time-frame needed to stop climate change.

My point is that we NEED to have a push towards other solutions than gas and oil and we just got this with moving away from Russia's export of it. So while people can take the pain that creates as a sign of support towards Ukraine, that kind of pain could never be endured just on the basis of "we need to do this for the environment". People don't care about the environment, they care about people suffering. We can argue this is because they're stupid and don't connect the dots of how the environment create suffering, but the fact is that we hit a lot of flies in one hit at the moment. We can weaken Russia's hold on the west, remove their trading diplomacy cards so we don't have to be puppets of the oligarchs and Putin's ego, all while pushing the necessary push towards better solutions than oil and gas. Even if we don't go renewable soon, just build Thorium power plants. I feel like people don't know how safe these designs really are, it's way better than any other solution at the moment until renewable match up with it. — Christoffer

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, because as you scramble to stay afloat, the last thing you want to do is make big investments in future-oriented transitions.

I agree on nuclear, if they are ready, but you need large coordinated investment for that. They are the future, but if you're too busy trying to put out fires left and right, you typically don't think about the far future.

I'd say, rip the band-aid already. The world needs to move towards sustainable energy and this could be a good way to speed that up. Even if it would create enormous economic problems in the short term, it can be done. — Christoffer

I don't think it can be done. Energy-transition is a process that would take decades even if there was a consensus on the way to go... you can only speed it up so much, before you run into physical, engineering or even economical limits.

Without fossil fuels you basically have renewables and nuclear energy. Renewables will not get it done any time soon, and probably never, because they just are not that efficient, reliable, easy to use, and not even that green to begin with. Nuclear could've done it if they committed to it decades ago, but as it stands they are still in the process of phasing out nuclear in a lot of the EU-countries because of anti-nuclear ideological sentiments of the past.

Energy prices were already shy-high in Europe before the war, it just came out a pandemic that caused massive debt for governments that tried to prop up the economy, inflation was already higher than in a very long time... chances are you completely tank the economy by raising energy-prices even further in a precarious moment. And completely tanking the economy seems like the worst thing one could do to speed up energy-transition, because of the enormous amounts of investments and resources needed for such transition.

Anyway, I'm not saying Europe shouldn't consider it, just that we need to realize what is a stake here.... energy is life.

That's something that is lacking in Western philosophy, which tends to focus on mind/pure thought (forgetting the body), and which gets a whole lot more attention in eastern philosophy (rites, meditation, etc.). So I do think this is an important topic, but I would rather want to explore it from a psychological/physiological naturalist point of view, rather than from a magical supra-natural point of view... if that makes sense.
— ChatteringMonkey

The esoteric as whatever Western philosophy neglects or denies, is almost a tautology. — unenlightened

Well I'd say the esoteric is whatever Western tradition ignores.... and Western tradition is more than Western philosophy I suppose, we did have a couple of religions playing a role in our history.

But I wonder how a naturalist account of the supernatural, or a rational account of the irrational can possibly work. I'll have to wait and see I suppose... — unenlightened

Yeah I did and do wonder about that tension too. I'd say at this point in time we did arrive at the conclusion, via reason/empirical data, that the irrational, myth/stories are important for us humans. That's to say the idea that we should be perfectly rational beings was by itself not a very reasonable or scientifically justified conclusion.

The question still remains, how does one deal with the irrational with reason? The answer is, I suppose, one doesn't... one recognizes that ones reason isn't suited for everything and leaves some space for exploration of the irrational via arts, music, practicing rituals etc... Isn't this precisely the problem with the magical or esoteric, that one is still trying to use an essentially rational methodology to things that aren't really suited for it? What I mean is that one is looking at these things as if they have a "literal" meaning, instead of metaphorical meanings.

I would appreciate particularly the sceptical response to Episode 5: Methodologies for the Study of Magic. However the warning about glamour particularly applies to the sceptic if they assume a superior position. One of the aspects of magic discussed is that of its normativity - magic as foreign/illegitimate religion. The high priests of science have cast out all the demons? Then why are we not in heaven already? — unenlightened

Ok, there's two meanings put forward of the word/concept magic, first order and second order.

