Freud's Death Drive:
Freud's death drive, proposed in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," is a drive towards a return to the inorganic, a state of non-existence. It is seen as a force that can manifest as aggression, self-destruction, and a compulsion to repeat traumatic experiences.

Schopenhauer's Pessimism:
Schopenhauer's philosophy is rooted in a pessimistic view of life, arguing that existence is inherently fraught with suffering and that the will to live is a source of suffering. According to Schopenhauer, the "will" is a driving force that leads to dissatisfaction and ultimately, the realization that life is a tragic farce.

Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth — karl stone

Uh, no. It has a basis in realizing that the physical world is finite and if you rob it beyond it's ability to regenerate itself you'll stave not only yourself but those around you and plunge whatever society into darkness, chaos, unrest, and eventual non-existence. See Easter Island. It's basic mathematics and mainstream science.

So right off the bat, no, that's just not correct. Please refine your topic and discussion to something remotely legible to sane people. Thank you. Just one TPF member's opinion, of course. No holds barred seeing you are of posting seniority (somewhat) and are no stranger to this forum.

If you google ‘geothermal energy’ there is plenty of information around, with live projects in many countries. On cursory reading, the main obstacle is, as always, cost per unit of useable energy. As for the NASA/Sandia Labs instance, the oracle saith: ‘Geothermal energy is a proven source of constant, clean, and potentially very large-scale energy. Sandia National Laboratories and other institutions, including those with NASA collaborations, have been at the forefront of geothermal research and development for decades. However, the idea of "demonstrating the feasibility of practically limitless quantities" in 1982 as a single event by NASA/Sandia is an oversimplification. The feasibility of geothermal power had already been established, and the ongoing research was focused on advancing the technology and expanding its reach. What was being explored and advanced by institutions like Sandia and the Department of Energy (DOE) in the 1980s was improving the efficiency, expanding the types of geothermal resources that could be exploited (e.g., Enhanced Geothermal Systems - EGS), and reducing costs.‘ And that work is ongoing but all indications are geothermal is by no means a silver-bullet solution to energy requirements.

What any of this has to do with either Freud or Schopenhauer is beyond me, though.

So you are saying Limits to Growth is true? Because, to my way of thinking - resources are a function of the energy available to produce them, and Earth is a big ball of molten rock.

Had we developed the technology to extract practically limitless quantities of constant clean energy from high temperature geothermal, we could meet all our energy needs carbon free, plus, we could desalinate sea water to irrigate wastelands, and so protect forests and rivers from overuse. We can recycle all waste and capture carbon. We can mine the ocean floor for metals, and so on - such that I see no Limits to Growth in the foreseeable future. Do you? And if so, what are they?

So you are saying Limits to Growth is true? — karl stone

I'm informing you (to no avail, no doubt, so mostly other interlocutors) the sentence of yours I quoted is inaccurate and nothing more.

However, the idea of "demonstrating the feasibility of practically limitless quantities" in 1982 as a single event by NASA/Sandia is an oversimplification. — Wayfarer

I was referring to publication of this paper in 1982:

"Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii."

50,000 quads - the minimum Nasa/Sandia estimate is available just from the US alone, is approximately 90 times current world energy demand.

The implication is, that we would barely need to scratch the surface of the energy available to meet global energy demand carbon free. And there would be massive potential for growth thereafter.

Today, geothermal provides less than 1% of global energy. My question is why?

I can assure you that I will engage honestly and to the best of my ability going forward. I'm open to learning what I'm clearly not getting.

I think it is true, that while right wing interests abdicated into climate denial - left wing interests promoted a limits to growth approach to climate change, manifesting today in wind, solar, carbon taxes, veganism, and degrowth policies demanded by environmental campaigners.

If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that.

If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that. — karl stone

Your changing the topic that I was referring to.

My topic, based on your sentence of:

Environmentalism has a basis in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth — karl stone

In reality, caring for one's farmland and the land around them has been a concept that predates any of the terms you mention. That's a fact. So, I'm correct and you're not. I hate being that simple about things but yes, that's those are the relevant facts of this interaction and situation at hand as they stand and so happen to be.

My question is why? — karl stone

Well I’m not sure but pretty certain it ain’t due to Freudian repression. Probably more to do with cold hard economics.

