Geothermal power, to be viable, will rely on storage and transportation of energy on an unprecedented scale. You say hydrogen can meet that need; you might be right, but it is as yet unproven, and so remains in the realm of faith or hope. — Janus

You're right that geothermal would require storing and transporting energy. The scale is not unprecedented when you consider all the tanker ships moving coal, oil and gas around the world. Hydrogen is not unproven.

Also if hydrogen proves viable. then a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and perhaps other technologies (wave power, for one example) can be envisaged. — Janus

Hydrogen is viable. Hydrogen is already produced and used for these purposes. Geothermal energy, developed in the particular way, and on the scale I suggest, is unprecedented. But converting heat to electricity, and electricity into hydrogen is a well known process, and with precautions, hydrogen is safe and easy to transport. It can be piped as a gas, or liquified, contains 2.5 times the energy value of petroleum. That being so, I don't see the need for wind and solar. The ability to produce and deliver clean energy as conveniently, and on the same scale as fossil fuel energy, will make wind and solar redundant.

Is it possible to have self-interest while also being able to form our own moral judgements? — Pietercircus10

If drawing on the work of Adam Smith, surely you refer to rational self interest - and not to immoral/amoral selfishness?

Don't they cancel each other out? — Pietercircus10

No. Economic decision making driven by rational self interest is, overwhelmingly, a moral good.

"It is not by the generosity of the butcher and baker that I have my supper, but by their regard to their own rational self interests."

The thing about the Amazon forest ... Even IF (very big IF) one could replace the surface area of the Amazon forest with forest some place else, there would still be the huge species loss (already in progress, as a result of steady on-going slash and burn practices). — Bitter Crank

How did you get the idea I intend to move the Amazon rainforest? I said - that if we have the energy to produce water, we can farm land other than forests. Just in general terms, it would be possible to irrigate, fertilise, cultivate and improve land already cleared, rather than burning forest, and moving on every three years.

Read this:
https://www.retailsoygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Letter-from-Business-on-Amazon_2021.pdf

This is what few people understand. The soil of the Amazon is actually very poor. All the nutrients are in the forest canopy. After burning the forest, the land is fertilized with potash, and produces crops for two or three years, then farmers have to move on. It's that which is driving continued deforestation. With the energy to produce fresh water, and water to irrigate, land could be improved and burning reduced.

Have you thought about just how much water one would need to irrigate the border region between the southern edge of the Sahara Desert and the wetter regions of sub-Saharan Africa (to stabilize and roll back some desertification)? Hearing Carl Sagan intoning "Billions and billions of gallons". — Bitter Crank

Not me personally, but it's been considered:

"Mackenzie believed this vast region was up to 61 metres (200 ft) below sea level and that flooding it would create an inland sea of 155,400 square kilometres (60,000 sq mi) suited to commercial navigation and even agriculture."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea

Were we to accept a scientific understanding of reality and act accordingly, we would harness the heat energy of the earth to address the climate crisis positively, from the supply side, and in my view that's the correct approach. With four technologies we could set global civilisation on a sustainable footing. It's a crystal clear rationale that would be to everyone's good to harness magma energy to produce electricity to sequester carbon, desalinate and irrigate and recycle. I have suggested it would be possible to restrict use of that energy initially, and that it would cushion a longer term transition.

With regard to the forests, I would argue that the ability to desalinate and irrigate would allow cultivation of land previously uninhabitable, land that would suffer less environmental damage - and indeed, benefit from cultivation. We need magma energy to resist desertification through agriculture fed by desalinated water, so that natural water sources and ecological treasures can be conserved.

With all the electricity we could want, does it matter if the rain forests are cut down to grow food? — Bitter Crank

I think it might be more economically rational and environmentally beneficial to develop wasteland with magma energy and desalinated sea water, to grow crops in future. Hydroponics, aquaponics, there are many possibilities other than burning and clearing forests; which FYI - becomes marginal land after only 3 years fertility. The ability to irrigate land would create value in the land and allow for the cultivation of existing clearances - rather than moving on, burning forest and leaving dustbowl behind. Stay.

You are so strict! But "sustainable" is not an all or nothing term. — Bitter Crank

Wind will keep the lights on, maybe - but cannot produce enough energy to extract carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, and recycle. We cannot have a truly sustainable future without those technologies, and cannot power them without magma energy.

