First, thank you for re-engaging. In thanks I'll make a good faith effort to downscale my ornery bombastic belchings. Sorry for getting so wound up. — Jake

Ditto. I'm sorry too. For my over-reaction - just to be crystal clear.

So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality.
— karl stone

I agree to this, no problem. But that doesn't automatically equal more science being better in every case. My complaint is not with science which I see as being an effective tool, which like any tool is neither good nor bad in and of itself. My complaint is with our relationship with science. — Jake

But it's only indiscriminately more - if you ignore science as truth, and only apply technology for profit and power. If you accept there's a natural responsibility owed to valid knowledge of reality, because it's valid, it will guide us in applying technology in a valid way.

I'll try and give you a metaphor to explain the principle. Imagine yourself in the middle of a city with a map of that city - and you want to get to... the train station. But you're holding the map upside down. You follow the directions - left, right, straight on - but don't get to the train station. Why not? Because there's a cause and effect relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action - and the consequences of that action. i.e. if your info is wrong, you can do the right thing - but you won't get where you're going. And that's us - doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

I'm going to stop there - because I need to know you have understood this concept.

Personally, you would endorse a science worshiping ideology. You are the spectrum! — Jake

So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality. It hasn't built, fact by hard won fact into a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality, as it really is - to compare to ideological conceptions of reality. You're saying the world did come with nation states borders painted on it - and that money does grow on trees, naturally. You're saying that thousands of conflicting religious ideologies are all true, and not at all made up - but that science is voodoo? You're saying if we destroyed every religious text and every science book today - it would be religion that was back in 100 years, exactly the same, and not the science books? Well, hallelujah, God Save the Queen, and get your hands off my stack!

We'd be spoiling your thread to continue a discussion of socialism here; there's Tinman's thread on socialism and Fdrake's thread on Marx's value theory if we want to pursue the topic. — Bitter Crank

I cannot promise I'll be there soon - I have my hands fairly full, and while I thought it was important to state a position here, I'm not out to spread the message. The moderate left has achieved an enormous amount for ordinary people - and plays an important role balancing out oligarchic power. Personally, I'd have a political spectrum ranging from ideologue to scientist - but left to right will have to do for now!!

By the way, it was Salvador Allende who was the democratic socialist in Chile; General Pinochet was a run of the mill South American dictator after Allende. The US helped kill Allende in 1973. — Bitter Crank

I may have got it wrong - I didn't research the film after I saw it - The Colony with Emma Watson, for the benefit of readers. Astonishing film based closely on real events. I got the impression it was Pinochet - but I could be mistaken.

Doom mongers, who don't read other's posts - and so don't take on board repeated explanations of why, what's right about their ideas is subsumed under a paradigm with greater explanatory potential, while theirs reaches a false conclusion, should not expect to have their trolling acknowledged, less yet encouraged.

I'm neither telling nor asking you to do anything at all. Why do you think I am? — Pattern-chaser

It's the natural inference of your position, as set out in a thread entitled - How to Save the World. You're making people the problem - and that's always wrong. If it's something you believe - fine, but don't publish it - because you are suggesting I should adopt that approach too. You are implying that my existence, and my children's existence is not worthwhile.

I especially didn't tell you that you are not worthy of existence. I think you are worthy of existence, but I've been wrong before.... — Pattern-chaser

To be frank, it's not your call.

I have observed that humans are the cause of the world's problems - which we are, sadly — Pattern-chaser

I don't dispute that, but that's not all you're saying.

- and that one way to sure most of the world's problems would be to get rid of us. — Pattern-chaser

It's not the right answer. Consider philosophical conundrums like - "If a tree falls in forest.." and you might begin to understand why it's not the right answer. We matter. Intelligent life is the first addition to the universe in 15 billion years - an emergent property that should reach its full potential.

But that's not the only possible solution, and it's not one that I personally recommend. — Pattern-chaser

You fooled me! I thought you were serious. In that case, thank you for bringing this issue up - despite my angry reaction, it's actually been useful to argue against this view.

Some things that would save the world provoke anger and insults from you. Why is this? — Pattern-chaser

I'm just passionate. I don't mean to cause anyone pain or harm. But there are times when it's necessary to bang on the table. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Do you mean to ask how the world might be saved if we all stick to your beliefs? — Pattern-chaser

No. I mean to say that adopting my "beliefs" will save the world. I'm not asking - I'm telling. This is a proposal, not a question - a broad brushstrokes plan, that explains from philosophical premises where we went wrong, and how to correct it without turning the world upside down. Or killing everyone!

There's a fair amount of unravelling to do here. This topic asks "How to save the world?". The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? And I don't think that answer to that one is contentious, or one that anyone here would argue with: humans are the problem. — Pattern-chaser

I'd argue against it. It's too simplistic. It implies we have no choice but to destroy the environment, but that's not so. The reason we have had such a detrimental impact on the environment is because our relationship to science is wrong, as explained above.

No-one mentioned killing anyone, although that is certainly one possibility. — Pattern-chaser

I don't think so. Technically, it would be very difficult. Eight years of World War Two only killed 50-80 million people. That may seem like a lot, and it is - but in terms of human population as a whole, it's a fraction of a fraction. Besides, how could anyone live with that afterward? We might try, but it would be utterly corrosive to have murdered billions of innocent people for our own gain. And imagine the smell!

VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. Nor do I. — Pattern-chaser

So, besides not eating meat, cycling to work, wearing my overcoat indoors - now you're telling me my kids are a problem. I say this without malice - but fuck you. Live your life as you choose - and bon voyage, but don't tell me that I'm not worthy of existence - because I fucking well am. Part of that existence is a genetic legacy. Not only do I have a natural right to seek to further my genetic legacy - but I have a moral duty to the struggles of all previous generations, to make good on what they suffered to provide me with. From the evolution of my physical form, to the knowledge they gained, and the society they built - that I may make good for future generations - and thereby perpetuate my genetic legacy.

As a side note, to answer some of the criticism of your scheme to use hydrogen, it is quite possible to produce fairly conventional fuel from solar. This would have advantages in not requiring a total transformation of present infrastructure. — unenlightened

I've seen something like this recently; it might even have been you who brought it up before - I'd have to check. I argued against it - not because I think it's a bad idea per se. It's a carbon neutral fuel that works in an internal combustion engine - and that's a good thing. We get the fuel without adding any carbon to the atmosphere. Rather, I was arguing for the approach I favour - which as you know, is a vast array of solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, producing hydrogen fuel and fresh water.

One of the reasons I chose that approach is, first - because it could provide the world's energy needs sustainably, but secondly, because it doesn't require a total transformation of existing energy infrastructure. I considered a number of ways to utilize hydrogen, including piping hydrogen into the home as a gas, for use in hydrogen fuels cells - producing electricity. That would require a total transformation of infrastructure - and that's why I ruled it out. But beyond the solar/hydrogen production infrastructure, using hydrogen in power stations - energy is distributed through existing grids, and for transport, hydrogen distributed at gas stations - only requires modification of the ICE - (internal combustion engine.) Given that BMW's limited production of an 187 mph HICE - I know it's possible.

