The value of electricity makes almost any location cost effective. Put a solar farm on that corn field. The electricity will be worth far more than the corn. A wind turbine doesn't take up much space on the ground, maybe 400 square feet. There is nothing you can grow on 400 sq. ft. worth as much as the electricity produced from that one turbine-bearing mast. — Bitter Crank

I'm not an electrical engineer - I'm a philosopher. I've pointed out two dozen times that I'm only seeking to prove in principle that it's technologically possible. It's not fair to expect schematics and a business plan. I'm one man trying to correct a 400 year old philosophical error in the political history of my species, as a means of absolving science of the heresy of which it was accused, that in turn made it a whore to capitalism and a lobbyist on the steps of Congress - when it rightfully owns the highest authority, and should command at least some share of the enormous wealth and resources it has made available.

I'm sorry BitterCrank, if you're getting the feeling I'm avoiding your posts. I'm not - at least not deliberately.

Here is your problem:

You are assuming that "the truth" is crisply, concisely, and clearly stated in clean Helvetica text and that the upshot of seeing the truth is equally obvious. That's not the way truth usually appears. More likely than not it will be laboriously spelled out in obscure language and printed in some barely readable obscure font (figuratively speaking, you understand). Then one has to figure out how to implement the truth that one has understood (correctly or not). — Bitter Crank

Interesting question. 1633 - Galileo has just published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - proving, by a ''hypothetico-deductive methodology" that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. He was arrested, tried, and found grievously suspect of heresy - and it's suggested, by the care taken in subsequent works by other philosophers - Descartes, Rousseau - that this had a chilling effect on purely rational inquiry.

In due course, the sum effect was to divorce science as a burgeoning understanding of reality, from science as a means to technological power. However...

The interesting question is whether this was done knowingly, or did they truly not see or understand that Galileo's hypothetico-deductive method was the means to valid knowledge of a reality, they believed was Created by God. I like to believe they were as blind then as we are now, to the significance of valid knowledge of reality - that it was a mistake, and that they were concerned principally with the offense against the prevailing authoritative religious rationale, and did not even glimpse the value of an ability to establish valid knowledge.

In regard to your question, the point is - that it's the method that should have stood out as something cosmically significant, not any particular factoid about who orbits whom.

Even now, a coherent scientific understanding of reality has only really come together in the past fifty years, since the advent of computer technology - allowing for number crunching and the communication of large amounts of data. But there was ample opportunity before then, to recognize the magic in the method - and infer the profound importance of the truth of Creation systematically revealed by these means.

No offense, but I understand that this is just too vague to keep my interest. Let's try again in another thread, and thanks for the chat. — Jake

None taken. This is a political philosophy forum, and I'm seeking to do political philosophy - not chemistry and technical drawing. I can't give you any better answers than I have in that regard, but I can explain why science is the right answer - and how accepting that a scientific understanding of reality has the authority of truth, provides a political rationale for the application of technology on merit.

Your position, that technology itself is inherently problematic, is a position I've encountered, but haven't argued against before. It's sneaky nihilism - and I only ever found one cure for nihilism. Reject it, because... why not? It's not as if nihilism supports any value that requires one accept nihilism - so just walk away. Dare to hope.

Hydrogen is simply not a good energy carrier for a few reasons. First, it's not a liquid or solid at ambient temperature, which is a big inconvenience. Second, hydrogen is so small it diffuses through most metals causing micro-fractures leading to failure; solving these problems to power a rocket or in industrial processes can be solved ... but scaling to a transport infrastructure this problem is essentially unsolvable. Third liquid hydrogen boils off and easily slips through the tiniest cracks between parts making it extremely difficult to make a hermetic sealed hydrogen system at a lab level and simply impossible at an infrastructure scale. Hydrogen floats to the top of the atmosphere where it acts as a potent green house gas. — boethius

I read somewhere it's an indirect greenhouse gas - prolonging the lifetime of other pollutants in the atmosphere, which presumably would be less of a problem over time if we were drastically reducing fossil fuel use. The other issues are matters of materials science. I do not concede it's not possible. We have tried neither at this, nor a wide range of possible alternatives. Even if a hydrogen internal combustion engine HICE were not feasible to mass produce, though BMW have produced the Hydrogen 7 and leased them to prominent figures, there's still hydrogen as a store of energy to be burnt in power stations, cement factories, steel mills and so forth.

Long story short, if you have a lot of hydrogen you may as well solve all the above problems by reacting with carbon to make hydrocarbons and have all the benefits the energy density of hydrogen without the massive technological hurdles. Since there's excess carbon in the atmosphere it's easy to get to do this and means not only a cheaper infrastructure to build ... but an infrastructure that already exists. — boethius

I watched a video recently on fuel produced from captured carbon, and I would have to admit the incredible advantage of being ready for the tank of already existing vehicles. But at best it's a carbon neutral process - requiring a vast amounts of energy from renewable sources. to produce fuel that when burnt returns the captured carbon to the atmosphere. Is that good? What about the opportunity cost of that renewable energy in terms of other fuels burnt instead?

So the thesis of the OP is essentially correct, there's just no reason to use hydrogen by itself as an energy carrier. And since you'd need to make electricity first to make hydrogen to make hydrocarbons (or whatever analogous process), you may as well use that electricity directly for most transport needs. Electric trains, trams and batteries for personal transport is simply far more efficient if you already have electricity. "Synth-hydro-carb" fuel would still be useful for trucks and lorries and airplanes . — boethius

The question is where electricity is produced, and then how energy is stored and transported. Solar panels in deserts for example seem like a great idea until you consider transmission loss. Solar panels close to zones of industry and habitation occupy valuable real estate. Putting solar panels at sea, and using electricity and sea water to produce hydrogen as a store of energy, solves a lot of problems with resources that are available.

I read the rest and simply disagree that would be the implication.