A small town becoming energy independent is no bad thing of itself, but it's like me at home, washing out my yoghurt pots for recycling, when elsewhere, lorryloads of trash are being dumped in the ocean. We have the wrong approach. There is no way that a million "more sustainable" but in themselves insufficient measures will ever add up to sustainability. Instead, those million measures will make us poor, and unable to tackle the big picture issues.

Carbon pollution is an externality of capitalist economics - and should be tackled as such; internalised by application of magma energy and carbon sequestration technologies; rather than internalised to the economy.

Go Geo! — Bitter Crank

Thanks for the support, but do you see it? Do you see a world in which sustainability is a one, and not a zero. Not "more one"... but one by design; and achieved by intelligently directing the heat energy of mother earth to sustain life upon its surface. There's something spiritual about that... that completely passes me by because its the consequence of a scientific worldview!

And that would be the truly important discussion. But have you noticed the absence of a down-to-Earth and realistic debate about long term energy policy? Can you define the actual US energy policy since the 70's to the present? — ssu

I don't believe wind and solar will ever be sufficient to meet our needs; and it's only a policy of diversification of energy sources since 1973, that's allowed wind and solar to even be considered worth building. Wind can take the edge off carbon emissions, produce some energy, but it's inefficient, insufficient to our current needs; and all thought of sequestering atmospheric carbon, desalinating water to irrigate land, hydrogen fuel and total recycling - is out of the question without sufficient clean energy to power them.

Granted, per counterpunch, geo, wind, and solar energy are all pretty green. I don't see a wholesale commitment to green energy outside of groups like Interfaith Power and Light (a faith-based renewable advocacy group) and smart people like Counterpunch. — Bitter Crank

Depends what you mean by pretty green. There's no such thing as "more sustainable." There's sustainable, and there's not sustainable. I want sustainable by design. Not more sustainable, because what 'more sustainable' actually means is, not actually sustainable, but not quite as unsustainable as it might be...you should have seen what we were doing before! lol!

But now you are praising technology and saying that it can be an answer and that doesn't sound nice. It sounds awful. Technology. Boo!!! — ssu

The technologies I refer to are those necessary to sustainability; starting with massive heat energy from magma, limitless clean electricity, carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, and recycling technologies.

No, we have to rip our toga's and sprinkle ash on ourselves, reject our hedonistic materialism and technological imperialism as the sin we indulge in thanks to our privilege. We have to show penance. Then we must chant the newest smart sounding eco-friendly mantra that doesn't go against the Malthusian ideas and still resonates in the correct circles in order to show that we stand with the correct group of people. And there you have it. Embrace the liturgy! — ssu

As a signal of your virtue, that's very helpful. Thank you! As a means to secure a sustainable future, worse than useless, but at least we know that you are morally superior!

I do not consider myself privileged relative to future generations - whom, I hope - will inherit a high energy, prosperous and sustainable future - rather than the low energy, authoritarian, poor and over-populated world that is the natural consequence of a pay more, have less, stop this, tax that - limits to growth approach to sustainability!

We can have more and better, because ultimately, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. From the massive heat energy of magma, we can create limitless clean electricity, to power carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, and recycling, and live well long into the future. So, other than you signalling your virtue, there's no good reason to sail off the edge of the map, flogging ourselves as we go!

I'll blame Malthus. His theories were have been so successful as the intelligentsia took it to heart. Doesn't matter if it hasn't been correct model of what will happen. If the correct circles love it, it's all that matters. — ssu

Malthus argument is instructive, even though it's not correct. It's proven false by 200 years of technological progress that now sees more people better fed than ever. That's because people are not just consumers of a fixed quantity of resources. We apply technology to multiply resources. Understanding why Malthus is wrong focuses our attention on application of the technologies necessary to produce sufficient resources sustainably - and those technologies exist. That so, the problem is not over-population, but the application of technology. We can support large population sustainably if we apply the right technologies. We need to step up from the fossil fuels that powered the industrial revolution; not step down. We need more, and cleaner energy - to continue to produce enough resources, and to do so sustainably.

Oh, really? You may twist and bend it as much as you like but I'm talking about the approach here, not about a person's beliefs. Social anthropology isn't what I had in mind. — Apollodorus

Okay, then - how about numerology? We could break the passage down word by word, assign numeric values to each letter, then add up all the numbers, divide by the divine number - known only to the sacred inner circle. (I got it off google!) Then you throw that many smoking sticks up in the air, and look up the passage in the book, and ponder the meaning of something profoundly esoteric and illogical while sitting cross legged to the south of a body of running water!

Why do you keep bringing up Marx?