You are quite right, though more careful use has a role also. But forests make their own water, or their neighbour's. There is a complex relationship, not fully understandable, between vegetation and aquifers, and there would be some effect also from large scale solar cells cooling the atmosphere and increasing rainfall. But enough is known about the cycle of desertification to understand that the loss of vegetation leads to erosion, faster runoff, and sets up a vicious cycle that can be reversed with careful management. It's not called 'the green movement' for nothing - caring for our green brothers that form the 'other' side of the carbon cycle that we are the consumer side of, has got to be the backbone of the solution. — unenlightened

Well, this is another reason I favour the approach I described - the increasingly desperate need to produce fresh water in vast quantities. Desalination is an energy intensive process however you do it. Electrolysis is the method I favour - and that works well with floating solar panels. But am I going to argue against planting trees? Hell, no! It's precisely to break man's dependence on deforestation for agriculture - often, subsistence agriculture, we need to produce fresh water. Re-planting trees is great - obviously, but logically, might we not want to stop burning forests to clear land for agriculture first? To develop wasteland for agriculture - we need to produce fresh water.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being a dick about it - but that's not my intention. I'm merely explaining my reasons for picking this particular approach. I love the great green wall - I'm all for planting things; you plant them, and fingers crossed - I'll water them!

Sorry unenlightened, but I must away. I will get back to you ASAP.

The USSR was a command economy sometimes described as "state capitalism". What the hell does that mean, you ask? In state capitalism there is one corporation: the state. The state corporation runs industry, commerce, politics, religion, whatever there is to run. That is not "socialism" or "communism" as Marx defined it. It's just a totalitarian society. Marx described a system where all the institutions of capitalism (including the state) were replaced by a bottom-up system of social management. — Bitter Crank

Ah, the "not real communism" defense. It never is, is it? Russia wasn't communist, Venezuela wasn't socialist - nor was Cuba, or anywhere else you care to mention. I don't suppose you've seen The Colony - with Emma Watson. (Harry Potter) It's about General Pinochet's Chile - which I don't suppose was real communism either. People, places and events in the film really happened though - and watching that film it's a good way to get inside what always seem to transpire when you convince people they are being disenfranchised for their own good.

I've read Marx, of course. I think he's plain wrong in the claim 'the history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggle.' If that were true - how could the working class lack the class consciousness necessary for his glorious revolution? Miseducation? His theory of historical materialism is fundamentally misconceived. But I don't agree with Karl Popper's assessment that it's unfalsifiable - in that it can explain away any fact brought before it, and is therefore pseudo-scientific.

Historical materialism can't explain the fact that hunter gatherer tribes agreed to join together to form societies - and didn't achieve that by overthrowing the alpha male dominated hierarchy. Rather it was achieved by inventing/discovering God as an objective authority for law. That wouldn't have been necessary if Marx's historical materialism were correct - there would be no need to account for the natural conflict of tribal hierarchies, by creating an objective authority - and laws that apply to everyone. Yet we find that all early civilizations had Gods - and world's apart, Egypt and South America for instance - built temples to their Gods in the shape of symbolic representations of hierarchical society, i.e. pyramids.

Now, the UK is not the US. Our political and class systems and history are quite different. Workers in the US have tended to have harsher experiences than workers in the UK have had, at least under the post-war labor governments. The same goes for much of Europe, which has had a longer history of social welfare programs than the US.
The US has done a much better job than you Brits of camouflaging the fault lines of class differences. Both the UK and the US have a ruling class, and an overlapping very wealthy class. Most American workers have been taught to not see class. That 5% of the population owns more wealth than the rest of the population is unbelievable to many Americans. Credit that to pervasive miseducation. Americans have drunk the kool aid that "Anyone can get rich in America." Your are poor because you just didn't try hard enough. ETC. — Bitter Crank

Overwhelmingly, hierarchies are hierarchies of competence. There's an intergenerational element - where the success of an ancestor can hand privilege to an utter buffoon, which explains the decline of the aristocracy in Europe, leaving little more than the occasional monarch symbolically hanging around. There's intergenerational disadvantage too - but a truly competent individual will tend to overcome that, and a capitalist society will gladly look past class differences where there's talent and tenacity that can be translated into profit. And here we come back to socialism.

The essential problem with revolutionary socialism is an artificial upturning of hierarchies of competence - i.e. a bottom-up system of social management. I don't agree that's what Marx was proposing exactly, he was talking about property held in common ownership for the common good. That's a command economy. The problem is that the natural hierarchy of competence will reassert itself over time - and so pogroms against the intelligent and talented are consistent features of communist societies. Pol Pot - for example, went around killing people who wore glasses, or who spoke a foreign language. But I guess he wasn't a real communist either. They never are!

As a socialist, it's not my job to defend capitalism. "We have not come to praise Capital; we have come to bury it." I do not believe that capitalism is compatible with continued human existence into the next century. Despotic dictatorships are also not compatible with human life, whether they pay heed to Karl Marx or Adam Smith. — Bitter Crank

I'm in the UK, and consider myself centrist. I liked Tony Blair - Labour Prime Minister from 1997- 2007, and I generally dislike the Conservatives. But I'm very suspicious of Jeremy Corbyn. He's too far left for my liking. I'm fine with capitalism with a social conscience - but dragging down the successful to make everyone equal is where I draw the line. One has to remember, I think - that production is fundamental to human welfare, and it's only in addition to productive activity that socialist values have any meaning whatsoever.

A capitalist economy - as opposed to a command economy, allows for personal and political freedom, a command economy must necessarily prohibit. In order to design production, a command economy must tell people what to do, when to do it, and cannot stand dissent of any kind - because the State manages production.

The miracle at the core of capitalism is the invisible hand - described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations as the coincidence of rationally self interested actions that marry like the cogs of a wheel, to drive society forward. And it's real. It's a genuine miracle, that the goods and services people want and need are produced and distributed without any central planning whatsoever. It's rather ironic actually, that capitalism affords you the political freedom to be socialist!

In relation to our bigger problem, I honestly do not see capitalism as the guilty party, but rather - place blame with the failure to recognize science as truth from 1630, which had the effect of divorcing science as a valid understanding of reality, from science as a cornucopia of cool gadgets and neat ways to kill people. Had science as truth been integrated politically over the past 400 years - rather than decried at every turn as heresy, it would have provided a valid regulatory context for the conduct of capitalism - that would have outlawed the excesses, many assume paint capitalism as the villain of the piece.

In my view, capitalism is indispensable to any possible solution - and it's my aim to convince capitalist interests that they are best served - ending the race to the bottom by adopting scientifically valid standards of production. You might ask - "Why would they take on these regulatory burdens? It will reduce profits!" But not necessarily. If all companies are required to adopt the same standards, and all pay the same opportunity cost in regards existentially necessary environmental welfare regulations, there's no competitive disadvantage.

Capital finance (embodied in a few hundred people who make major investment decisions) and fossil fuel owners don't care (can't care) about the environment, the various species, and whether you and I freeze or not. They pretty much MUST focus on perpetuating the life of the gold-egg laying goose and generating a steady stream of profits for hundreds of thousands stock holders.
You and I would experience too much cognitive dissonance to be worrying about the future of the species and at the same time doing business as usual.
The situation is reflected in the statements of some business leaders traveling to Saudi Arabia who were asked about their presence, considering the Saudi crowned thug's recent chopping up a journalist in their Turkish embassy. "I'm here to make deals; I'm not concerned about anything else." — Bitter Crank

A lot of business leaders didn't go to Davos in the desert though - did they? Admittedly, it was mainly companies who's business model requires they give a crap about their public image - but nonetheless, it's a little simplistic to give me the Scrooge McDuck theory of capitalism as an explanation of our existential dilemma - particularly after I've given you an exquisite epistemic theory, identifying the fundamental problem as our relationship to science. Capitalism has achieved extraordinary things, and could do so much more. Focused by a science based political rationale on solving our problems, capitalism would solve them.