If I'm wrong, just explain why you think that. — karl stone

Sure, maybe the current government or social zeitgeist is completely overlooking the true concept behind what environmentalism purports to look out for, as, people being people, modern governments being "of the people and (allegedly) for the people" might have completely hijacked or otherwise actively mislead and misrepresent such words and concepts to the highest degree. But that's not the point. The definition of the word and origin of the concept has nothing to do with politics or modern terms as the former predates the latter. Point blank. There's no argument of the contrary to be had. Respectfully.

I'm still at a loss to understand your hostility.

Perhaps, mentioning farmland - you are referring, obliquely to Thomas Malthus, who in 1798, in his Essay On the Principles of Population, noted a disparity between the geometric rate of population growth (2,4,8,16,32 etc) and the arithmetic addition of agricultural land, one acre at a time. (1,2,3,4,5 etc.) He predicted people would necessarily starve. Only that didn't happen. People invented trains, tractors, refrigeration and fertilisers - multiplying food resources far ahead of population growth.
Similarly, I'm saying, we could apply Magma Energy technology, and overcome the supposed Limits to Growth bottleneck. You see Malthus was proven wrong by history, and so Meadows is wrong, and Limits to Growth is false!

The long and short of it is, corruption.

Large-scale idealism, doo-goodery and politicial movements are virtually always corrupt, designed to get the gullible masses on board without ever actually delivering on anything they promise.

It's mass manipulation, nothing more.

I'm still at a loss to understand your hostility. — karl stone

Hostility? My friend and dear sir, who I would love to perhaps one day meet and talk life over tea and scones, may I be so bold as to remind the good sir: this is a debate forum. Ideas are on the chopping block, to be attacked with whatever logical rationale one's mind is able to produce. Why would you think yourself any different and take such normal — mundane in these parts — criticism and expected pattern of discussion as "hostile?": That my friend is the definition of bizarre.

Let us circle back. I had a disagreement with what I believed to be a cornerstone or "rudimentary assertion" of your argument, and I made such known. Do you not believe the statement I quoted is fundamental to your discussion or would you be able to accept that, whether it may be right or wrong, factual or not, there's a deeper argument to be had? 'Tis all I wish to know, I assure ye. :grin:

I explained what Freud's death drive is above. "..a drive towards a return to the inorganic, a state of non-existence."

It's my last resort explanation of why we have not developed Magma Energy, 40 years after it was proven viable by Nasa/Sandia Labs. Maybe we don't want an answer, because subconsciously we yearn for all this to end.

I don't think the individual should be able to make that determination for the human species, because individuals pass away while the species is renewed in successive generations. You may be bored to death, but they will experience the world anew.

It could be something as simple as failure to appreciate that Magma Energy is a specific type of geothermal energy, operating at much higher temperatures than any other form of geothermal currently in use.

I don't think it's economics per se; at least not honest economics. It could be fossil fuel cartels are keeping new entrants out of the market, but that still doesn't explain environmentalists ignoring Magma Energy all this time. You see how I don;t have an answer that fits! That's what I'm getting at. I've considered flat earth and/or simulation theory - because this really doesn't make sense!

I find it difficult to believe that the entire environmental movement, worldwide and top to bottom, is corrupt.
I am genuine in my environmental concerns, as I'm sure are other people.
Are you saying that everyone who is genuine is stupid, and the smart ones are corrupt?
If there's corruption money going around, where's my cut?
No-one's offered me sack loads of cash to stop talking about Magma Energy.
Yet no-one talks about it, 40 years after Nasa/Sandia Labs published their findings - offering the world near limitless clean energy.
If it were that simple, I wouldn't still be scratching my head!
There's a genuine mystery here.

I’m quite familiar with Freudian terminology. It’s simply that it’s misplaced in the context. The paper you cite states or implies that it’s a ‘feasibility study’ into magma energy. Presumably subsequent papers might have shown that despite the abundance of that energy, the cost of converting it, storing it and transmitting made it unviable. I often read that enough solar energy falls on the earth every day to meet all possible power needs, but likewise the cost of converting and storing it have to be taken into account (although obviously considerable progress has been made.) But overall, can’t see the point of the op - if it is that geothermal energy is an abundant energy source that could solve the entire world’s energy problems, but hasn’t, because of our collective ‘death wish’ - then sorry, not buying. I’d pick another topic.

Chop away then, but your instrument is blunt - unable to dissect my problem, it merely bangs and clatters.

My assertion that 'environmentalism is based in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth' is slightly inaccurate. I might have said 'environmental protest' instead; but I wasn't attempting to be exact. Merely to sketch a problem. Surely, you cannot deny that the environmental cause has been taken up by the radical left as a critique of capitalism? Or that their policy proscription is communistic in character??