And anyway, you seem to forget that the first thinkers to address the problem of social justice were Christians. Long before atheists like Marx. — Apollodorus

I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists or not. I do know humankind evolved, and that there have been many religions, and many pantheons of Gods - lost to the mists of time. They may all be pointing toward something real, but they could not each have been pointing toward something distinct and real. It follows that religions themselves are political constructs - regardless of whether God really exists, and so an analysis in terms of political purpose is perfectly reasonable, and not necessarily atheistic.

Well, I did say "Christian philosophers" — Apollodorus

And Jews and Muslims, but not rational agnostics. That's called discrimination, and I take exception to it! I'm officially offended by your discriminatory micro-aggressions toward the agnostic.

...so I'm taking a religious-philosophical approach if you don't mind. — Apollodorus

Oh, yeah, sure, go ahead! I see I am clearly offering an excluded minority viewpoint!

Thanks for the reading recommendation, but I read Marx ages ago, and when I read the OP, I saw immediately that you're wrong because as a matter of fact, Marx saved capitalism. Basically, capitalists in government, fearing Communism - allowed for the welfare state, starting around 1900 with insurance and pensions, which in turn paved the way for consumer capitalism, and if not an equitable distribution of wealth, at least an oblique interest in the prosperity of the masses.

De jure - something that (legitimately) exists as a result of law.
De facto - something that exists as a result of fact other than law.
De dicto - what is said about the thing.
De re - of the thing itself.

Interesting question I had a little look at, and I can see how such distinctions might bear on intent.

There was a case in England about the shooting of a police officer, who encountered two criminals.

One pulled a gun.

The police officer said: "Give me the gun!"

The older criminal said: "Let him have it!" and the accomplice shot the cop.

But did he mean: "Give the gun to the police officer."? Or did he mean: "Shoot the cop."?

Does it depend on de-dicto / de-re interpretations of the verb 'have' as used in the sentence "Let him have it"?

My grasp of this distinction is not great. I suspect it of the rankest subjectivism!

I'm more certain that de facto - the defendant might be guilty by virtue of a string of similar offences, that - de jure, the jury are unaware of!

I hope you get more replies. I'd like to understand this.

So, basically, only when we understand what is meant by love of God can we understand what it means to love ourselves and what it means to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. — Apollodorus

Maybe that's a theological or doctrinal interpretation; but I'm doing social anthropology. What it means as the word of God is of less interest to me than what it means socially and politically, and as I say, in those terms, it seems like a straight forward statement of the rationale for religious observance, that if your neighbour believes the same things you do, he will obey the same moral strictures, and so relations between you will be better.

Yes, is there something I could clear up? First language doesn't mean I'm perfect lol. — New2K2

Yes. This for example. What am I meant to make of this?

Descent and rules have always served better — New2K2

Do you imagine I can see into your brain, to know what you mean by these words? I can't. The words themselves are all I have to go on, and you throw them at the page like a chimp slinging shit. It's important to be clear, especially when doing philosophy.

It's simply certainty in there being an order, or an afterlife. — New2K2

What am I to make of that? I cannot continue.

And my argument is that this is an aspiration to the iea of there being a Reason/Order to such a world. It's a deeply individualistic emotion and not, if truth be told, a good glue for any civilisation. Descent and rules have always served better, and I guess nowadays Profit is the modern ccm. Just my opinion. Religion is like old bread, it breaks apart with every new holder. — New2K2

Oh well then, you win! Probably, if I could understand your writing. Is English your first language?

What? I said the existence of religion was merely to provide certainty in there being an order a an afterlife, — New2K2

Oh, I see. That's not what I thought you said. And it's not what I replied to. If you think there's an afterlife and your grandmother is watching over you, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. But if that's not what you're saying, then I have to say, a cold draught and spooky scent of lavender do not explain the occurrence of religion in the evolutionary history of humankind.

I disagree that religion is a political construct, — New2K2

The political purpose I described does explain the occurrence and role of religion, to unite hunter gather tribes in multi-tribal social groups, and as the central coordinating mechanism of every civilisation, ever. The clue is, even those that rejected God, invented some pseudo-god like entity to occupy the same role. With communists, it was the state.

I feel it more likely was merely a matter of hope. — New2K2

Please do not force me to argue against your beliefs. I'm agnostic, and an advocate of science. My comments here are about the nature of religion; not the existence of God. I don't know if God exists or not. But if you say:

It's simply certainty in there being an order, or an afterlife. — New2K2

That's an extraordinary statement to make on a philosophy forum. It's not one I wish to argue against, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Do you have extraordinary proof? Or is it a statement of what you believe without proof, as a matter of faith?