The first order meaning revolves around ingroup-outgroup perspectives being taking on some sets of rituals, where in-group rituals are seen as legitimate and out-group rituals as illegitimate, magic... i.e. magic used as a political term. I totally buy that this distinction isn't really justified from a more objective point of view one would want to take on the matter. The fact that some subset of rituals is deemed illegimate however, on the basis of some political/objectively unjustified criterium, doesn't really make one want to re-evaluate the excluded rituals, if one doesn't believe in religious ritual to begin with, legitimate or otherwise,. Put another way, If one is an atheist, it doesn't really matter if it's magic or legitimate religious ritual... both seem equally unpalatable.

Looking for a second order meaning, a more objective meaning one could use as a scholar, seems a lot more difficult. One gets something that remains nebulous at best, as the podcast-host has to admit. It's a word that could denote something like rituals that seek to elicit some effect, maybe or maybe not in connection with the will. So for the skeptic there doesn't seem a whole lot to go on there.

I will say, I do think the practice of rituals, or rather the omission of ritual in Western Philosophy for the most part, is something that does interest me. That's something that is lacking in Western philosophy, which tends to focus on mind/pure thought (forgetting the body). This does get a whole lot more attention in eastern philosophy (rites, meditation, etc.). So I do think this is an important topic, but I would rather want to explore it from a psychological/physiological naturalist point of view, rather than from a magical supra-natural point of view... if that makes sense.

Part of the significance that I want to look at or for in the thread discussion is how the perennial new-age spiritual revival relates to recent, particularly right wing, history, from The Nazis to to QAnon. — unenlightened

My guess is it doesn't, not in any real way anyway.

I've listened to the first 3 episodes, and one of the ideas put forward of the real history of the secret history of Western esotericism is that there isn't one unified movement, group of coherent ideas or linear hermeneutics.

I think there's a word for this - can't think of it right now - but my take is that ideas and concepts get appropriated from one generation to the next, without there necessarily being a continuity in meaning.... But they do carry some weight, an aura (because they do hang somewhere in our memories/culture I guess) which can be used as a means to gain some sway.

That's how I look at most of these phenomena. There's some real desire for answers to the situations people find themselves in, to the state of the world, for political influence maybe... which is a feeling more then something that is already clearly defined. And then this gets filled up with a whatever ideas that sound like they might fit in to create a semblance of coherence to the stories people want to tell themselves.

I do appreciate the more scholarly angle he is taking on the topic, he really does a good job. But I don't know how much I can handle of this particular topic, maybe it really doesn't deserve this much attention.

Maybe...but that means enormous suffering that will be felt mostly -- as always -- by the poor and working classes. It means worldwide depression. They've gotten themselves into a game where they're now "too big to fail," and so the government serves as a backstop for them, preventing them from failing. On and on we go.

I'd much prefer massive legal and regulatory reforms, but that's not going to happen either. What's more is that we're really out of time. So if the entire system collapses, perhaps that's the last best hope we have?

There's always the people, of course. That's my real hope. Unfortunately millions of people are far too divided by our media bubbles, too tired from work, too sick from our lifestyles, too medicated, too drugged out, or too "amused" to know or care about the imminent catastrophe already unfolding. — Xtrix

My hope is people too in some way, but not in a typical direct political way, like people voting for reforms to the cosmopolitan global capitalist system that we have. I can't see that happening.

I think solutions will be local, smaller scale, communal etc... just people looking to pick up where the system breaks down, out of necessity or just because it makes more sense. There are already constant efforts at these more grassroots local initiatives, but they are not easy or all that successful because you still have that mainstream monolith they have to compete with that provides 'easy answers' for most people. The hope is that as it breaks down, these initiatives will get more traction as more people are forced-out/realize the terminal state of the system.

I guess my original point was that legal reforms and the like are only of consequence if one believes that the system can be saved. If one doesn't, then they don't really matter. That's the awkward political position I find myself in as of late, I think all traditional political answers are inconsequential because they seem to assume a future that I don't think is even possible.

Okay to attempt to give a more constructive response to your question ;-).

The whole system is the problem right?

You can't change the whole system is my answer (and not only mine). It just doesn't work because the system works around little fissures and the like... commercializing ('colonizing') anything and everything that attempts to change it from "within". Politics is futile for much of the same reason... because by the time you get to anything worthwhile, it has to be watered down that much that it isn't worth it anymore anyway.

The way it will/has to go, is breakdown. Parts of the system will breakdown, cease to function and other things will take its place out of necessity. That's the charm of alternative ways of living, things like perma-culture, that they create alternative means of subsistence not directly tied to the mainstream economy... without trying to be overtly political.