Presume as you would, but I find it difficult to imagine we can produce oil in far flung regions, transport, refine, transport it again, put it into oil drums, load them onto a ship, sail it across the ocean, take it off the ship onto at train, to distribute it by lorry to gas stations - so you can drive your car, but we can't get Magma Energy from where it's produced to where it's needed.

I don't buy that any more or less than you buy my doom monkey hypothesis!

My assertion that 'environmentalism is based in Marxism and anti-capitalist degrowth' is slightly inaccurate. — karl stone

It is wholly, completely, and utterly inaccurate. A literal work of fiction and unfortunate delusion, for any who would partake such falsehood as fact. The concept that understanding the finite nature of this world and that it should be protected, predates any of the terms mentioned. Do you really think knowledge of the land and advocating for protection of one's productive capacity only came about in the 16th or 18th century?

Sure, during that time many societies were under strict rule, often kingdoms, which discouraged such free radical thought. So, coincidentally, such thoughts were not recorded or mainstream. Perhaps in that aspect there is some rationale to indirectly justify beliefs to the contrary. But not absolutely.

Surely, you cannot deny that the environmental cause has been taken up by the radical left as a critique of capitalism? — karl stone

As I've said multiple times, people have a tendency to "take up" anything that seems common sense to proliferate insanity and nonsense. Whether or not a just cause or fundamental ideal is currently or actively controlled, in a certain area, land, or territory, by people who could care less about the actual cause is not the issue. I mean, sure, it's a grave concern. But now we're changing the topic. Yet again. If you wish to make a topic about "are things intrinsic to human existence, whatever they may be, being used by those who have an agenda that is not about what they purport" or even simpler: "are people liars?", Sure. That's fine. And you should make a new thread on that. Meanwhile, we're discussing the current topic at hand as you've written it currently.

It is you who conflate two, or quite possibly more concepts inaccurately. Certainly, conservation of nature, or the management of land predates modern environmental movements, but the idea of sustainability in an ultimate sense; a sense that comes with the threat of human extinction - was not a concern until a post industrial era.

You can trace the modern environmental movement back to Grey Owl - who was in fact an Englishman named Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938). He pretended to be a ... native american ...for want of a better term.

"His views on wilderness conservation, expressed in numerous articles, books, lectures and films, reached audiences beyond the borders of Canada, bringing attention to the negative impact of exploiting nature and the urgent need to develop respect for the natural world."

I've also discussed Thomas Malthus on Population above, that was 1798. I don;t think you can go back further than that, and find the same concerns as those expressed in the modern environmental movement.

Meadows 1974, The Limits to Growth - is explicitly anti-capitalist, if not explicitly pro-Marxist.

Limits to Growth has been taken up by those of a Marxist persuasion, as a critique of capitalism. Unfortunately, it's come to be almost universally accepted. Indeed, you began stating the same idea as an absolute fact.

It has a basis in realizing that the physical world is finite — Outlander

That's wrong, if Nasa/Sandia Labs findings are right.

Was it @counterpunch, 4 years ago, who had a thing about this? I might have the wrong bloke.

Hey Banno - how's tricks?

but the idea of sustainability in an ultimate sense; a sense that comes with the threat of human extinction - was not a concern until a post industrial era. — karl stone

What in the actual !@#$ does that have to do with anything? You don't have to think you're going to die if you don't do something to realize it might be of benefit to society and help men live better lives. Caring about what is vs. what could be transcends into several debates. "Leave well enough alone", "don't fix what ain't broke", etc. are some simplified examples.

This is where myself and other rational and educated folk might disagree. What proof do you have? That's simply where such written record post royal era becomes part of written history. What of it? Have you no concept of what monarchy is? No, of course not. It's quite clear.

Let me say this to you. Are we so positive you're not politically entranced to the point of denying yourself, and a result the fine viewers and spectators of this excellent arena, a larger, more important debate of self-control, restraint, and responsibility?

As with most mass movements (ideological, religious, political or otherwise), it's the top that is utterly corrupt, because that's where power accumulates.

The top finds some grift that can be sold to the people under the guise of benevolence, moral uprightness, etc. Sometimes we call that grift 'government', sometimes we call it 'religion', sometimes we call it 'political activism', etc.

Are you saying that everyone who is genuine is stupid, and the smart ones are corrupt? — karl stone

I think it's generally pretty naive to think that the people at the top maintain any moral integrity. The ideas can be good, but the top is virtually always corrupt (making the movements pointless at best, or counterproductive at worst).