This means that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" does not mean what is commonly understood by the term "love". — Apollodorus

Not anymore than Communists were comradely, no! Famously, communists got rid of God and put the state in His place, but it's still essentially the same structure. Belief in something greater, in which authority is invested, and from which moral/social laws are derived that apply to everyone equally. Think pyramids! It's the same structure as the that of a hunter gatherer tribe of primitive homo sapiens, ruled by an alpha male and his lieutenants, trying to join together with another such hierarchically arranged tribe. Without a 'God' of some kind in common to serve as an objective authority for law, society was impossible. The two hierarchies cannot combine. It took 50,000 years or more, from the occurrence of intellectual intelligence to the formation of the first civilisations, only 15,000 years ago. God is the pinnacle of the pyramid, made up of smaller tribal hierarchies.

I've endured months of attacks by subjectivist fundamentalists for suggesting there's truth value to scientific knowledge; and a good part of that I suspect, is inspired by a religious or spiritual disdain for science. Indeed, I believe Descartes was inspired by Galileo's arrest and trial, to drop physics and develop subjectivist philosophy in line with a religious emphasis of the spiritual to the de-emphasis of the mundane. Subjectivism has been promoted philosophically, to the cost of the objective - and this is the root cause of the climate and ecological crisis. With me so far?

So, I'm trying to convince people who've got 400 years worth of religious and philosophical reasons to suspect science of heresy, that on the contrary, science can be trusted as a rationale to tackle the climate and ecological crisis.

Do you not see how you confirm the worst fears of the regressives - by what seems to me, a castle in the air - with enormous, terrifying implications you seem almost deliberately unaware of - even when asked about them repeatedly. You say:

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of social, economic and political reform in making the world a better place – or protecting the environment. — David Pearce

But you are undermining science as a rationale with your Frankenstein-esque suggestions, that we genetically engineer ourselves into a race of supermen, while ignoring the moral, social, political, economic environmental implications of using science in such a way. You propose genetically enhanced longevity for example, and do not seem to realise that longevity would be problematic in all sorts of ways, not least, environmentally.

If you accept science is true, you have to approach the problem of the future systematically, and that begins with energy, not with:

if we're ethically serious about solving the problem of suffering, — David Pearce

I am ethically serious about affording our species the chance of a future; and suggest that is the first ethical priority implied by a scientific worldview. I don't know where deliriously happy designer babies that live forever comes on such a list of scientifically rational ethical priorities, but I'm pretty sure limitless clean energy from magma is logically prior in the order condescendi.

I'm of the view that human beings evolved, and that religion occurs for political reasons in the course of evolutionary development.

I imagine hunter gatherer tribes trying to form the first multi-tribal civilisations; where any small dispute tore the fledgling society apart along the original kinship tribal lines, over and over, until they invented religion, and invested societal moral laws with God's objective authority.

Considered in these terms, the passage reads like a simple statement of the political purpose of religion, to create a common moral world view through faith in the same God, and so 'love thy neighbour.'

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

If depression isn’t a serious evil, then I don’t know what is – human “mood genes” are sinister beyond belief. — David Pearce

Mood genes? Sure - that's what it is! Are you saying I don't have good reason to be depressed? Are you saying that, in the same circumstances, that this isn't, necessarily - how I should feel about things? Now I don't know how I feel about anything, and yet seem evolved to emotionally navigate a complex environment, quite well. I'm not happy about the state of that environment, but imagine that, we looked first to the most fundamental implications of a scientific worldview, applied technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma, sequestered carbon, desalinated water to irrigate land for farming and habitation - away from forests and river valleys, recycled, farmed fish. Are you saying I would still be depressed because of my mood genes? I could be happy! I'm not, but I think I could be!