There is of course also the possibility of carbon sequestration. And on that front, and on other fronts, it is worth considering low tech solutions. http://www.greatgreenwall.org China is also reducing its deserts. Techno-energy solutions have their place, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal etc, but bio-solutions are even more important. — unenlightened

That's really quite hopeful. Those people are on the frontline of climate change, and they're acting now - with some really quite amazing efforts. Below the great green wall story - there's a dozen other stories, all similarly hopeful. Solar farms, irrigation, agriculture. I'm almost ashamed to strike a pessimistic note - but facts are facts. The GRACE satellite conducted a major study of aquifer depletion, published in 2009, and the news was not good. About 2 billion people are dependent on water from aquifers - and they are being used up fast:

According to Jay Famiglietti, director of UCI’s Center for Hydrologic Modeling, “Most of the places that we see with the GRACE where groundwater is being depleted are the arid and semi-arid regions in those mid-latitudes,” he added. Many of these areas tend to be big population hubs. “Most of those are agricultural regions — the North China Plain, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, some southern Europe and North Africa. In the U.S., we see the Ogallala Aquifer and the Central Valley. Even the southeastern U.S. — you think of it as being very humid, but they are in the grips of a long-term drought, and so they are using groundwater, too.”

https://www.circleofblue.org/2012/world/satellite-perspectives-nasas-grace-program-sees-groundwater-from-space/

Like I've said above, we need to start making huge amounts of fresh water, and only with a renewable energy infrastructure can we do that. Otherwise, those 2 billion people will migrate in ever increasing numbers - and migration is already becoming a contentious political issue.

First of all, that's not a hidden fact. Secondly, all those factors you mention make fossil fuels cheap and the supply ample. Our transport fleet, ships, aircraft, trucks and personal cars won't immediately be replaced either. One has to count also this to the equation: it's not only that we are adding renewable to the mix, it's that we would be scrapping existing infrastructure that would still work for a long time. It's a huge task to replace and grow the sector when you are reducing energy production simultaneously. — ssu

I didn't say it's a hidden fact. I said it's a 'hidden' advantage. I do not mean to suggest 'shhhh! - people don't know we have fossil fuel infrastructure' - but rather that enormous government aid in establishing fossil fuel infrastructure - is not reflected in the price of fossil fuel energy, with which - it was argued, renewable energy should compete.

You apparently understand the principle - because you say: "all those factors you mention make fossil fuels cheap and the supply ample." That's exactly what I meant - so how can renewable energy compete? I also agree: "Our transport fleet, ships, aircraft, trucks and personal cars won't immediately be replaced either." Which is why, I expect we will experience significant climate change - and have suggested building renewable energy infrastructure to produce fresh water and hydrogen. Abundant fresh water will be necessary for irrigation and habitation, and hydrogen can be used, with minimal adaptions, in power stations, cement and steel plants, while transport technology adjusts.

Let's not forget that Germany is already paying the highest price for electricity in the EU (alongside Denmark). In my country (Finland) the price per KW/h is half of that in Germany. The cost has risen all the decade and this does start to have an effect for example on industry: — ssu

I have read the following passages - but I'm not reproducing them here. To me, the plight of the Mittelstand speaks of the need for abundant clean energy. The example of the wind turbine factory with a $100k hike in energy bills precisely illustrates my point, that renewable energy is a price taker - and not a price maker. The price of energy is set by the fossil fuel market - as is clearly stated:

...well up from below €20 at its lowest point in February 2016, and following sharp rises in world prices for oil, coal and gas.

Economic effects like this are complex, because arguably - that should make renewable energy more attractive, but at the same time - imposes costs on the industry that eat away at operating capital, and make for a stunted application of technology. In face of the existential threat climate change poses - I find it very difficult to understand why a comprehensive renewable energy infrastructure isn't government funded. Instead, they want me to stop eating meat, cycle to work and wear my overcoat indoors - just so they can keep pumping the black gold!

Indeed one could do that. But solar-thermal power hasn't taken off. Mirrors can focus a lot of heat, but not on cloudy days, and not at night. Your solar to H plan is better. — Bitter Crank

Right, but it was a counter example to your suggestion that renewable energy should be applied piecemeal, and on a commercial basis, to compete with fossil fuels. If I were starting a business - I wouldn't go for solar/hydrogen. The start up costs are prohibitive. So I'd go for an ultimately less effective, but cheaper alternative. And this is the very dilemma renewable energy faces. It's subject to commercial demands (fossil fuels were not subject to in the early days) where prices are dictated by its main competitor.

Right; I would just drop "mortgage" from your description. It has too many specific connotations connected to purchasing property or getting consumer loans. — Bitter Crank

Maybe you're right, but we're talking about it. The essential idea has been communicated, and now - we're talking about how oil could be monetized without being extracted. (That's a clumsy turn of phrase.) The one thing that hasn't come up yet, is that besides oil - there's about 2000 years worth of coal we can't burn either, and massive amounts of natural gas. I don't have an answer for that - other than, once renewable energy infrastructure is in place - there will be no economic motive to dig for coal.

Where there is no political will, nothing happens. Period. Your plan is going to require plenty of political will too. I don't know exactly when political will is scheduled to arrive. It had better be pretty damn quick or we are totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

I accept that's true - but politics is often the art of the possible. If we can prove it's possible - it might happen. If we can jigger the economics so that it's profitable, the chances of the political will manifesting are improved considerably. It's not an easy circle to square. (Theoretically, it would require a near infinite number of non-Euclidean geometric operations!) But seriously, this is either an incredibly difficult problem to solve - or it's very simple. Do we value human existence or not? I think we do - mostly our own, admittedly, but I think there's a number - a cost we're willing to bear for the continued existence of our species, and I'm trying to show we can meet with that number.

I disagree. The reason has been that the technology hasn't been there earlier to make renewable energy like wind and solar competitive compared to fossil fuels. Once it's far cheaper to produce renewable energy than produce energy with fossil fuels, then the market mechanism takes over. It's as simple as that. — ssu

I don't believe that's correct. I think there's a massive 'hidden' advantage for fossil fuels in the fact that we've developed and applied the infrastructure - oil rigs, tanker ships, chemical refineries, cars and petrol stations etc, coal mines, railways, power stations - all of which enjoyed vast government support in the early days - that it seems, renewable energy is denied today. Subsidies for piecemeal application of renewable energy technology merely cement that structural disadvantage. If renewable energy is even nearly competitive - it's actually out performing fossil fuels by a huge margin. Given the kind of support for renewables, fossil fuels historically received - i.e. on a level playing field, renewable energy would easily win out.

Perhaps the thing is about using oil and coal to produce energy and this is the big issue. Yet there are a variety of other uses for oil like making plastics. — ssu

That's true, and those are things we are going to need, assuming we secure a sustainable future now. We are past "peak oil" - and still burning a non-renewable resource at a rate of 100 million barrels a day, from which we derive thousands of products vital to civilized life. However:

"On average, U.S. refineries produce, from a 42-gallon barrel of crude oil, about 20 gallons of gasoline, 12 gallons of distillate fuel, most of which is sold as diesel fuel, and 4 gallons of jet fuel."