You've misunderstood. I've said magically becoming rational was the natural course of human affairs, but a course we didn't take. It may seem strange to you to envisage, but then you are not who you might have been. Humankind struggled from animal ignorance into human knowledge over countless generations, and then balked at the prospect of actually knowing what's true. Had man in a worshipful manner - made it his vocation and duty to know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - it would be as if a red carpet unfurled at his feet.

I'm not at all sure it does. I can really only describe the basic idea as well as I'm able and leave it to people more clever and credible than me.

I'm a little more confident that the technology I described would work. It could be done, and I set out to prove in principle that it could. Similarly however, there are people cleverer and more credible that I am. Is it really my place to dictate in detail how such an audacious broad brush stroke idea would be carried out in practice? Surely that would be for people to work out among themselves. It's their stuff!

Summary: One can get a profound change through the market mechanism when a new alternative is cheaper and better to the old one. Yet the typical solution is only to believe in regulation, restrictions and international agreements and not that the free market could (or would) change supply and demand itself. Hopefully I'm not confusing here. — ssu

Concise is better. Thanks. Fossil fuels ubiquitous position in the energy market relative to renewables makes this an inherently unjust calculus. I was asked - what the range of a hydrogen powered vehicle was, for example. But petroleum powered engines have been in continuous development for over a hundred years. It's rather the same with renewables. Being applied in a piecemeal fashion at the nexus of guilt and economic self interest is stunting the technology. Renewable energy technology doesn't need to be subsidized - it needs to be funded. An infrastructure that needs to be built like the rail network, or the canals, or the Romans and their roads. Only then will it be a fair comparison.

"The concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel." wiki

That is to say, cement is produced by driving off CO2 from calcium carbonate (limestone). — unenlightened

Lot of concrete in a nuclear power station.

In other news, as I tried to indicate earlier, the ocean is not as empty as it looks; covering it with solar cells is probably not as disastrous as covering a rainforest with solar cells, but not that far off. Why is life so complicated? — unenlightened

Covering the oceans completely would be disastrous - if it were even possible. The oceans are 7/10ths of the world's surface - so you'd pretty much have to scrape everything from every landmass to do it. I'm only suggesting a few thousand square kilometers. That's huge, but in terms of the size of the oceans - it's like putting a postage stamp in a football stadium, and you're worried about how the grass will grow?
There's very little life mid ocean anyway - most oceanic life lives on the continental shelves where there's nutrients washed into the sea. Mid ocean is a veritable desert.

Did I recommend this author, this book to you?

Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation by James Howard Kunstler

Kunstler details the nature of the environmental crises. While doing that he also punctures many a delusion about what is possible. For instance: "We'll build huge numbers of windmills and square miles of solar panels." Great idea. But... given that we are past peak oil, what will happen when our million windmills and millions of solar panels wear out? We still have relatively cheap petrochemicals with which to carry out this production. Forty years from now? Sixty? Much less oil available and much more expensive. I am thoroughly enthusiastic about windmills and solar, but a lot of energy is needed to build the steel masts from which the windmills are hung. I assume a fair amount of energy is required to build solar panels too and that they probably don't continue to work forever.

Kunstler's point is that there are no magical solutions to our several interlocked environmental crises. — Bitter Crank

Ahhh, the Malthusians - they are persistently gloomy. Thomas Robert Malthus FRS was an English cleric and scholar, influential in the fields of political economy and demography. He's famous for pointing out the discrepency between the geometric rate of population growth 2,4,8,16 etc, against the arithmetic rate 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, at which agricultural land could be increased. He predicted this would inevitably lead to mass starvation. He was wrong. Clearly, people are problem solvers. They multiply resources with knowledge and technological innovation. I don't need to read Knustler's book to know he's wrong. I can see the arithmetic of his argument a mile away - and while seemingly logical, it just doesn't model reality.

Take a larger view. in the years of WWII 1939-1945, horses were indispensable. Why? For one, they don't use oil. For two, they are strong. For three, they can be used flexibly. Four, Germany and the USSR still used horses for various purposes in 1938, and horses were part of military planning. — Bitter Crank

And what's more, you can't eat a tank!

The first computer was built in WWII. It took about 40 years for personal computers to make their appearance. By 1995. they were pretty much integrated into business, and people were buying computers for home use. So, about 50 years. — Bitter Crank

It wasn't actually the first computer, but that's another debate - one that ultimately resolves to the question of how one defines a computer. Interesting topic, but a discussion for later perhaps. Did you know the genius and national hero who designed his difference engine at Bletchely Park, Alan Turing, was hounded to suicide by the government for being gay? Tragic story. Another other subject.

I cannot however, accept this supports your conclusion that necessarily, it takes 50 years for innovation to take hold. Not least because there's a long history of computing machines before Turing. (Google Charles Babbage for instance.) Without descending too far into that argument, I'd suggest that you mistake the research and development time of various levels of technology, for the period over which acceptance of innovation takes place. The invention of the transistor was necessary to make home computing possible. It doesn't take 50 years once the technology exists.

The system I describe has all the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam train
— karl stone

Indeed, but if we could build large solar plants in the ocean at the equator, why wouldn't we just run a wire from the complex and plug it into the electrical distribution systems of India, China, SE Asia, Africa, or South America? — Bitter Crank

The short answers are transmission loss over distance, particularly at lower voltages, the night-time problem - and that, powering national grids would only solve that one problem. The approach I've described - solar panels floating on the ocean's surface, making hydrogen fuel and fresh water from sunlight and sea water, solves all those, and a number of other problems at the same time.

I've been attempting to say much more on this topic in the other thread, or we could do it here, either is fine. — Jake

Well, I could say a lot more about my approach too - but I'm not getting that you've fully come to grips with it. Or seek to come to grips with it! How should we proceed, given that - what I'm trying to say is that your conclusions are subsumed within my paradigm? We could talk about your thing exclusively, perhaps. Is there a name, or particular phrase - that sums up your approach?

Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed.