I don't really expect an answer to this... seriously, what do we expect people to say? That almost everything we do is a ruse, propped up by inequality or fossil fuels, both highly toxic in their own ways. Most people can't live in that space.

[silence]

I think the only "solution" is to let the whole system collapse, probably better sooner than later... and see what can grow after that.

The "system" is predicated on the idea that "we" can secure a future for ourselves apart and above of the rest of the world. This has turned out to be a mistake... no matter the disavowment of this mistake, at some time we will have to recon with it. If we wait longer, it'll probably be that much harder. — ChatteringMonkey

This all probably has a very "Hari Seldon"- vibe to it... but I think it true for the most part. It's just basic (energy) physiques unfortunately.

Given this analysis, the only question left is: what exactly do we do about it? In other words, what about solutions? What goals are we working towards? — Xtrix

I think the only "solution" is to let the whole system collapse, probably better sooner than later... and see what can grow after that.

The "system" is predicated on the idea that "we" can secure a future for ourselves apart and above of the rest of the world. This has turned out to be a mistake... no matter the disavowment of this mistake, at some time we will have to recon with it. If we wait longer, it'll probably be that much harder.

The project of metaphysics is bullshit... seriously ask yourself why would you believe in something that has no apparent reason, nor any sense evidence at all (which by definition it has not).

There is no reason at all.... to believe in any of it.

Market mechanism creates the obvious limits. But if those are disregarded, then simply you will have "official" prices that nobody can get the stuff and then a black market. Perhaps the following remark on what you later note sheds light what I'm trying to say. — ssu

I think I do get what you are trying to say, oil prices will rise, renewables will get cheaper... and so in the end the idea is that market will sort it out by pricing out fossil fuels in favour of renewables.

I just don't think you will end up with anything like the same kind of economy because they are not that interchangeable as one might think, i.e. one energy for another type of energy. Renewables are more expensive to begin with, not as reliable (which means you need storage which makes it even more expensive), you need a far more expanded electric net if you want to switch to electricity, you don't have the same usefull byproducts as oil etc etc..

It not just one thing that needs to be resolved, the entire system is geared around fossil fuels, as I believe are our ideas about economic growth, capitalism and globalization too. Energy out of fossil fuels is I think not just another resource the market can sort, it's the basis on which the entire industrial system was build.

Well, energy policies DO MATTER. The fixation on the US based fossil fuel guzzling economy doesn't tell the truth. Let's compare it with another country. — ssu

End result? An actual real difference. — ssu

A smaller difference then one might think. The graphs only show electricity production, which is only what, generally about 20% of all energy-usage? Non-electricity energy usage is still predominately fossil fuels in both countries.

Have we really tried? — ssu

Sure, not that hard probably, but that's part of the problem no? We can't really make abstraction of our social and political systems, as if they don't exist or will magically change.

You are totally correct and I agree with you. It isn't at all simple. And likely there isn't the actual political will.

The worst thing is that people won't understand it when or as the climate change is happening. Because the real outcome of draughts, famines, economic crises is political crises and wars. And those have a different narrative: it was this and that politician, it was these factions that started the conflict. Nowhere do you see an link to some political conflict to truly happened because of climate change. Now every smart facet will understand this (like the US Armed Forces), but it simply won't go down to the level of political narrative on how we explain political developments.

In the end, people will take the weather as "Gods will", if the link isn't as obvious as the London smog was to how houses were heated back then. This is the real problem. — ssu

There isn't political will because nobody wants to hear that we have to de-grow, that they probably will have to do with less. No political party can push that program and get elected, which is kind of interesting in its own right... the fact that we apparently have a political system that just can't have de-growth as an end.

I still am an optimist and think that we can prevail. We are still standing on the "shoulders of giants" and all that gathered knowledge that science has given us is available for us. The economy hasn't collapsed as it did during antiquity and we haven't gone full backward that we would be going back to the "dark ages part 2". I'm not sure that it will happen. I think it's going to be just a bumpy road. After all, we are living during a global pandemic right now, ChatteringMonkey. :mask: — ssu

Maybe... I suppose these things always have to end on a note of hope. Knowledge and technology is the biggest unknown certainly, I wonder how much of it a difference it makes on it's own when you take away the energy.