That adds up to 36 gallons of fuel, from a 42 gallon barrel of crude oil - leaving six gallons of waste, from which thousands of products are made. But do you think those products account for 600 million gallons of non-fuel waste per day? Assuming incorrectly, this waste only has the density of water, that's easily a trillion tons per year - about 300 million tons of which is made into plastic, and plastic is everywhere. It's choking the rivers and the oceans. So where's the other 700 million tons of non-fuel waste going? Someone should probably look into that.

Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology.
— karl stone

If solar generated hydrogen is a practical energy source (and let's say it is) then the logical place from which to obtain capital finance is the market. Since the technology is scalable, you don't have to finance the final stage before the first stage is built. IF you built the final stage of the project today, had 300 square miles of solar panels and a plant cranking out hydrogen, and freighters lined up to take it away you wouldn't be able to sell much of it because the industrial base isn't ready to receive and use H. What you would do is finance a 10 square mile solar panel set up, located near the right shore, and start producing electricity, drinking water, and some H. The electricity and water could be sold to the nearby shore (i.e., India). The H would have to find its market. The profit could be plowed back into the operation, or used to pay dividends. When you were ready to expand, additional shares could be sold to finance enlarging the plant. And so on down the line.

The usual way to pay for capital projects is either a national subsidy or the capital market. — Bitter Crank

That seems like a reasonable argument, from a certain perspective - but in fact it's not. It doesn't recognize that ideological motives for action cut across the grain of nature. Your comments demonstrate quite clearly how an assumption that ideologies are true and authoritative, limits the application of technology. But we have followed those ideas to this point, where we now know we are under threat, and though we have the knowledge and technology to meet the challenge, we lack the will to apply it. We have to transcend that rationale.

If renewable energy could displace fossil fuels through market mechanisms alone, it would have happened already. But the ubiquitous position of fossil fuels in the market makes it more economically rational to continue using fossil fuels, than it does to change. Inelasticity of demand for energy - basically ensures that, whatever the price - we'll pay it. Even at the vast expense of building oil rigs, and towing them miles out to sea, to drill holes in the seabed, two miles down - it's more economically rational to do that, than it is to collect free radiant energy from the sun. It's a trap - and one that will strangle us to death!

Bearing in mind the dire warnings issued by scientists in recent weeks and months - a more comprehensive approach is warranted. I do not insist it be my approach - but it's the best idea of which I'm aware, that addresses all the relevant factors (of which I'm aware.) Describing this approach illustrates the relevant issues - issues which must be addressed by any other idea. Your argument, reasonable as it may seem - doesn't address the one reason we're doing this at all: climate change!

If I were merely trying to start a business - I'd use mirrors to heat sea water, to produce clean water and steam to drive a turbine to produce electricity, and irrigate wasteland for agriculture. But I'm trying to save the world from a fossil fuel addiction, built into the very infrastructure of society. And that's like... the end of Homer's Odyssey, where Odysseus fires an arrow through a dozen axe heads.

The particular approach I describe - mortgaging fossil fuels to provide funding to build floating solar farms, producing hydrogen and fresh water, is quite simply, the cheese at the end of the maze. When you work the problem - it's there. And it maintains, and works with the larger part of existing energy infrastructure. Hydrogen can be burnt in power stations, and distributed at petrol stations with fairly minimal adaptions to existing technology. I think we can do a little better than this:



If you'll forgive me for going on at such great length - I want to address again, this question of mortgaging an asset that cannot be used, so has no value. I think we're getting hung up on the word mortgage. I cannot think of a more apt word - but the economic logic of commercial assets that follows from the word, is unwelcome baggage. Funding on such a scale could only be had with government assurances; essentially, sovereign debt. Sovereign debt is not secured by the mortgaging of an asset with a commercial value. It is however, necessary to monetize fossil fuels to keep them in the ground. There is no political will to simply ban them, and so this is where we came in, with transcending the rationale. Surety for the debt follows from an explicit political commitment to ensure the continued viability of civilization.

So it gives your life meaning now to work for the well-being of your descendents. So you know your ancestors felt the same way about you. They blessed your life without knowing you.

I would say remember to honor them by looking on this world with a loving eye. So many people who engage this issue come to it with abiding hatred for humanity. It's a breath of fresh air to meet someone who comes to it with love. — frank

And no small measure of self regard! But thank you Frank. That's a kind thing to say and a lovely thing to hear. I do think there's a natural moral duty to the struggles of past generations, to make good on what evolution, hard work and sacrifice have provided - to use our abilities and our knowledge to further the cause of future generations. To not give it our all is the most egregious betrayal, not just of future generations who will suffer for our failure, but of past generations who built all this. Giants upon whose shoulders we stand.

I understand. You love us. — frank

Erm... Of course I love us. I love me. I want my genetic, intellectual and economic legacy to be carried forward. I want human inquiry and creativity to reach its full potential - whatever that may be. If there's a way to travel to the stars - we'll find it. It might be alternate dimensions, or uploading our minds into machines. It might even be God. But whatever it is, I'd belong to that legacy - and thus my life now would have meaning. I don't think there's any meaning to life if we chart off the edge of the map in the near future. It's just masturbation. An empty gesture.

p.s. I read your PM and I'll keep an eye out! Thanks!

Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution.
— karl stone

That, or fewer people? :chin: If there were no humans none of the issues we're discussing would have become problematic, would they? So focus clearly on the elephant in this topic: humans are the problem. The topic asks "how to save the world?", and there is an obvious answer.... :gasp: — Pattern-chaser

If that's what you truly believe - kill yourself! You are the only person on earth you have a right to say shouldn't exist. No? Hypocrite!

When we factor in time, we can make estimates of the inherent dangers. We have had now for over 70 nuclear energy and in those 70 years we have seen accidents. And yes, when nuclear energy is as dangerous as solar power with it's unlucky installers, that does indicate the inherent danger especially when compared to the massive casualties of coal energy. Chernobyl was a reactor that could blow up, the people there were doing tests with the safety systems off, hence we do have an example of the worst kind of accident. — ssu

I think we're incredibly conscious of the dangers of nuclear power and go to extraordinary lengths to contain it. That's not so with fossil fuels. So, it's not really a fair comparison - or rather, such a comparison only carries one so far.

Really? And how much energy one has to need for the steel plant in Sweden using hydrogen you referred to? — ssu

It's powered by hydrogen made from renewable electricity - exactly what I'm proposing we do on a global scale.

Energy infrastructure needs energy to be built, yet 90 percent of the carbon emissions from electricity generation in the United States come from coal-fired power plants. — ssu

We would need to use existing fossil fuel infrastructure to overcome the need for fossil fuels, that's true - but surely that's a better use of fossil fuels than building new nuclear power stations, that wouldn't provide a comprehensive solution for domestic, industrial and transport energy needs. Further, they cost vast amounts of money and energy to build, they're potentially dangerous, there's no solution to the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste already stored in decaying bunkers all over the US, and no doubt - other countries. Compare that to 350 square miles of solar panels - used to produce hydrogen - broken down any way you like:

350 x 1 mile square
175 x 2 miles square etc..
700 x 1/2 mile square.

any part of which breaks, causes no environmental damage, and can be replaced very easily. Nuclear is no contest.