— karl stone

Ok, how does that work exactly? Can you be more specific? — Jake

Let's get your thing down first, because your insistence I don't understand, stands as an obstacle to explaining how your conclusions are subsumed under my paradigm.

I find your post very difficult to respond to. I don;t wish to be rude, but it's so wordy - I can't identify the points you're trying to make. Might I suggest, it's in part a matter of writing style. You seem to go for the stream of consciousness approach. It would be helpful to the reader if you could summarize, then elaborate. Because it's not like you don't pass through some interesting territories on this long rambling journey. I enjoyed reading your post. I just don't know how to respond except to say, that's interesting, thanks!

I certainly agree that from a scientific point of view it would be preferable to choose the cleaner and renewable energy over the cheapest energy. — ChatteringMonkey

I haven't made that argument. I have argued for the necessity of changing that equation, and described a possibly possible means to do so. I have argued that we can keep fossil fuels in the ground at zero sum cost by mortgaging them to the world. I hypothesize that by mortgaging fossil fuels - the world would have the debt in one hand and the money in the other - and it would therefore be a zero total cost.
Current interests are returned at a respectable level, the money is created to apply renewable energy technology, and the planet is saved! Hurrah!

But I have my doubts that markets would put the science above the profit motive. They typically don't make any value judgments aside from the profit motive, right. Because that's what the stockholders want, more return on investment. And you get more profit when you sell more products or services. So the consumer decides in the end, and he typically will favor the cheaper products and services. — ChatteringMonkey

If you google the phrase "feduciary duty to maximize shareholder value" the picture is mixed. Some say it's a myth. I don't know, but I suspect it would be legally problematic. Assuming at least it describes the coincidence of interests between investors and traders - I accept that is how the market works, but would point to the trap this makes of fossil fuels. They have enormous value - there's a powerful coincidence of interests, if not an actual legal obligation to liberate. The single investor in the market might choose to make an ethical stand, but that does not imply money will not find the opportunity. The only difference will be between who does what - not what is done.

I do not accept the idea of consumer sovereignty on the grounds of cognitive overload. It's not the individual's responsibility to know, and by consumer choice, decide how things are produced. Consumers are neither qualified nor responsible. As an example, since the climate report was published, there's a rash of video blogs on how veganism can save the world. Individual responsibility. Instead of governmental and corporate responsibility. So they can keep pumping the black gold while I'm filling up on lentils? Another example - I've got six different colored bins in front of my house - and there's morons and criminals sitting idle as I read in the newspaper, (red bin) despite my best efforts most of it goes to landfill anyway. There are things that need doing only government and industry can do.

I don't see that dynamic changing any time soon, but one of three things could happen that will make renewable energy more viable economically : 1) the consumer will start to value 'clean and renewable' more as the situation gets more dire 2) governments start imposing more pollution taxes which drives up the price of the old energy sources, and 3) renewable energy becomes cheaper and cheaper in comparison, as technology advances and old energy sources get more expensive because of depletion. — ChatteringMonkey

So your answer is the same - hope the consumer makes ethical rather than price point choices, tax industry into submission, bankruptcy and consolidation, and pray science provides another miracle! Isn't that how we got here? The solution in my view is responsibility to a scientific understanding of reality at the point of production, not the point of sale. What do I know about how anything's made? And furthermore, I paid my money for a good or a service. I don't want to be inducted into the supply chain as an adviser or a busboy.

Right, though there are only carbon costs if we assume that the energy used for construction or looking after the nuclear waste is itself carbon energy? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. A reasonable assumption in my view. The main energy cost is concrete, both the production of cement, a massively energy intensive industry, and transport of enormous mass by fossil fuel powered vehicles. There's also steel production and delivery. And that's not even counting the mini-fridge in the workman's cabin! That's so old it doesn't even have a sticker indicating its energy rating!

Well, I can't blame you for not replying. Thanks Jake. Good chat. Thanks everyone. I'm going to leave it there.

The nature of science is to develop knowledge, which typically is then converted in to some form of power, ie. an ability to manipulate the environment. — Jake

That certainly could be said about the nature of science - and how it is employed in society, but much more might also be said about the nature of science, and I would argue - how therefore, science should be employed in society.

The nature of human beings is that we are imperfect, able to successfully manage some power, but not an unlimited amount of power. — Jake

That certainly can be said about human beings - and how they handle power.

Thus, at some point the nature of science and the nature of human beings come in to conflict. Science keeps developing more and more knowledge/power, and at some point reaches and exceeds the limits of the governing mechanism, human beings. — Jake

Because of what else can be said about the nature of science - and how therefore it should be employed, that doesn't necessarily follow. Fundamentally, I am not asking man to manage the powers science makes available. I suggest they should be managed in relation to a modern day scientific understanding of reality; that is to say, the truth that provides the power should be taken on board in deciding how it is employed. Employing hugely powerful technologies with no regard to the understanding of reality that provided for them is grossly irresponsible. But it's something people are entirely unaware of - and so, it's not blameworthy irresponsibility. Forgive them for they know not what they do. It's a mistake - and a fairly understandable one at that.

Your thread argues for the science religion dogma, the "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That dogma is the cause of the problems you are trying to solve. — Jake

You have identified the phenomenon, certainly - but the cause is buried deep in the history of the ideological development of civilizations; which arguably, is fantastic for us - because, we can learn the lesson of our error, and thereby claim the full, scientifically advised functionality of technology - to solving the problems we've created charting a course - probably not more than a few degrees off true north, over a very long time.

If I knew what stolen consent meant I might be able to respond better. — fdrake

I did propose an entirely hypothetical scenario above. Let me get that for you:

Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds? — karl stone

Stolen consent might not be defined, but manufactured consent is probably well understood at this point! — fdrake

So you're saying that the manufacture of consent might have the implication that consent is stolen? Because, to a greater or lesser degree - all consent is manufactured. So defining the idea of stolen consent would be to determine when that manufacture was legitimate, and when not?