Etc. etc. I get that. I also don't have a problem with your geo heat thing. But cars didn't become what they are today overnight or without subsidy. Pointing at wind/solar/whatever for it's failure to solve overnight and on it's own nickel is not how anything anywhere ever worked, ever. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling Musk, et al, are not stupid and they like money too. If I was them, with their resources, I'd sick the best dogs in the world on the problem. Kind of like I defer to the physicists when push comes to shove because, well, they've put the time in. — James Riley

Musk worked his way up, has raised awareness and done good. I'm not knocking the guy. I am comparing my theoretical constructions to his actual achievements, and find his actual achievements wanting, and that's not a good look, but I'm generally of the view that those with the resources could solve the problem. Musk et al seem to have a corporate interest in the climate and energy question, and so do I. So, low hanging fruit perhaps, but if I had his money, I'd be drilling for magma heat energy, building turbine halls, and electrolysis plants - rather than big batteries in the desert.

not quite. As you can see different people have different views — Lif3r

Right, people have different answers, but everyone recognises that there is a moral dilemma. If there weren't a moral dilemma posed by taking the money and leaving someone you could save to die, it wouldn't be the subject of a question. That moral dilemma exists, and everyone knows it - and then they think about it, and bring various other perceptions emotions and values into consideration to arrive at different opinions. And that, incidentally, is why Popper is wrong, in The Open Society and Its Enemies, that recognising science as truth would become a dictatorship of truth. Hume was wrong to object to rhetoric adducing facts to imply values. Morality is within us. We cannot but look at a list of facts, or a dilemma like this without 1) recognising there's moral implication, and then 2) prioritizing the facts in terms of individually formed, uniquely nuanced set of values, to arrive at different opinions as to what the facts imply.

With regard to that dilemma, would I have time to ask the man with the briefcase why he was trying to implicate me, after the fact, in what appears to be a murder?

I would ask this politely, of course because that's a lot of money - and surely, an answer would explain who the person is tied to the tracks, what their relationship to me is, and why the man with the briefcase is trying to implicate me, after the fact - in a murder.

Were there no time for questions, I'd have to assume the guy is tied to the tracks to cover up theft of the money, and that I now know about the murder and the money - and that, rather than waltzing off into the sunset with a zillion dollars and an oh so slightly troubled conscience, I'll be the next guy tied to the tracks! What if it just goes on and on forever, until someone declines the gold and saves the life?

I'm interested in this discussion, but I'm feeling guilty. We're way off subject. Start a thread and I'll participate. You've obviously thought about this more than I have. — T Clark

Sure. That's cool! But let me see if I can get back on topic from where I was. Woke-ism! That should not come as a surprise! There was a parallel, where I sympathised with the sentiment - (were it honest) but not with the approach! But you're right, after that it diverged very quickly, and we never got back to the parallel. Oops! Until anon, over and out!

Musk and SpaceX just won the contract to build a space ship to go back to the moon for $3 billion, although Jeff is making a stink. They just launched astronauts to the space station. In less than 10 years Tesla has revolutionized battery technology. He's doing real stuff. Also, his girlfriend is a famous odd musician. — T Clark

Musk's solar/battery approach is sub-optimal to say the least. Battery powered cars, fuelled by a 40-50% fossil fuel dependent electricity grid are not green. Neither are they thermodynamically efficient. Converting energy from one form to another costs energy. When conversion costs are factored in, from fossil fuels burnt to work done, the thermodynamic efficiency of electric vehicles must be worse than a steam train - at 12% thermodynamic efficiency.

Batteries require rare and toxic metals to construct, and are very difficult to recycle. Further though; logically, if battery powered cars were green cars, batteries would be interchangeable. You wouldn't have to wait 12 hours for the car to charge. You'd pull into a petrol station, they'd whip out the old battery, install a fully charged battery, and off you'd go. But no. A full charge gives you a mere 250 miles range, and then you can either wait 12 hours, or fast charging will damage the capacity of the battery to hold a charge, and you'll need a whole new car in five years instead of ten years - because, as mentioned previously, batteries are not interchangeable!

Hydrogen can be burnt in an internal combustion engine. This is the Hydrogen 7 - produced by BMW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

Hydrogen is the natural storage medium for energy produced from magma, because it's made from electricity and sea water, it's light, compact, and can be transported without transmission loss, to be burnt in power stations, internal combustion engines, and hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike the solar roof, hydrogen fuels cells actually could decentralise electricity grids. It would be possible to get hydrogen delivered to a storage tank, for a fuel cell that would then generate clean electricity on site, for the home or business. Or vehicle! Maybe Musk needs to stop looking up at the stars, and start looking down at the 4000 miles of molten rock beneath his feet. It's like he's planning his getaway!

Don't forget that if hydrogen is actually viable, then it could be created by wind and solar with far less of the transportation required. — Janus

Windmills cost a lot of money to build, they last 25 years, and produce a trickle of power when the wind blows, whereas, magma is a massive source of constant high grade energy.