The long time question is of course if we need economic growth after we have hit peak human population. More prosperous people have less children, and when the fertility rate is well below 2, do we in the long run need perpetual growth? It's more a like a question for our debt-based monetary system, which needs perpetual growth itself. But otherwise, I don't think so. — ssu

I'm going to start here, because I don't know what it is that people just keep believing perpetual growth is even possible in theory. It isn't, resources and energy are finite. If you keep taking a percentage growth of what has previously grown a percentage, you get exponentials and bump against that finitude of resources pretty quick. It's not a serious question, we can't grow perpetually. The only question is how long can we grow before we bump against all sorts of limits?

Hmm, looking at this statistic, comes to my mind a statistic of the consumption of whale oil. The 19th century likely would produce such a graph. Yep, whales were really hunted down to extinction in the 19th Century, but then came an alternate way of producing similar oil. — ssu

It would be similar except there is no alternative to fossil fuels once used up. You cannot get ease of use, energy density and other byproducts from renewables.

Do notice what I said. If alternative energies ARE MORE CHEAPER than fossil fuels, then the transformation will be rapid. And do notice what is happening in the World. Things don't happen in an instant, but they do change in decades. — ssu

If they are cheaper than fossil fuels then transformation will be rapid, seem like it would be evidentially true, but I don't think it necessarily is.

At some point fossil fuels will become so expensive that it costs more energy to extract them than you are getting from the extraction. Let's call that a negative Return On Energy (ROE). If ROE is negative it's not worth is from an energy-point of view to extract them... maybe you'd still do it for other applications like plastics, lubricants etc etc, but not for the energy.

If alternative energies are only cheaper than fossil fuels when ROE of it becomes negative, than we wouldn't transform rapidly because it wouldn't be worth it, either way.

I disagree. There are alternatives that are totally realistic. Just look at how for instance the price of solar energy has come down. In fact, the situation where non-fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels isn't at all a distant hypothetical anymore. It is starting to be reality. — ssu

Yeah solar-panels that are produced by a fossil-fueled economy and mass-production process. I'd want to see how that works without fossil-fuels to jump-start the whole process.

And even if it would be theoretically possible, it surely isn't in practice as we haven't even succeeded to reduce fossils fuels one iota since we started trying to reduce them consciously. Consumption of new energies just get stacked on consumption of previous sources of energy. No way we will succeed in replacing that mountain of fossil fuels with renewables in time:

The real hurdle are niche things like aircraft. But here the also there is a lot of investment in hydrogen fueled or electric aircraft. (Hydrogen can be made by electrolysis without causing emissions) — ssu

Hydrogen is no source of energy, just a way to store it. It is energy negative to produce and we don't find it on earth. If you want to produce it without emissions then you need to rely on renewables that aren't all that energy-efficient to begin with...

And let's not forget that aside from the question of cheap energy, oil-byproducts are also used almost everywhere in production-processes. Lubricants, plastics, etc etc... I don't know if you even can have a "production-proces" without oil.

The real problems happen when don't invest and just ruin our economies. Then there isn't going to be any investment and then we will have to rely on fossil fuels just to keep our present energy consumption. Ruining the global economy will create political instability and at worst widespread war. Not much investment will then go to climate change. And just notice how for example the US energy consumption has leveled off in this millennium. And do note from below how huge the level of fossil fuels are in the US. But in for example France, it's a different matter (as they have opted smartly for nuclear energy). — ssu

The really real problems happen when we run out of cheap energy to keep feeding a growing economy. That may be because of lack of investements, or maybe there just isn't cheap enough energy to be found or invested in anymore to be able to mass-produce a tennisball in china and sell it somewhere in Europe.

I dunno,I think people just all to easily gloss over the fact that it's not evident (not possible I'd say) to just replace oil and gas, which is solar-energy densely-stored over millennia gushing out of the ground.

So I do disagree in the idea that the global economy cannot grow without fossil fuels. The way things are going now, with little and sporadic investment in technology, with pompous declarations by politically correct politicians (who know people don't remember the promises six months from now), it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Now things might prevail somehow, but likely that isn't enough for those who are against the how our society works in general. They surely will be as disappointed as now are, even if we do manage along for the next one or two hundred years without any cultural collapse. — ssu

I think aside from the obvious political and moral failings of our societies and leaders, there's also a non-moral, 'fated' side to this tragedy. We were born and raised in the candy-store, never to know anything else, how could we realistically conceive and really feel like it was not to last? Fossil-fuels being such a potent, yet one time source of energy, really threw us a nasty curve-ball there.

Since economic growth tracks energy consumption, it doesn't look to hot for the economy going forward.

Wake up, the whole idea of economic growth will seem parochial in a couple of decades.