It seems at least close to an oxymoron - if something is taken with consent, it is a gift; if it is stolen it is taken without consent. Not that you cannot use an oxymoron now and again, but you cannot expect analysis to reveal its meaning. — unenlightened

That is to speak of the nature of consent, certainly, but absent of the political context. Let us say for example that a government put a question to an electorate in the form of a referendum - and then ran a false and divisive campaign for a particular outcome. Let's further imagine that the vote confirmed the proposition. Would that not constitute stolen consent? That is, consent to act on the proposition. It's not an oxymoron as government would appear upon the basis of the vote alone to have consent - but perhaps because the voters were misled, perhaps one could say - consent was stolen. Or do you not think a false and divisive campaign sufficient grounds?

No replies? Surely, the purpose of political philosophy is to identify interesting concepts, and define them in logical, legal and philosophical terms. I happen to think this an interesting idea worthy of definition - and I invite informed parties to help do so.

I suggest not throwing it around as a label. I don't want examples. I want to define the concept if it is not already defined in the cannon of political philosophy.

The problem of population, 7-11 billion, is that it is up against an agricultural environment that will be deteriorating, even if we make some progress toward limited CO2/methane/other. Those are:

All the arable land we have is now being used for agriculture. There are no significant idle reserves. (What about northern lands becoming agricultural? The soils that are now very cold or frozen are not, and will not be suitable for agriculture. What about irrigation? All of the fresh water that is suitable for irrigation has been tapped. Drinking water has also passed its peak. The Asian glaciers are shrinking rapidly. In 50 years, the temperature in many agricultural areas will be too hot to work in for much or all of the day. (When the temperature and humidity combined make it impossible to cool off, people start dying from heat.) Fisheries productivity is in decline.

Agriculture, under the best of circumstances, is risky: too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too many insects, not enough bees, plant diseases, soil exhaustion, etc. There is usually enough world production to keep people fed, but an increasingly warm, erratic climate doesn't favor agriculture. Projecting enough production to feed 11 billion ignores erratic and fast climate change.

Not despairing yet? — Bitter Crank

A little daunted perhaps - but despairing? No! I believe these challenges are amenable to redress or mitigation. We'd maximize our ability for redress and mitigation by accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common, as a basis to apply technology. But even if we don't - there's a possibility that somehow, science is so powerfully true that it's adequate despite our failure to put the science out front, ahead of the ideology.

Declining hydrocarbon output: Much of high agricultural productivity depends on cheap, abundant oil and gas for chemicals, fertilizers, and fuel. We are past peak oil. We can not feed 7 billion people, maybe not 5 billion using animal traction, organic farming, and the like. We could do that at maybe 2-3 billion under good conditions. Those days are over.
Getting the population down to 2-3 billion or less will come about if the species crashes. That could happen if global warming becomes too severe in the 22nd century (only 82 years away). — Bitter Crank

Well, as long as you make it! Eh?

I am pessimistic about all techno-fixes. I like techno-fixes. However, it does not appear that the we have the will or the political means to slam the brakes on CO2/methane/other. If we (the whole world) did have the will, the ways, and the means to abruptly cease CO2/methane/other output, we could, perhaps, solve the problem. But we don't. NO country is meeting even the modest targets set recent agreements. — Bitter Crank

That's why, I argue we need to change our ideological approach - putting the science out front as a guide, with our ideological selves following along behind. I appreciate that requires some degree of sophistication from people who have genuine beliefs that are inimical to science. I appreciate also, that it requires a willingness on the part of the rich and powerful to see their interests served by this approach. I think those are the real obstacles we face, but the technology available is adequate to meet the challenge.

Why not? Why are they not?

One reason is that major technological changes (like from horse power to machine power, like telephone, radio, television, railroads, highways, airplanes, medicine, engineering, etc. etc. etc.) require around 40 to 50 years to propagate throughout society. It isn't just behavior change; it's all sorts of changes. We have not committed to abandoning fossil fuels, so the 40-50 year change over hasn't begun. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily.

New York 1900 - spot the car!
New York 1913 - spot the horse!
https://www.businessinsider.com/5th-ave-1900-vs-1913-2011-3?IR=T

Yes, there are solar panels and windmills here and there. But transportation in the developed world is still predicated on cars and trucks. Heating and cooling still are largely dependent on electricity from fossil fuels. A rising standard of living around the world requires more production of everything, and a lot of waste.

It isn't that I think we can not do anything; theoretically we can. But we run up against time (we waited too long) and material limitations on what is possible in a short period of time, because people generally don't worry about threats unless they are unmistakably visible -- like seeing the tornado about 3 blocks away. That's just the way we are wired. — Bitter Crank

I'd agree with that. People are inherently conservative. methodical - if not hidebound. But we can jump on things and make dramatic changes very quickly when all the stars align. Are they not lining up for you at all?

Not quite it, but thank you for reading enough to get that far. — Jake

Jake, I read the whole thing, and a number of comments on the thread.

Also, I didn't miss this:

Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. — Jake

Saw the footage on TV, and wondered if you're okay.

Maybe that would work. If the framework on which the solar panels were mounted were sufficiently strong and rigid, it could probably be submerged without being damaged by wave action on the bottom. Or, one would float the panels on small lakes or lagoons where wind wouldn't generate huge waves. Floating panels should be look at as a specialty application.

Wind turbines, however, can be located off shore. But they have to be off a shore that gets enough wind. In Minnesota, at least, wind is providing a substantial share of electrical energy. States from MN to TX down the center of the continent generally have good wind. Texas is a leader in wind energy -- surprising, even though there is an exceptionally large amount of hot air in TX. — Bitter Crank

It's one of a few technical ideas ...floating around! Another idea is strong plastic spheres, the entire surface of which is one big solar panel, with the electrolysis or desalination machinery inside. These are free floating - and set to drift along relatively predictable ocean currents, soaking up light and creating hydrogen fuel or fresh water stored within. They're also a delivery system - just throw them in the ocean and they arrive some months later, juiced up with fuel or water.