I'm not convinced it could be as simple as you make it sound — Janus

It's not simple. It's hugely complex in all sorts of ways. I'm giving you the headlines, based on some understanding of those complexities. I see a chink of light; a possible opportunity to do something amazing. You say:

In any case, such a thing will never happen, so there's not much point wasting too much thought on it. — Janus

It's improbable, that's true, but we are headed for extinction by the most probable course. The right answer will necessarily be improbable, so I'm delighted you think so. It shows I'm on the right track!

Sounds like you would need a massive rapid conversion of infrastructure, — Janus

No. That's precisely what these measures are designed to avoid. There would be infrastructure at isolated geographic locations, and LNG tanker ships, and de-fuelling ports - plus some minor modifications to power stations, and gas station forecourts, but compared to windmills and electric cars, that's not infrastructure intensive.

What many fail to realise is that after you've paid £200m per windmill, you need to be able to store the energy, or back-up those windmills with fossil fuel generating capacity, for when the wind doesn't blow. So that means expensive storage facilities; batteries or pumped storage, or else maintaining a full fossil fuel generating capacity alongside renewable energy infrastructure. Magma energy is the least infrastructure, applied specifically to the reap the greatest benefit. The drawback is distance between production and consumption, but then, the same could be said of oil, and yet somehow we get that from where it's produced to where it's needed.

p.s. liquified hydrogen gas contains 2.5 times more energy than petroleum per kg.

Irrelevant. Let me draw another analogy for you, — James Riley

No!

Have you actually extensively researched the viability of geothermal? If so, can you point me to some papers, as most of what I have been able to find suggests that it's suitability is quite geographically limited. — Janus

Geothermal is geographically limited. The specific conditions in which geothermal heat is close enough to the surface to be reached by drilling are quite rare. The idea is to convert heat energy into electricity, that could then be converted into hydrogen fuel, and shipped around the world. Hydrogen could then be burnt in traditional power stations with minimal modifications, to produce electricity. In this way, we would utilize the larger part of existing national energy infrastructures, converting them to clean energy.

I cannot point you to any research papers you cannot discover yourself via google. Have you read Wilson Clarke's Energy for Survival - alternatives to extinction? The Hydrogen Society by Arno Evers? The Ghia Hypothesis by James Lovelock? I cannot provide a map, blueprints and a business plan, if that's what you're asking, but I am quite well read on the subject!

Regarding push back, the analogy I like to use is this: If you are unjustly kicking a man when he is down, and then you quit kicking for whatever reason (forced to quit or voluntarily quit), you simply cannot expect the man to get up, brush himself off and say "Why thank kind Sir, for stopping that brutal kicking!" — James Riley

An analogy is good, because then you don't have to talk about real things. It allows you to describe an injustice, and then suppose it demonstration of some actual state of affairs! I don't accept your analogy. It doesn't refer to anything real. A realistic view describes civilisation progressing from less and worse knowledge, toward more and better knowledge over time.

But to the contrary, the woke ignore the fact that slavery was practiced all around the world since the dawn of time until western civilisation developed the philosophy, politics and economics to allow for individual freedom. It is the very same civilisation that the woke attack - relentlessly and in particular, for what was in fact a relatively short lived involvement in the ancient history of slavery. The woke are going backward with regard to knowledge. They stoke grievance with lies. They are a menace, and a false advocate to the identities they are parasitic upon!

I'm good with geo heat. But the part about 10 to 12 billion turns me off. Even if your approach could sate their desires, without the giant sucking sound of Earth into their gaping maw, there is the issue of space. If you could promise to reserve for me some elbow room, like 10k square miles of untrammeled wilderness, every other chunk, then I'd be good with it. Oh, and maximum biodiversity. — James Riley

10-12 bn people, peaking around 2100 was the mid range projection of the UN Population Division - when I was looking at population issues, a few years ago. I'm aware of suggestions fertility is declining more quickly than anticipated. But it remains, in my view - a very manageable trajectory given the sheer scale of the heat energy of the Earth.

A very small proportion of land is currently habitable, but clean energy would allow us to desalinate water to irrigate land, not merely creating enormous wealth, but the opportunity to conserve natural habitats and water courses, by developing wastelands. We could make the deserts bloom!

Then you associate all aspects of "woke culture" with the most extreme elements. Under than definition, all of it is extreme. — Manuel

Morally, I think it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on arbitrary characteristics like race, sex, sexuality etc. If the core value, and consequence of woke-ism were a non-discriminatory culture, I'd endorse it, but... how can I put this, the burden of responsibilities to achieve a non discriminatory culture are not evenly distributed by an hysterically dictatorial victim-oppressor, identity politics paradigm. It divides people by identity, and creates antagonisms between them to exploit for political advantage.