My basic point is that our energy policies have to be tuned to reality and not wishfull thinking or the ignorance of the masses. — ssu

Are you accusing me of either wishful thinking or playing upon the ignorance of the masses? I just want to be clear before I tell you where to go to do something unpleasant with a particular object.

The basic line is that when Coal power far kills hundred fold more people (basically counted in the millions) than nuclear and nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, why are we then giving up first on nuclear? — ssu

I don't know that we are. I know Germany and Japan are - but the French company EDF want to build a nuclear power station in the UK, and agreed an electricity price with the government about 3 times the market price. Make of that what you will!

And taking off a energy source that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses has meant that then fossil fuels are used because the renewable energy infrastructure is not there yet. — ssu

I mentioned before something before called 'base load.' It's a tricky concept, but basically refers the "umph" necessary to power the electricity grid. With a piecemeal application of renewable energy technology like German wind and solar farms, you can get still and cloudy days that don't provide the "umph" necessary to power the grid. I rather suspect that if Germany is building new coal power plants, they are as a backup. Because there can be little doubt as to the efforts they've gone to promote renewables. It's conceivable that divesting from nuclear created a shortfall - they are supplementing with coal, but their direction of travel is clear.

Sure, there are risks, but these risks have to put in some kind of rational scale to the danger of others. The problem is that environmental friendly administrations in many countries (perhaps with the exception of the US) can make too ambitious goals like Sweden did, and then fall totally flat on those goals as those goals simply were not realistic in the first place. Then as the energy policy has basically failed, we use the old energy resources, namely fossil fuels. — ssu

Really? What happened in Sweden?

Sweden on target to run entirely on renewable energy by 2040 | The ...
https://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Europe
26 Oct 2016 - Sweden is on target to run entirely on renewable energy within the next 25 years, a regulatory official has said. Last year, 57 per cent of ...

I don't have anything against a hydrogen economy, yet that still begs the question of where the electricity to produce hydrogen fuels comes from. Nowadays global hydrogen production is 90% done by fossil fuels. — ssu

Oh, I see - you mean, you having dismissed my plan for floating solar farms producing hydrogen fuel as wishful thinking - and/or preying upon the ignorance of the masses. That is a head scratcher. Good luck with that!

Interesting plan. But if it works, people might still dig up the coal 5000 years from now and burn it. — frank

We might need to Frank. Climate change can also go the other way. We might need to stave off an ice age someday - if only we survive our technological adolescence.

Whatever CO2 we put up will be scrubbed out of the atmosphere by the oceans. If we burn all the coal, the atmosphere will be back to normal in around 100,000 years. — frank

Are you unaware of the dire warnings issued by thousands of scientists? Or do you have solid grounds to disagree with specialists in this particular field?

If something unforeseen pops up and makes us extinct, there will still be life. The world doesn't need to be saved. — frank

The world? No! Humankind - the only intellectually intelligent animal we're aware of, the knowledge we've gained, the art and literature, the music and cuisine, the comedy - the tragedy, is in my view worth saving.

I'm not wasting my time writing something you won't read, or perhaps, simply don't understand. You are certainly not commenting from engagement with, and comprehension of these ideas. And this comment just seems designed to hurt me:

4) Your utopian dream is dead. — Jake

If I respected your intelligence in the least - that might matter, but I haven't got time for the closed minded, less yet the unpleasant. We're done. I will not speak to you again.

Solving the energy issue is the first necessary step to securing a sustainable future. Energy is fundamental to everything we do. And clean energy is necessary to prevent run-away climate change. There are two main obstacles to providing the world with bountiful clean energy:

1) an abundance of fossil fuels - still in the ground, and
2) the cost of applying the technology.

The idea that renewable sources of energy are necessarily unreliable or insufficient to the task - is not a genuine obstacle, if applied on a sufficiently large scale. But we'll come to that in due course. First, we must address the question of how to keep fossil fuels in the ground. This may seem like an insurmountable issue - but the solution I devised is very simple, and entirely consistent with the principles of our economic system. Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology.

Having overcome these two obstacles, the next question is "what technology?"

Here I would suggest taking on board the next big problem, and solving that at the same time. The next most fundamental need we have is abundant fresh water. 7/10ths of the earth's surface is covered with water, but fresh water is scarce. Only 2.5% of the world's water is fresh water, and it's unevenly distributed around the world. That's the cause of great human suffering and environmental damage. Solving these two problems together, would be a tremendous boon to humankind, and is ultimately necessary to sustainability. So how do we do it?

Bearing in mind such issues as transmission loss over long distances, I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship, or pumped through pipelines to shore. The geographical area available at sea is incredibly vast, and effectively shading the ocean, with thousands of square kilometers of solar panels would also help combat global warming.

Desalination can be achieved via evaporation - heating sea water and collecting the steam. Steam can drive a turbine, to produce electricity - at voltages, adequate to power electrolysis. Electrolysis is the process of breaking the atomic bonds between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in water, by passing an electric current through it. Thus, these two process work hand in hand - producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen - when compressed into a liquid gas, contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum by weight, but when burnt (oxidized) the hydrogen atoms recombine with an oxygen atom, giving back the energy spent wrenching them apart - and producing no pollutant more volatile than water vapour.

Burning hydrogen in traditional power stations would provide the base load for the energy grid - rather than, depending directly on renewable power sources, and the fresh water could be used to reclaim wasteland for agriculture and habitation - thus protecting environmental resources from over-exploitation. Eventually, this whole technological complex would power itself (as long as the sun shines) without adding a molecule of carbon to the atmosphere. Ships powered by hydrogen, would collect and bring water and fuel ashore.

Again, like I said, this is a utopian vision with no prospect of occurring in the real world any time soon. — Jake

Then I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Rest assured, I'll waste no more of it.

Where is the evidence that this utopian vision is possible? To me, this part of your message is equivalent to the utopian vision "once we all become good Christians then we will live in peace". These utopian visions might be true IN THEORY, but it's not going to happen, so... — Jake

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time - all human beings were hunter-gatherers, living in tribal groups of about 40-120 individuals. Ruled by an alpha male and one or two lieutenants, who ruled the tribe by threat and use of violence, they monopolized food and mating opportunities within the tribe.

For tens of thousands of years after human beings had achieved the kind of intellectual awareness evidenced in improved tools, burial of the dead, cave art, jewelry - they continued living as hunter gatherers, until approximately 15,000 years ago - when they joined together to form multi-tribal society, leading to civilization.

The question is - how? This is not a trivial question. They went against millions of years of evolutionary habit, and the power structure of tribal society - to form multi-tribal society, with no idea of the relative utopia they would thus create. They did this by agreeing to God as an objective authority for law. Similarly, I would argue - a scientific understanding of reality is objective with respect to all ideological interests. So, it has happened before. It is something of which human beings are capable.

This is part of the problem that James Howard Kunstler points out: a lot of chemicals go into making solar and wind power and all the associated equipment--chemicals derived from petroleum. Once petroleum becomes too scarce and expensive to obtain, it will be very difficult to replace all the infrastructure that was made from and with petroleum: plastics, lubricants, solvents, raw chemicals, finishes, and so on. Things wear out, break, burn up, are smashed, and so forth.

It isn't that nothing will or can be done in the future; it's just that manufacturing will have to re-invented for many products (if it can be).