Aesthetically, I like the spheres...they're so, "I am not a prisoner - I am a free man!"
(No? Old TV show! Classic!)

Onshore wind has the bird problem, and noise. I think they're beautiful, but some people think they're an eyesore. Add to that real estate costs - and clearly, there's some advantages to making energy at sea.

One major problem that is not amenable to a technical solution is population. Not if we want to remain civilized, anyway.

7 billion plus people have the capacity to swamp improvements in food production and fresh water supply by merely continuing to reproduce at moderate levels. What we need to do, in the midterm and long term is reduce the number of people on the planet. That means population attrition, not just in Europe or Japan, but everywhere. — Bitter Crank

I reject the premise. The idea that there's too many people is a pernicious implication from the misapplication of technology for ideological ends. The way technology is applied now there's too many people, but it needn't be the case. We can support massive population going forward - and protect environmental resources from over-exploitation at the same time if we apply technology as directed by scientific rationality.

I don't know if you were aware, but long established research shows that improving living conditions tends to reduce family size. It happened in Europe and Japan - as you indicate. Counter intuitively, poor people tend to have more children - presumably, due in part to a lack of contraception, but also - a rational decision where there's high infant mortality, and parents need looking after in their old age.

The UNDP, assuming continued improvements in living standards - and importantly, women's rights with regard to reproductive health, predicts a leveling off of population growth by 2100, at around 11 billion. I think that's entirely manageable from a scientific and technological perspective.

Not quite it, but thank you for reading enough to get that far. To quickly summarize my thesis is that scientific progress if pursued without limits will inevitably produce powers which we can't successfully manage. Evidence, we currently have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, hardly a case of successful management. — Jake

Consider the motives for creating nuclear weapons. They are not motives drawn from a scientific understanding of reality, but occur as a consequence of competing pre-scientific ideologies. The nation state as a sovereign political entity dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1650).

The nation state is not a scientific fact - it's just made up, yet it is from behind national borders - in competition with other nations, decision are made about how technology is applied - both military technology, and domestic energy policy. The sum of all national energy policies does not amount to a global energy policy. The global reality is externalized by the local ideology.

Similarly, if we had accepted a scientific understanding of reality, instead of maintaining an ideological misunderstanding of the world, there would be no motive to produce nuclear weapons.

(I should add here, this is to illustrate the mistake we made - suppressing science as truth from 1630 onward. Not to propose who we are now, might all join hands and dance around the maypole to the strains of Simon and Garfunkel's Scarborough Fair. I'm not that naive.)

What I'm saying is, what you think is "hardly a case of successful management" - is actually caused by something else; failure to recognize that science is true knowledge of reality - that could easily have been accepted by the Church in 1630, as the word of God the Creator. Instead it was suppressed as heresy - while at the same time, used to drive the Industrial Revolution. We raced ahead technologically while remaining ideologically primitive. That's the mismanagement you identify, but attribute - incorrectly, to the nature of science and technology itself.

The technology exists - the need to apply it is clear. So why is it not applied?
— karl stone

Well, we've not yet resolved key problems with your proposal, as I understand it so far. How do we derive commercial value from petroleum in the ground which forever remains in the ground? How do we put mass solar panels on an ocean subject to repeated storms. Maybe the technology has not been applied simply because it wouldn't work as you describe it? — Jake

Hey, it's not me - I've only been here a few decades. It was like that when I found it!

I answered these questions insofar as I'm able - in my previous post. I can really only point you to experts working on this issue - as I did above. I'm not an economist; I did undergraduate modules in micro and macro economics, and that's my answer to the stranded asset question. They're submersible!

No worries on replying, there is no obligation. But sorry, no, you don't get it. Not yet anyway. That's completely normal, especially for science worshipers, no matter how many PhDs they have. — Jake

I really do understand your argument. You believe any technology we invent to solve one problem, necessarily causes other problems, and perhaps, bigger problems. Is that not it?

I do not accept that argument because, I believe, you assume that the application of technology we have is a rational and natural course of events, for a world blind to that problem.

What I'm saying is that the application of technology is perverse - and that the problem you describe is inherent to this perversion of science and technology.

This perversion stems from the suppression of science as truth from the 1630's, and the subsequent use of science as a tool for the pursuit of ideological power and profit.

I get what you're saying, but accepting a scientific understanding of reality as the basis to apply technology, this problem would be subject to redress. Currently, it's not subject to redress because profit and power dictate the application of technology - like clean energy technology. The technology exists - the need to apply it is clear. So why is it not applied?

I read the rest of your post, and I take that on board - while dancing by the light of the holy bunsen burner!

I think I need more discussion of this, which seems central to your plan. I read your answer to SSU, but don't get it. Or maybe you don't get it either? Not sure. Try again if you want. — Jake

I don't know what you don't get about mortgaging an asset. It allows us to monetize fossil fuels without extracting them. SSU asked - 'How would they have value if they are not used?'

It's something known as the 'Stranded Asset problem' - and I can't give a definitive answer, but argue that, in acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality as a basis to apply the technology necessary to secure the future, the surety is inherent in the long term viability of civilization. Essentially, sovereign debt owned by the world. There are a great many variables - not least, who gets the money, I don't want to weigh in on. Big can o' worms. The concept has initiated a new programme at the Smith School of Oxford University which considers stranded assets across a range of sectors from an academic perspective. This link has an interesting precis of the issue:

https://www.carbontracker.org/terms/stranded-assets/

Where I live, we just narrowly missed getting hit by a Category 4 hurricane which just ripped through the Gulf of Mexico. Storms on the ocean are, you know, kinda common. Where exactly do we put the panels that won't experience storms? — Jake

One word: submersible!

I don't know what it means, but I think it answers your question.