Mhari Black was delighted those parents objected to Flo Job! She mounted her moral high horse and condemned the parents as bigots, to great political advantage. Flo Job is a victim; but of whom? Cui bono? Mhari Black is the only beneficiary. It's morally wrong. The very fact that you seek to wash your hands of "more extreme elements" even after I've shown them taking hold in the public sector, in education and the NHS, demonstrates the problem. Outraging public sensibilities then condemning those who protest is the modus operandi and nature of woke-ism. Peace, love and harmony is the last thing they want.

Those are the more extreme aspects of it, sure. — Manuel

I do not accept that. For example:

University staff given list of banned 'microinsults' they cannot say to trans people
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/01/university-staff-given-list-banned-microinsults-cannot-say-trans/

The way I see it, your identity is not my problem. I owe you respect as a human being and as an individual. I do not have an obligation to learn 99 pronouns to describe genders you claim exist, in face of all scientific orthodoxy! Further, gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder in the DSMV-5; a mental condition the mainstream woke inculcate in primary school aged children!

Furious parents slam primary school after drag queen 'Flowjob' who shares sexually explicit posts on social media read to pupils as young as four during LGBT history month event attended by MSP Mhairi Black.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8038669/Furious-parents-slam-primary-school-drag-queen-Flowjob-read-pupils-young-four.html

This has led to a huge increase in referrals to GIDS:

Child gender identity referrals show huge rise in six years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35532491

An organisation from which 30 therapists resigned since 2016, citing politically correct pressure to hand out puberty blockers to children, on the basis of two or three hour long counselling sessions. See Dr Marcus Evans on twitter. Pandering to political correctness to avoid accusations of racism, sexism or whatever, gives mainstream space to extremists. Or do you endorse all this in the name of woke-ism?

How dare you not?

I don't take issue that wokism points at:

racism, sexism and other nasty aspects of human life. — Manuel

But does it address those issues honestly? I don't think so. It has an hysterical quality that undermines reason. Any attempt to bring facts to the debate is met with accusations of racism, sexism or other nasty insult, and so there's no academic freedom, or peer review, but rather, an hysterical, holier than thou, runaway bandwagon!

Interesting thoughts, but everything you say takes planning, foresight and thought. The right and capitalism are not famous for thought. They like invisible hands and laissez-faire. — James Riley

Okay, but I'm not appealing to the right on an ideological level, but the right as those with the money and connections to business, that have the skills, technologies and resources to do what needs to be done. I can boil it down to three words for the money men: infinite opportunity cost.

Imagine the huge prosperity generated by sustainable markets of 10-12 bn people by the year 2100. But then, look to the resources of the solar system, and beyond. The opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future now, is the, quite possibly infinite - wealth that would be generated in future. And stack this against the absolute losses of failing to secure the future!

If you want long-range strategic planning, you have to go out further than the next quarter returns and a fiduciary duty to wedge your head up shareholder's butts. For that, talk to progressives and the left. The sooner you pull them in, the less push-back there will be and the less chance they will haul out lady razor for the next close shave. — James Riley

Obviously, there's a political dimension to adopting a global, supply side approach to solving climate change, but I too am appealing to the shareholders. I want the most environmental and human benefit for the least cost, with the least disruption to the status quo. It's not coincidental, this just happens to be the right answer scientifically speaking. The molten interior of the earth is the nearest large source of energy available, and harnessing that energy would generate such great wealth, that we could afford sustainability.

For the sake of the question I assumed a neutral global government could be set up without the particular domination of any one or two countries. Global government would lack perceived legitimacy regardless of any disproportionate influence, because the distance from the governed is too great. It could not be identified with, because that's not how we identify politically. Obviously, such a body would be subject to undue influences also, but that wasn't my point. Rather, where Marigold asks:

What threats to sustainability would arise and how would you deal with them? — Marigold23

I left an opening to explain to Marigold, had she asked - that the degree of global cooperation necessary to a sustainable future is actually quite narrow, and specific, if we cooperate in harnessing limitless energy from magma to tackle climate change by producing clean electricity, and extracting carbon from the atmosphere - nations need not agree to impose crippling taxes, swinging cuts and drastic transformations at home to achieve climate benefits. Nor, indeed, have such measures imposed upon them by global government!