Making the essential ingredients of concrete, like calcium obtained by heating limestone to a high temperature -- are very energy intensive and extensive. I don't see making the large amounts of portland cement with solar or wind.

There is a reason why we used so much coal and oil: It takes a hell of a lot of energy to build all the infrastructure you see around you. We can not rebuild all of it, or even half of it, on a meagre energy budget. We'll get along, but it will be on much different terms than we operate with now. — Bitter Crank

Your view of solar/wind energy seems to me colored by the piecemeal application of technology you see around you - but the full potential of the technology is yet to be realized. The entire world's total energy needs can be met from a solar farm 350 miles square - which is about the size of Switzerland. That's approximately 17.5 TW of electrical energy.

We could build that - and phase it in over time, such that we could combat climate change while allowing for sensible divestment from fossil fuels. And then build another one the same. In that case, I don't see scarcity of oil as a basis for other products becoming a problem in the foreseeable future. Even if oil were all gone somehow, there's no shortage of hydrocarbons. We could mine the frozen tundra of the Russian steppes for methane - or the anaerobic sludge that sits on the sea floor, and make plastics with that. The only thing we absolutely can't do is burn it for fuel.

There's no problem powering energy intensive processes with renewable energy. As a liquefied gas, hydrogen contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum per kilo - such that it can power industrial processes. For example:

Swedish steel boss: 'Our pilot plant will only emit water vapour' - EurActiv
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/hybrit-ceo-our-pilot-steel-plant-will-only-emit-water-vapour/

"A new pilot facility under construction in northern Sweden will produce steel using hydrogen from renewable electricity. The only emissions will be water vapour, explains Mårten Görnerup, CEO of Hybrit, the company behind the process, which seeks to revolutionise steelmaking."

The world needs to follow that man's example.

Ok, true enough, but the Manhattan Project was possible because somebody doing pure science discovered that the atom could be split, right? Could we say that the pure science was hijacked by ideological interests? Would that work for you? — Jake

If we were trying to explain what happened very simply - we could say that, but the reality is far more complex. I have construed the Church's reaction to Galileo's 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' - in which he set out the first formal statement of scientific method, as instrumental in the divorce of science as a tool - from science as an understanding of reality.

Science could have been welcomed by the Church as the true word of God; i.e. in the beginning there was the word. Pursued in a worshipful manner - and integrated into religion, politics and economics on an ongoing basis - it would have been as if a red carpet unfurled at our feet. There's a strong sense somehow, that's what should have happened, and certainly, at that moment - the Church had the power to make that happen. But then - one has to ask, why was that mistake not rectified by anyone else?

For instance, America effectively had a clean slate - once they threw off British rule. They wrote the Constitution in 1776, on a blank page - from an enlightenment perspective, and still didn't address the question of the priority of scientific knowledge, relative to religious, political and economic ideology. What we can say, is that the Manhattan Project in itself, wasn't where this mistaken relationship began. It merely repeated a pattern that has far deeper roots. So they didn't hijack science and use it for illegitimate ends as such, but rather, employed science - divorced from its meaningful implications, within an ideological context. In effect, they gave a rocket launcher to a caveman - i.e. they put advanced technology in the hands of the ideologically primitive.

Sorry about going on so long.

If yes, then before we rush headlong in to more and more and more pure science shouldn't we be figuring how to prevent such ideological hijackings from occurring? And if we can't come up with a reliable mechanism for preventing such hijackings is it not logical that we should therefore at least slow down on the pure science research? — Jake

As a philosopher, I'm driven by my subject. I couldn't shut up if I tried. I imagine research scientists are similarly driven by their specialist interests - to discover the truth. So the question would be - how do you put a cork in that kind of intellectual curiosity? The Church tried to control intellectual curiosity - and the consequences bring humankind to the brink of extinction, and you'd repeat the same failed strategy? No!

We need to do now what we should have done 400 years ago - and that is, accept that science is the means to establish true knowledge of reality, and honor that knowledge - particularly as a rationale for the application of technology.

And how many people have been killed due to nuclear accidents compared to the hundreds of thousands being killed every year by coal power plants and fossil fuels? Fukushima? 0 deaths. Chernobyl? Here's the conclusions that the United Nations, WHO and IAEA among other came to: — ssu

Statistical comparisons like this can be misleading. For example, did you know far more people die in hospital than in McDonald's. But if I fell ill - my first thought wouldn't be, I've got to get myself a happy meal. In that sense, I'd be willing to bet more people are killed by solar than nuclear energy, installers falling off roofs. I'm not defending fossil fuels, but rather pointing out that total number of deaths is no indication of the inherent dangers associated with any technology.

Yet the fact is that even if we take the WORST estimates that surely are propaganda, the simple fact is that nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions (which actually not many do know), and still is far safer than coal. — ssu

Nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions, but it takes half the energy a nuclear power station will ever produce - to build a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel is incredibly energy intensive to produce, and that's almost certainly going to be fossil fuel energy. Further, nuclear power stations create massive amounts of heat - they have to shed, or explode. This is far more difficult in hot weather - and power output drops in relation to the heat that can be shed into the environment. Climate change is therefore an obstacle to nuclear power.

"We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists."
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/20iht-nuke.1.5788480.html

On the whole however, I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I agree fossil fuels are a massive problem. I just don't believe nuclear power is the answer, and designed my solar/hydrogen approach with these ideas in mind; not some overblown fear of radiation, but environmental costs of construction, running costs, and nuclear waste storage costs - against the type, amount and utility of the energy it produces. Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution.

Right. The Manhattan Project was very "scientish" but was essentially a tremendous technological nuts and bolts project. There was, of course, an ideological goal. The Manhattan Project was intended to build an atomic weapon before Germany did. Germany could have, maybe, built an atomic weapon, but they decided they couldn't produce conventional weapons and atomic weapons at the same time. We didn't know that in 1942 (when the project was conceived). By the time the Manhattan Project was finished, Germany was no longer a threat. — Bitter Crank

There's a indirect, but definite relationship between the Manhattan Project, and the mistake made by the Church in relation to the discovery of scientific method by Galileo in 1630. That seems like a crazy idea on the surface of it - but Galileo's arrest, imprisonment and trial set a precedent that's never been overturned. Not even by the so-called Enlightenment. It's a blind-spot that's been carried forward for 400 years - and has led us to the brink of extinction.

Consider Mendel - the monk who did the work on genetic inheritance using pea plants, long before Darwin. That mechanism was the one thing missing from Darwin's Origin of Species. Had the statistics of inheritance been understood earlier, the racial element of Nazism might not have occurred. And subsequently, the Second World War, the Manhattan Project, and the Cold War might also have been averted.

It is the difference between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. We've used the tools, but failed to read the instructions. That's what's wrong - with everything! It's why we're burning rain-forests to clear land for palm oil production, and cattle ranching. It makes sense ideologically - but in terms of a scientific conception of reality, it's insane, unnecessary, and ultimately fatal behavior.
— karl stone

Exactly.

"Read the instructions as a last resort". Now that we have made a colossal mess of things, we've opened the manual and discovered the really bad news. — Bitter Crank

First, sorry for quoting my own quote. Second, I'm delighted you agree. But thirdly, it's not all bad news. We're actually pretty well situated if we can recognize the mistake now, and very carefully - begin to correct it. It begins with energy and water - and results in sustainable markets, and a garden paradise of a world by 2100. It's either that, or we'll go through Hell - before we all, eventually die out.