LOL

Here's a new report on food and warming, that suggests we need to at least cut back on the meat.
If you don't have time for the academic report, here's the news version. — unenlightened

I wouldn't disagree with the report per se - but merely point out that it's written ceteris paribus, all else being equal, as if food were the only variable in the equation. It assumes continued fossil fuel use - something I aim to overcome within a generation. Instead, you argue - I should go without meat so oil companies can keep pumping the black gold that will kill us anyway. Perhaps a little later, if we all go veggie - but inevitably. Keeping fossil fuels in the ground is necessary to survival - so why not do that first, and then wonder what else we have to cut, rather than cutting living standards to protect the profits of the very corporations that have failed to apply the best technology available?

but in my view, a war for survival is not the way to go.
— karl stone

Hmmm, Odd. If survival is the goal, and there is a real threat to survival, then why wouldn't an all-out effect be the way to go?

If we lose our freedom we will never get it back
— karl stone — Bitter Crank

That is my only reason. I'm not hiding my light under a bushel or anything. I think freedom is an important economic and political principle, that an all out war for survival would necessarily negate. It's easy to be cynical, but the invisible hand of capitalism is a straight up, real world, miracle - without which, production requires people are told what to do and when to do it, in a system that centrally plans what is produced and how it is distributed. In such systems, people are interchangeable - replacement parts for the economic machine that can be, and are discarded when they're no longer useful. It gives me the creeps.

Throughout American history, "freedom" has always been somewhat illusory. That's probably true everywhere, and it is certainly true here. Deviation from the norm, or clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the norm, usually meant sustained hostility. Luckily for many dissenters of various kinds, there was always frontier territory where one could go, at least until the frontier came to an end in the latter 19th century. Strong challenges to the status quo, like unionism, socialism, Mormonism, abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights for blacks, and so on have been intensely resisted by the central authorities. — Bitter Crank

In Russia now, there's an intense homophobia unto this day - as an example of social movements that didn't happen under an oppressive system. You say:

"unionism, socialism, Mormonism, abolition, women's suffrage, civil rights for blacks, and so on have been intensely resisted"

Sure, but at least they happened. Look at Pussy Riot - jailed for dancing in Church. Russians can't scratch their arse without someone wondering what they're hiding up there.

If I might be so bold as to skip over the rest as more or less agreed, I want to get to this last line:

If the US is going to make it's critical reduction in CO2 and other green house gas emissions, it will be because the central government and centralized corporate powers decided to do it. — Bitter Crank

Again, agreed - which is why I believe it's necessary to find a way that allows them to - without demolishing their interests. Otherwise, it won't happen. I suggest they can accept a scientific understanding of reality in common as an authority to direct the application of technology, without undermining their wealth and power. Or, either, making that power absolute.

Thank you, and thanks again.

Helloo-oo....moderator. Is there anybody there? My post disappeared. Please assist.

Truth in the meaningful sense is not the same as truth in the logical sense. Something can be logically valid but meaningfully false. Establishing truth in the meaningful sense is not the purpose of logic.

Where's my response to Jake's post gone?

Caught by spam filter - restored by mods. Thanks mods!

Where's my response to Jake's post gone?

Caught by spam filter - restored by mods. Thanks mods!

Hi again Karl,

Well, obviously we're not opposed to clean energy and abundant fresh water. If we confine your post to a purely technical analysis of how to solve purely technical problems, your ideas may be worth considering. I don't really feel qualified to analyze your technical ideas, but they are interesting to examine. — Jake

"Jake!"

Hiya Jake!

That's not exactly what my post is about. I just needed to prove that sustainability was technologically possible - and it is. Rather, my post is about creating the political and economic rationale to apply the technology without over-turning the apple cart of global capitalism.

I would however decline your larger claim that these technical fixes will "save the world". — Jake

I know. I read your other thread. Interesting thesis. I'm sorry I haven't replied on your thread yet, but I'm hitting this hard - here and elsewhere right now. I get it. You think of technology like the Chinese finger trap - the harder you pull the more it grips. The answer is implicit in my thesis; that we accept a scientific understanding of reality as a basis for the application of technology because, what you don't appreciate is...

We tried to "save the world" by implementing the industrial revolution, and what we accomplished was to replace one set of problems with another set of problems that are arguably larger. We tried to "save the world" with the Manhattan project, and what we accomplished was to put human civilization less than an hour away from destruction in every moment of every day. — Jake

...that science as truth was suppressed, primarily by religion, and thus technology was applied for power and profit, not as a scientific understanding of reality would suggest. Consider, in reality as described by science, nation states are not real things, money is not a real thing. Those are man made ideological concepts - not eternal truths that describe reality as it really is. So, when we apply technology as directed by ideological motives, it's not technology as science would have it. There's no motive in a scientific understanding of reality to build nuclear weapons, for example. That's a consequence of science as a tool - used by ideologies, in denial of science as a rule.

You're trying to apply technical fixes to a problem which is not fundamentally technical. The real problem can be described with a single four letter word. More. — Jake

In those terms, what I'm arguing for is: More, and better!

What the evidence shows is that whatever technical powers we develop we will relentlessly push the envelope in a reckless manner in the endless quest for more, more, and more. And by doing so we continue a process of giving ourselves more power than we can successfully manage. — Jake

Again, science is not just a tool box - it's also an instruction manual. We used the tools but haven't read the instructions. It's a poor workman that blames his tools!

Your ideas might give us some breathing room, but if successful they just kick the can down the road a little bit and we'll soon find ourselves once again up against the wall. As example, endless free clean energy would result in us burning through other finite resources at an accelerated rate. The problem gets moved from one box to another box, but the real problem doesn't get addressed, or solved. — Jake

I completely disagree with that. By applying technology in the manner I describe, we multiply resources. With fresh water from renewable energy, we can develop wasteland for agriculture and habitation, thereby protecting forests, river and lakes from over-exploitation. Further, mining the sea bed for metals has recently become technologically feasible - such that we have 7/10ths of the earths surface as yet untouched. There's no immediate problem, though eventually, we will be looking to space for resources.