Say what you will. Costs for renewable and associated energy technologies; wind, solar, batteries; are approaching or surpassing those for fossil fuels. Most of this improvement has taken place in the last decade. Given the attention they are getting, I would expect things to continue to improve. Elon Musk and similar businessmen are kicking ass. You need to find someone like him to put a few billion down on your magma technology. The market.

Magma energy sidesteps all this by transcending the calculus of limits to growth. Because (I confidently predict that) magma energy is more than sufficient to meet our energy needs, it allows us to attack the problem from the supply side
— counterpunch

I'm skeptical. Your confidence is not enough to change the course of energy policy. As I wrote before though, I do endorse your "Screw the libs, give them what they want" strategy. — T Clark

I am enjoying your scepticism, given that it is not actual skepticism. I've been beset by the subjectivism industry since I first used science and truth in the same sentence. It's almost as if there were an evil demon - no less genius than powerful, deceiving me to believe, everyone else is nuts!

I do not say what I will. I say what's necessary, but I don't believe Elon Musk would be glad to hear it. Sure, he's making money, but his innovations are not adequate to the problem. Admittedly, he's working in a non-ideal context, and he's making money doing some good, but that's the root cause of the problem; the misapplication of technology for ideological ends. To solve this, we have to apply the right technologies for the right reasons.

I don't believe global government is viable because the distance between government and governed would be too great. Perceived legitimacy of government lies in government being seen to identify with, and represent the interests of the governed. Global government would be alien to all - and even though, I believe that in fact, human beings are all members of the same species, we are evolved, and so beholden to traditional, cultural ideas from which we draw our identities. We do not identify as a species, and so cannot be governed as a species. It is not however necessary to a sustainable future, that we are! We would need global cooperation, but only on the application of specific technologies.

Just about all complex problems in a society as big as the US's and the world's get solved using "a bunch of different approaches." Not only that, you have to try a bunch of different ways to find out which ones work. VHS tapes won the battle against several other recording technologies back in the late 70s and early 80s. Your magma geothermal technology is innovative and not fully tested. It makes sense to aim our efforts in more than one direction. It would be irresponsible not to. — T Clark

I can only continue to suggest that green energy technologies are, perhaps deliberately insufficient to meet our needs going forward. I've run the numbers on wind, and I just don't see the UK building 15,000 windmills every 25 years, at a cost of £200m each, just to keep the lights on.

That so, one must expect continued dependence on fossil fuels, coupled with authoritarian government imposing reductions in quality of life; and that having ongoing implications for democratic politics, that will make it very difficult to maintain a sustainable policy approach long term.

Further, there are international disputes about national responsibility for climate change depending on whether contribution to global emissions is a consequence of population size, or energy consumption per capita; such that international agreements are not legally binding; and as soon as delegates return from COP 26 - the natural national interest is in economic growth, and free riding upon the climate change efforts of others.

Magma energy sidesteps all this by transcending the calculus of limits to growth. Because (I confidently predict that) magma energy is more than sufficient to meet our energy needs, it allows us to attack the problem from the supply side - producing clean energy in abundance, to extract carbon from the atmosphere and desalinate water to irrigate land, rather than blaming industry, and the consumer/voter for the carbon cost of a continued dependence on fossil fuels.

I don't know enough about economics to fully understand the short term consequences of developing limitless clean energy from magma. I have suggested initially limiting use of the energy to addressing the climate and ecological crisis directly via carbon capture, desalination and irrigation, recycling etc, to hedge against potential market shocks of too rapid a transition. Long term, the wealth created would be vast, but we have to get there from here!

I just think the final solution will be a bunch of different approaches. Unless... — T Clark

That is the current "plan" - so that's a safe bet. Would you like to go double or nothing on "a bunch of different approaches" actually working to secure a sustainable future?

Wind and solar cannot produce enough energy to meet current demand. The UK alone would need something like 10,000 windmills to meet current demand, plus 5000 more to account for electric cars from 2030, and they would need replacing every 25 years. Only a fraction of those are being built, and so the principal policy consequence of constructing wind and solar is continued dependence on fossil fuels. Secondary to this is a policy of blaming the end consumer, and by extension, over-population. That way madness lies.

We would be far better served by magma energy. I'm sure it can work. The energy is there. We can drill that deep. The source of the energy is easily sufficient to meet current global energy demand, and could exceed that tenfold to capture carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle, produce hydrogen fuel - whatever is required. Near limitless clean energy would completely change the calculus of the existential equation, and allow for continued capitalist growth. That means, we can 'get there from here' - going forward. And that's the only realistic solution - in my opinion, short of Mr Fusion!