If there's corruption money going around, where's my cut? — karl stone

I can't look in your head, obviously, but usually 'the cut' is being told stories that one likes to hear from a place of authority. That's apparently some form of psychological heroin that the masses find impossible to resist.

What in the actual !@#$ does that have to do with anything? You don't have to think you're going to die if you don't do something to realize it might be of benefit to society and help men live better lives. — Outlander

It "has to do" with the concept of Limits to Growth, and your assertion that it's true, and my argument that it's false. I'm saying that Nasa/Sandia Labs 1982 proof of Magma Energy should have refuted Meadows 1974, The Limits to Growth. Environmental debate should have been between continued use of fossil fuels and abundant clean energy from Magma. Not, as it currently is, between continued use of fossil fuels - and grim, green poverty veganism and wind. We should be looking toward a prosperous AND sustainable future - not either one or the other.

I don't know how monarchy got dragged into this; I said post industrial era. I have some ideas of what monarchy is - I live in England. To me, monarchy is the least worst answer to the Head of State problem, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

On self-control, restraint, and responsibility, I think governments and industry are better placed than I am to take effective action. What can I do? Go without? I'm doing a fair bit of that already!

What can they do? They can build a Magma Energy platform sufficient to global energy demand by 2050, looking toward clean energy abundance by the end of the century. Instead, they're fracking with one hand and carbon taxing with the other; while having us on with Limits to Growth as a reason we need to pay more, have less, stop this and tax that.

As with most mass movements (ideological, religious, political or otherwise), it's the top that is utterly corrupt, because that's where power accumulates. — Tzeentch

You express some interesting ideas, but I still can't accept the idea that the reason Magma Energy has never been mentioned by the environmental movement, is that it's corrupt.

For the vast majority of people who take part, there's very little reward, and often substantial costs to doing so. There's no power to speak of. It would be a very strange psychopath who thought, I'm attracted to power - I know, I'll join the Green Party!

I'm sorry if this reply is less than adequate. I have to go now. I look forward to speaking with you all again soon. Like tomorrow, or maybe later today.

It was. But the science has changed since then. Particularly in the area of ESG. Enhanced Gheothermal Energy stimulates geothermal permeability, usually by pumping water or other fluids, such as carbon dioxide, to fracture rock and create an artificial reservoir in geological settings lacking transport fluids or adequate rock permeability.

Still not commercially viable but could be. See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/754200/IPOL_BRI(2023)754200_EN.pdf

Thanks again for the information. EGS is one approach, a technology akin to fracking for geothermal heat - but Nasa/Sandia Labs Magma Energy Project findings from 1982, are more consistent with mention of Ultra deep geothermal systems.

According to the IEA:
Sustainable Development scenario, global geothermal power is expected to triple from 92 TWh in 2019 to 282 TWh in 2030, but still remaining less than 1% of global energy demand in 2030.

Novel technologies, not yet commercially available, allow for the production of geothermal energy from
deep-seated or low permeability resources. They include, among others:

• Ultra deep geothermal systems - characterised by typical drill depths of more than 5km and extremely
high temperatures reaching 500 °C. Under such conditions, water becomes supercritical;

Supercritical geothermal systems - characterised by very high temperatures and water (or other fluids)
in supercritical state (at least 374°C and 221 bar). Due to their operating temperatures, they have very
high productivity and their operation is technologically challenging (corrosive fluids, etc.);

A materials science problem with an answer:

P91 and P92 are advanced grades of Cr-Mo-V steels developed for high-temperature applications in power plants for applications like steam pipes and superheater components. They are designed to withstand high temperatures and pressures, specifically in the range of 580–650°C.

P92 is an improved version of P91, offering enhanced creep resistance and corrosion resistance due to its unique chemical composition, including 1.8% tungsten, 0.6% molybdenum, and 0.005% boron. While P92 is more expensive, it can be used with a thinner wall thickness compared to P91 for the same operating conditions.

“Hey boss we’ve melted another drill head!”

“Don’t tell me that, that’s five in the last three months! And they’re $13 million a piece. You gotta do better!”

“Look it’s hot down there even without the gas explosions and plate fractures. It's like trying to tap into hell."

"Hey boss, we've melted another Tokomak - and they're $20bn a piece. You've got to do better!"

Don't worry about it. There's no amount of money the government won't throw at fusion, even though it hasn't produced a single erg of surplus energy in the past 50 years!