It appears that, like most of our culture, you've bought in to the science "religion" which has as many or more problems than regular religion. — Jake

Beneath my surface enthusiasm lies the heart of a cynic. I reject the suggestion my critical faculties are not engaged. I always rip a thing to its component pieces, and rebuild it to see how it works, or failing that - cross-check several sources before I commit to an idea. Your assertion depends on your Chinese finger trap view of science and technology - but now I've I've refuted that, maybe you'll reconsider.

Yeah my bad, I read the hydrogen part, but didn't think about it writing my post. It was more an example of the type of questions I would have. — ChatteringMonkey

You're my hero! I love that you straight up admitted it. Kudos!

I guess the main issue then might be the cost and efficiency of producing hydrogen. I allways hear that it's not particulary energy efficient, but i'm no expert so... — ChatteringMonkey

No, you're right. The system I describe has all the thermodynamic efficiency of a steam train. There's an energy loss with conversion from electricity to hydrogen fuel, and from hydrogen fuel back into electrical energy - that's not dissimilar to the heat loss from the fire box and boiler of a steam locomotive. However, it's a clean process, and the sun is blazing down upon millions of square miles of ocean anyway. Capturing that sunlight and turning it into fuel made from seawater - effectively negates that thermodynamic inefficiency, like we'd still be using steam trains if we had an infinite amount of coal that didn't harm the environment.

The mortgages and the hydrogen production are two seperate things it seems to me, as mortgages can be used to finance whatever renewable energy source. And the market would presumably favor the one that cost the least. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, arguably, given that applying this technology is premised upon accepting a scientific understanding of reality as authoritative - it follows that the market would put the science before the profit motive. I entirely accept there are experts who know better than me, and while I'd argue for my technological solution relative to others, there are other technologies - and the best scientific and technological advice to the market might not be my advice, in which case - listen to them.

Though I don't claim to be an expert, I did know that the construction costs were high, and I also know that the production cost itself of nuclear energy are very low. My point was only that the discussion seems more ideological than rational concerning nuclear energy, and that if needed, we should choose nuclear power rather then let CO2 levels rise... until we figure out how to run everything on renewables. But maybe we can allready. — ChatteringMonkey

The financial cost of building a nuclear power station is not the point. Climate change is the point. Nuclear power produces carbon free electricity, however, because construction requires as much as half the energy it will ever produce - it is only half as carbon neutral as it appears, and that's without taking into account the carbon costs of looking after the nuclear waste forever afterward.

Mass mobilization, causally speaking, requires a conjunction of opportunities which I feel is not within the reach of many of us. Add to that the fact that most people with the right number of audience aren't bothered by environmental issues. I'm talking about celebrities.
So, it seems to me, those of us who are concerned about the world are left with no choice but to do our stuff at a much lower social stratum e.g. we can raise the awareness of our family or friends or community. We then hope that our efforts spread out from their. — TheMadFool

A crowd sourced future. I have no principled objections - have at it, make some noise. But ultimately, it would be to put pressure on government and industry to take the matter seriously. What I'm trying to do is develop a philosophy of political economy that promotes sustainability - such that, sustainability is a function of those systems; not some extra burden - but the very means of economic progress. I don't see this as a zero sum game - in which, for one to win the other must lose. In my philosophy capitalism is indispensable to the solution - only capitalism directed in the course of a common acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality. That is to say, science first, and profit second.

According to the latest climate report from the UN, we have even less time to do something "to save the world" than we thought: 12 years... — Bitter Crank

I've read articles about the report, but I haven't read the thing itself. "Act now, idiots!" - was the title of one such article. But the last thing we need is an idiotic reaction. Instead, we need to be cleverer than we've ever been.

Of course we can cut CO2 emissions to practically zero in 12 years (or say 24). When Japan, Germany, Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States mobilized for WWII, heaven and earth were moved. Tremendous productive forces were employed to build the capacity to wage massive war. We can do it again for CO2 reduction. — Bitter Crank

I thought about that as an approach, a war for sustainability - turn over entire national economies to the effort, but I do not think it would work. In wartime, they shoot deserters - the most graphic example of a much larger negation of freedom. Similarly, I think - a war for sustainability would require the negation of freedom on a grand scale, and that's best avoided - not just because people would hate it, but because the entire political and economic system of the west is built on freedom.

How?

Convert private auto manufacture to mass transit production.
Start a crash wind turbine and solar cell production program; install widely.
Build large energy storage batteries.
Immediately reduce consumption of goods which are not merely unnecessary, but are useless.
Reorganize life for need rather than profit.
Obviously: end coal and petroleum production. — Bitter Crank

What you seem to be describing here is a centrally planned economy, and that has failed again and again to deliver for people and the planet. If you would argue capitalism is bad for the environment visit Russia or China. Without a market value, resources tend to be abused. The philosophical notion is titled "Tragedy of the Commons" by Harding - if I recall correctly.

It can be done, but it will almost certainly NOT be done because the short-term costs of saving the planet will cost the rich more money than they can stand losing. It will be necessary to liquidate the wealth of the richest 1%. (Mind, that is liquidate the wealth -- not liquidate the wealthy. Liquidating the wealthy gets too much bad PR.) — Bitter Crank

It can be done, I agree. And the OP here discusses one possible technological solution - that's also a political and economic solution that respects freedom to the greatest degree possible. If we lose our freedom we will never get it back, so I'm sorry - but in my view, a war for survival is not the way to go.

It's hard to critique the idea, because we would need a lot of numbers and technical details to be able to evaluate it. I mean, i like the idea in theory, but have no idea how feasable it is economically and politically. — ChatteringMonkey

I'd suggest regional government, like the EU - is preferable to world government. Regional government would not be so remote that it lacked perceived legitimacy, and because most trade is conducted between neighbours - and regional government applying science based regulation, would inflict equal costs on direct economic competitors, which is to say, no competitive cost. There would need to be some sort of global coordination; but largely, regional government would address regional interests better than a distant global polity.