It may be helpful if you can distinguish between science, and science culture, i.e. the group consensus of the scientific community regarding their relationship with science. A fact developed by science can be reasonably declared authoritative, while at the same time the culture which decided to develop that fact can be declared misguided.

As example, it's scientifically true that the atom can be split. That's an entirely different matter than leading scientists agreeing to work on the Manhattan project, and agreeing to further develop these weapons etc. Repeatedly chanting "science is truth" doesn't really solve much. — Jake

You are approaching upon the idea central to my thesis, but keep slipping past it.

Consider humankind, developing from animal ignorance into human knowledge over time. We developed the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies first - long before science was discovered. Because science contradicted ideology - science as an understanding of reality was suppressed, even while science provided technology to be used as directed by primitive ideologies.

Thus, the Manhattan Project is not a truly scientific endeavor. The motives are purely ideological. The scientists were employees of ideological interests. The was no scientific rationale for developing nuclear weapons - less yet spending the massive resources to build over 70,000 nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War.

It is the difference between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. We've used the tools, but failed to read the instructions. That's what's wrong - with everything! It's why we're burning rain-forests to clear land for palm oil production, and cattle ranching. It makes sense ideologically - but in terms of a scientific conception of reality, it's insane, unnecessary, and ultimately fatal behavior.

The opposition to nuclear energy is exactly that: an ideology. And this ideology can drive us to worse energy policies than otherwise. — ssu

Only if one continues with an ideologically dictated, backward and piecemeal application of technology - I identify as the real underlying problem. By ideology, I mean the religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies - not just some unsubstantiated belief, but ideas in terms of which we parse the world, construe our identities, derive our purposes, and make moral judgments.
An ideology is rather more than a misbegotten belief - its a misbegotten conception of reality. Its lenses cover both eyes completely, which is what makes science a stranger.

The real people killer is coal. Just in China annually coal power plants kill about 300 000 people. Yet somehow the facts and especially the magnitude of difference on the impact is many times not understood. The simple fact is that we have been using for ages coal ...and firewood. How dangerous smoke from fire can be isn't something that rattles peoples minds like the "invisible death" from radiation. And who understands radiation? Simply when nuclear power is discussed, the first image that comes to many peoples mind is Hiroshima. Unfortunately the misinformation (or basically disinformation) has taken root in this area, hence people believe whatever fictional statistic on the perils of nuclear energy. — ssu

I'd agree there's widespread ignorance and fear - but that fear is not entirely baseless. Radiation is dangerous, and in the event of a nuclear accident - can be carried a long way by the wind, contaminating vast swathes of land with a toxin that continues to be hazardous for a long time. Particles of radioactive material can be breathed in, and cause cancer. It can get into the food chain, and be passed on and on.

Globally we get roughly 40% of electricity from coal and in places like China it's still roughly 60%, which has come down from 80% in 2010. Their plan has it's problems: even if China is making a huge investment in alternative energy resources, it is basically using energy from coal (and other fossil fuels) to catch up the industrialized West. The idea simply is to use the coal now to transform to other energy resources. That's the idea. Yet the reality is that coal power plants are still built (see Satellite intelligence shows China in a vast rollout of coal-fired power stations) and what better thing is to sell the coal power plants to other countries when they come to be too dirty in China (see here and here). — ssu

It's not just China. 75% of India's electricity production is from fossil fuels - that's almost 3 billion people in total, dependent on coal for power. The only saving grace is that they are as yet, relatively poor. In terms of energy consumption, the average Chinese person uses approximately one third of the energy an American uses. The average Indian person, uses less than one tenth of the energy an American uses. And this disparity, between a rich country like the US, and poorer countries but with much larger populations - is at the heart of disagreements about how to tackle climate change. That's always going to be a problem with a "pain up front" strategy.

However much we build solar and wind power, it's still problematic. For example in 2016 in Germany (one of the leaders in Photovoltaic Power) increased solar power production as it has done year after year, yet the actually gigawatts produced fell. There was a natural reason: it wasn't so sunny as the year before. And the main point is the following. The real danger is that if we run down nuclear energy, we in the end and out of the media limelight, replace nuclear with fossil fuels and especially coal. The ugly fact seems to be that Germany in it's Energiewende, of going off nuclear, has exactly done this. — ssu

I disagree. In Germany, the share of renewable electricity rose from just 3.4% of gross electricity consumption in 1990 to exceed 10% by 2005, 20% by 2011 and 30% by 2015, reaching 36.2% of consumption by year end 2017. They are not reverting to coal. Further, the Fukushima Nuclear Accident was coincidental with regard to the policy. There was no fear driven rejection of nuclear on the part of Germany. If you look at the sector, it has proved hugely costly, as well as potentially very dangerous - on the rare occasions things go wrong, they can go very wrong. Germany rejected nuclear on its own merits, quite some time before the accident in Japan.

It's in consideration of all this, and a lot more like this - I've proposed a global scale approach based on a common agreement that science is true, and therefore authoritative - particularly on a subject like this, which is:

1) an existential necessity - i.e. if we don't solve this problem humankind will be rendered extinct.
2) a global scale problem, that throws partisan ideological approaches into conflict.
3) is a purely technical problem - entirely subject to a technological solution.

And I'm not the first to propose it:

The hydrogen economy is a proposed system of delivering energy using hydrogen. The term hydrogen economy was coined by John Bockris during a talk he gave in 1970 at General Motors (GM) Technical Center.[1] The concept was proposed earlier by geneticist J.B.S. Haldane.

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

50 years ago!

I'm not an anti-natalist because I don't accept the central plank in their platform that "having children under any and all circumstances guarantees continued suffering". I have no desire to see our species vanish. — Bitter Crank

Anti-natalism unto extinction? That's extreme. If the argument were we should have less children - I don't agree we should seek to force that conclusion as a matter of policy, but it's an understandable position. Rather, I would argue, we can expect population to decline from a peak of 10-12 billion in 2100, as a consequence of the noted tendency of populations to limit family sizes in wealthier and healthier conditions. That's happening anyway. The challenge is to sustain that trend.

By "resting place" I merely meant that you have gone as far as you can in the logic of promoting H production at sea by solar power. Once you've proved that 2+2=4, people have to either accept the fact or ignore it. There are quite a few examples of 2+2=4 that people seem quite capable of ignoring. Just a simple example here: — Bitter Crank

It's not that I'm wedded in an absolute sense to this particular application of technology. I would yield to genuine expertise seeking to address the same issue on an adequate scale. However, it is necessary for me to demonstrate in a convincing way that it's possible to apply renewable energy technology in such a way as to meet world needs. That requires overcoming a number of technical problems, I would argue solar/hydrogen is more than able to account for.

Take Uranium as an example of a metal with a limited supply: the available unmined reserves of uranium are reported in "millions of pounds" not millions of tons. Were the world to use nuclear fuel heavily, we would find the supply far short of needs. — Bitter Crank

Beyond the fact a nuclear power station uses about half the energy it ever produces in the construction phase, in the form of fossil fuels, and putting aside the terrifically toxic waste we have to store forever afterward, a nuclear power station produces massive temperatures to boil water, to drive a turbine. That's a huge thermodynamic inefficiency - that from a scientific point of view, raises a large red flag.

