Greenpeace Is Sceptical (and ignorant)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

Mike Holmes wrote: I think the escalating model of consumption is essentially flawwed. Mike
Is there an "escalating model of consumption"? I don't think anyone planned it, its just a bunch of dispeople trying to buy more for themselves and their families and corporations getting better at supplying it. In some cases those people are super wealthy and don't need more stuff. In other cases they are in the same situation as you or I and while they could get by with less, we would be hypocrites to tell them so, in yet other cases they are far worse off than us and to say that they need to "cut back their consumption" is inhuman.

For the people who are hugely rich and squander wealth I think that's a personal flaw rather than a "social paradigm".

And then you just have the simple problem that a growing poulation places more strain on the surrounding environment.

At the end of the day we need constant progress and scientific development, just to stay where we are its going to be tough and there's no guarantee we'll be able to meet the challenges ahead but dismissing new scientific technologies in a reactionary way is the surest way to seal our doom.

I generally support frugal living.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I think it's built into the corporate model. Grow or die. But that's really sorta off-topic for the thread.

The point is that we can reach "sustainability" one way or another, if we're all just reasonable about things. The effects of not doing so should be obvious. See the Mayan Civilization (oh, they're gone?).

Mike

olivier
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Cherbourg, France

Post by olivier »

Mike Holmes wrote:If people claim that they are against technologies because they have some risk involved with them, tell them that they should first work to get rid of cars.
You are just pointing to how irrational we can be considering risks and rewards.
Every driver more or less believes that he will be able to avoid an obstacle at the last instant thanks to some supernatural skill , and therefore accepts road risks. That was for the risk.
I remember a study popularized by Illich in the 70s (Ivan, not Vladimir) which reckoned the average speed of an average car driven by an average American driver, taking into account the working time needed to earn the money to buy and maintain the car and to fuel it. The speed was 4 mph. That is for the reward.
That does not make me any smarter: I still drive almost 20,000 mi per year. At least I do not like it.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Ivan was wrong.

Post by TDPerk »

If you drive 20kmi/yr, and you work even two full time jobs, and you pay for the usual things in addition to transportation, then Ivan was ludicrously wrong.

The average speed of car would be north of 32mph, for a real world person.

Yours, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

olivier
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:21 pm
Location: Cherbourg, France

Post by olivier »

Whether right or wrong, that study stated in the early 70s that the average driver would spend 1600 hours for his car (working, driving time and all that is related to the car - that seems a lot) and drive 6500 mi per year.
When I lived in downtown Paris, I mainly used my car to drive to work and my average driving speed was not more than 7 mph (still faster than walk or public transportation and air-conditioned). Add the cost of the car and the fuel and you should be there (of course, the time spent depends on the income). Now, my average trip is 200 mi at 65 mph, it is completely different. During the past 5 years, the number of bikes in Paris has dramatically increased.
Ivan Illich's contribution was "counterproductivity", the idea that when it reaches a certain threshold a beneficial process tends to turn negative, just as "motorized vehicles create the remoteness which they alone can shrink". Although it is not fully demonstrated, I find it interesting as a caveat. Between "brave new world" and "back to the cave", there must be a path.
BTW I just wanted to illustrate how irrational we can be in our judgments when it comes to risks/rewards and our way of life. Many organizations know how to manipulate irrational feelings, not always for our good. Don't you think?

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

"Rational" or not, our societies have developed the space that the car gives, which then requires the car. I'm fully willing to belong to a "walking community" but somebody has to build one first. Rather, the real problem is with modern job instability. How can you choose to purchase a home near your job when you may be working for somebody else in just a few years? Instead you base your job decisions in part on how far the "commute" is.

That, perhaps ironically, is caused by technology, and an increasing rate of change.

I happen to like the effects of technology (especially this internet thingie), so I'm willing to put up with space and cars, etc. I just wish that the company I work for had the foresight to allow my to telecommute. I'd be willing to give up wages if I could do that.

But... again... not really on topic for the thread. The point is that technologies, starting with fire, are a choice. And, on balance, I think they've served us pretty well so far. The point for this thread is that fission power is a pretty darn good bet. And fusion power will be an even better bet, assuming that it doesn't remain a money pit forever. There are technologies that we can look at more closely as to cost/benefit. Fusion isn't one of them.

Mike

Post Reply