How much would the proces cost, say compared to more conventional means of producing energy? What about night and winter times, is battery technology sufficient to suppliment times when solar energy is low? — ChatteringMonkey

I suggest we can mortgage fossil fuels while still in the ground, and use that money to apply sustainable energy technology. I also suggest floating solar panels at the equator, producing hydrogen fuel - did you read the OP? Solar panels would not provide electricity directly. Hydrogen fuel would be burnt in power stations, and electricity transmitted through existing grids. Thus, nighttime etc isn't an issue.

And how do you solve the political issues? Often times people just ignore those, because well unlike the laws of nature, people can just adapt their behaviour, and therefor should... but it never really happens that way. So what about countries that don't have access to the oceans, or that are situated in areas where there is not a lot of reliable solar energy? Do you think it reasonable to expect countries to just get allong, and give away energy to those that need it? — ChatteringMonkey

What political issues in particular are you talking about? Of course, energy and water would be produced and delivered to nations far from the sea. Compressed hydrogen fuel, distributed by hydrogen powered vehicles - just as coal and oil and gas are transported to places that don't have any.

I think we should go nuclear again, and geothermal. Nuclear can be a temporary solution, not indiffinately ofcourse, but right now CO2 is a far bigger problem then nuclear waste. And maybe in the future we will find better ways of exploiting earth warmth, which is reliable and as good as infinite. In practice, a mix of all possible low carbon energy sources will probably be needed though. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh super - you had a thought. I've been thinking about this for many, many years, but you think your off the cuff impressions are more likely to be true? Not! Did you know for example, that a nuclear power station requires about half the energy it will ever produce in the construction phase alone - and that's to say nothing of the carbon cost of managing nuclear waste forever afterward?

Those sound like great environmental ideas. You've shown something that hadn't occurred to me...how water, energy, and temperature can be dealt with and helped as part of the same solution method.

It all sounds very well thought-out, and perfectly plausible and possible. — Michael Ossipoff

Thank you very much; that's so kind of you to say so - but I'm not derailing my thread discussing the rest of your ideas. That said, I'd enjoy seeing you defend these wild notions. Is there a thread I might visit?

There's another angle to beef eating which perhaps you haven't fully considered? If we are willing to torture and kill entirely innocent defenseless animals for no better reason than that they taste good, do we have the "psychological infrastructure" necessary to save the world? — Jake

Well, that is an angle I hadn't considered - not least because, I eat defenslicious animals all the time, and am deeply concerned with the question of sustainability. In nature animals eat eachother alive. Farming is less cruel than nature. Where best practice is observed, animals have a good life, and death is relatively painless. The environmental issues around farming would be mitigated by clean energy used to produce fresh water - and would promote best practice.

The point I was trying to make is that saving the planet doesn't require we hunker around in our hemp kaftans, singing cum by yar - while waiting on a lentil casserole cooking by the heat of a beeswax candle. Technology can afford current living standards for a large population going forward, if it is applied on a sufficiently large scale - in accord with a scientific understanding of reality.

As example, why would a person who smokes be motivated to protect the environment when they are busy knowingly trashing their own most personal environment? — Jake

I smoke too, and see no connection. I'm mortal, but humankind is not...necessarily doomed to die.

What if saving the world is, at heart, not really a technical problem but a psychological, moral, emotional problem? — Jake

In my view, it's an epistemological question. It's about truth. Our problem is that in 1633, Galileo discovered the means to establish valid knowledge by scientific method, and was arrested by the Church, tried and found guilty of heresy. Science as truth was suppressed to maintain religious, political and economic ideology intact - even while science was applied to drive the industrial revolution.

Those religious, political and economic ideologies providing our identities and motives, do not describe the world as it really is, and so we act at odds to the world we live in. There's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action, and the consequences of such action. It's cause and effect. This is the problem I address, and it implies the answer I propose - that is, accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common as a basis for the application of technology.

Because individuals are mortal, I just do not believe people will sacrifice their pleasures for the sake of sustainability; but if it can be shown that such sacrifice is not necessary, achieving sustainability hoves into the realms of possibility.

Chattermonkey, - I read your posts, and Jake, I read your other thread, but I have to away until later today, when I will respond.

Another quick interruption.

Having already plugged my sagely wife — Jake

Hey, what you do on your own time...

Having already plugged my sagely wife above, I will now shamelessly plug my own "blowharding to save the world" thread, which can be found here. — Jake

Thanks man, I'll have a look, but right now I need to press on with these replies.

While Karl addresses energy and water, my thread addresses another very important component of the world saving project, knowledge.
Karl argues for more knowledge to help manage energy and water resources, a reasonable enough proposition, if one limits the subject to energy and water. There are many challenges before us, and it's very understandable to attempt to leverage the awesome power of knowledge to meet those challenges. — Jake

I'm intrigued, but having not looked - I wonder if you're aware of Enemies of the Open Society by Popper. If not, might I suggest you take a look - I have a feeling it's going to come up. A lot!

However, when we 1) add all the knowledge growing projects together, and 2) watch as they feed back upon each other, 3) accelerating the overall pace of knowledge development, 4) we arrive at a different picture, which is.....

The solution is the biggest problem.

I know this to be a hard fact, because when I explain this blowharding theory to my wife while we're making dinner she always says, "Ok honey, I'm sure you're right." See? Proof!!! — Jake

I'm not going to argue with that as a standard of proof, but I have a feeling that I've solved your problem, because - I don't arrive at that conclusion. In relation to Popper's dire warning that elevating science would require we 'make our representations conform' to science as truth until we're all locked stepped coffee coloured people wearing identical denim overalls - I have shown that there are legitimate limitations on the rightful authority of science, insofar as, beyond sustainability, no implication can be said to be compulsory. Does that solve your problem too?