It's quite difficult to explain, but it's an example of how - for ideological reasons, we cut across the grain of nature. I express the argument very poorly, but solar/hydrogen is implied by the grain of nature in a way that nuclear power is not. Hydrogen is the second most abundant element in the universe, and the energy reaction with oxygen is chemically simple and clean. Thus, we can have, and use enough solar/hydrogen energy to overcome the problem inherent in ever decreasing concentrations of minerals.

Let's say we have the discussion and worse case scenario we conclude we don't know, and are pretty much playing it by ear. There remains a possibility that science is so powerfully true in any respect the piecemeal approach wins out, regardless of our somewhat backward application of technology!

You are as doggéd in your defense of the solar powered hydrogen plant as Schopenhauer1 is of anti-natalism. Doggéd persistence is much more of a virtue than it is a vice, but your abiding interest is likely to outrun other people's enthusiasm. At which point one should move on to another topic. — Bitter Crank

I've thought about it, but anti-natalism is a misconceived approach in several ways; the most immediate that it is morally objectionable to construe the problem as the existence of people. Second is that it would require dictating women's reproductive rights. Third is the questions of ethnicity such an approach throws up. And then there are complex demographic effects one can hardly predict, but would need to take into account.

As for moving on to another topic, that would be another example of a futile attempt to hold back the tide. This is all I've thought about for years. All these ideas are public domain. It's not like I'm giving away state secrets. Nor is anything I've said twisted into a reason to hate or despair. So really, it's not my place to worry about other people's enthusiasm. Switch the channel if you don't like it - but I aim to succeed, and that's the perspective I'd be judged from.

Your point above is a resting place. Society has to decide whether to commit, and to which technology. (Society as a whole isn't going to decide -- it's international finance that will decide.) "They" haven't decided to do much of anything, yet, so... we will all have to stay tuned. — Bitter Crank

So you're saying my point is a resting place, I should move on to other issues, and:

I do not believe that technology and other human institutions can solve the food/water/energy problem by 2100 for 12 billion people. — Bitter Crank

I think otherwise. Seven tenths of the earth's surface is still as rich in metals as when the earth was new. There's no immediate resource bottleneck - given a willingness to develop resources, rather than simply exploit them to death. Shifting now to a renewable energy basis for civilization - we are very well situated, even anticipating significant climate consequences already, decisive proactive action could turn all to our advantage yet.

The ability to produce fresh water on a significant scale from renewable energy would solve a lot of problems as those effects manifest. And for that reason alone we should build it - if not so that fossil fuels would be forced to compete on an even playing field. If we can pump rivers of water inland, uphill - we can one day refill those depleted aquifers and empty inland seas at negligible cost. Just build the infrastructure, and set it going - if immediately to counter droughts, increasingly likely across larger parts of the planet - in future to repair environmental damage.

I cannot see that possibility slipping away and not give voice to it. I don't think I should stop talking about it. I'm quite prepared to be rude, to have people hate me, but I'm not trying to hurt anybody. Indeed, I went out of my way to devise a solution that seeks to account for vested interests in general - and doesn't require we do anything we don't already do in some respect.

Philosophically speaking, if one considers the occurrence of a scientific understanding of reality significant, then from that follows an authority, and a rationale for the application of technology. It's not rude to point out we could survive if we tried. We have to talk about it if there's any hope at all we might.

There is nothing "wrong" with your hydrogen plan, in itself. It's novel, sophisticated, probably do-able. The downside of the Stone Hydrogen Plan is this: we don't have the lead time to achieve this kind of solution before things get much worse. — Bitter Crank

We currently have the industrial capacity, the intelligence, the skills, and the capitalist economic scaffolding in place to implement the technology, something we cannot trust will be within reach subsequent to any conceivable 'catastrophe first' strategy. We must act proactively, and decisively now - while the capacity exists - or lose the opportunity that exists in sustainable markets of 10-12 billion consumers by 2100.

With a sufficiently methodical approach, this figure is entirely manageable. It begins with energy, and follows from water and hydrogen fuel - irrigation, fish farming, agriculture, jobs, ugg boots and iphones. It implies recycling be designed into production, right through to use and disposal - but the potential from a sustainable energy basis for civilization, is for a garden paradise of a world, where rivers run uphill. Imagine, if we had a free hand with the knowledge and technology we have, what could be achieved - and then ask yourself why that's not so.

It's not, as some might imagine that man is innately greedy. It's too shallow an explanation, not least because it doesn't explain civilization. If greed were man's primary motivation - which is not to say it's not a motive at all, but if it were dictatorial then civilization could not exist. In general we find that greed - insofar as it motivates man, is manifest in something productive, and in some sense worthwhile. Rather, I would focus on the needs of man, and how they might be met sustainably. I trust that if it can be shown to be both a rational and possible course - then the same motives dismissed as greed, will compel that course. If indeed, the world's energy needs can be met from a postage stamp of solar panels 350 miles square, on the letter that is the oceans to eternity, and we don't send that letter - we're an empty gesture.

I envy heroin addicts. Their life has purpose. Wife, job, kids, house, car - what's the purpose in any of that if our existence is unsustainable? It's all just one big masturbation. It's pleasure, but without meaning. We are wanking ourselves to death. So, the purpose I adopted was to secure a sustainable future - and on paper, I succeeded. I write about it here, on the foremost philosophy forum listed by google - and yet only get replies from wankers.

If your plan is based on "more is inevitable", it isn't a viable plan. We live in an environment with limited and dwindling resources. More is not an option. — Pattern-chaser

Thanks for your remarks, but if you believe this:

You can't have more (say) fresh water if there is no more fresh water to be had. — Pattern-chaser

Then perhaps you have some reading to do before you do any writing. Google the word 'desalination' - and have a good old read! And thank you again for your interest. Goodbye.

My arguments are a proposal. How to save the world is not some vague sentimental notion - it's a plan. A plan you haven't read, A plan Jake has glanced at, but not really understood. Imagine my frustration...

Or a million things. Or your neighbor might crash the ecosystem before any of that happens. What's your plan, do nothing and wait to see what happens? — Jake

What's your plan? Bitch about the need to limit technology in some vague way? How? It's not about that for you - or you'd be able to say how. It's about putting people down, about rubbing people's noses in it. That's what you're about.

Yes, so for instance, if the environment changes we have to change too. Or we can ignore the need to change, and die.

Your plan for change appears to be that humans will become Super Rational. But you offer no explanation of how that will happen, and blatantly ignore thousands of years of evidence which points in the opposite direction.

To be intellectually correct to reality we either have to scale ourselves up (become Super Rational!) to meet the new power rich environment created by science, or scale down the powers we give to the quite flawed creatures we actually are.

If you have a plan for how we become Super Rational it might be helpful if you'd like to present it. — Jake

You're telling me what I'm saying again. I'm not saying that. You're thus attacking a strawman again. I'm not arguing we need to become super rational. I don't even know what that means - if anything.

A natural tendency toward truth is very deeply ingrained in people. It's closely related to the moral sense. No artificial appeals are necessary, given certain assurances regarding legitimate limitations on the implications of science as truth. Limited to providing a rationale to apply renewable energy technology - we can safely accept that science is true, and thus has authority - in that context. No-one is suggesting re-organizing contemporary society as dictated by science. That would be morally wrong.