Limit to growth

[luke]

If Polywell is to save the world, we better hurry up:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... P_20120528

I was suprised to see that my (Dutch) goverment is involved in this research, a good thing I guess. See http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012

[MSimon]

This belongs in General So I'm moving it.

[MSimon]

Europe has already reached its limit to growth. The women are no longer having children.

[MSimon]

energy is becoming more scarce,

Didn't have to read far to find the first lie.

I've had enough.

[djolds1]

If Polywell is to save the world, we better hurry up:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... P_20120528

I was suprised to see that my (Dutch) goverment is involved in this research, a good thing I guess. See http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2012

SciAm used to be a good mag. Sad to watch it turn into Propaganda American.

[hanelyp]

I let my subscription to "Scientific American" lapse several years ago because they were promoting the unscientific warmist position.

[Jccarlton]

I recently had a talk about this with an old friend of mine who pointed out that the elites wanted to be rich, by which he meant that they wanted to be an aristocracy of the old style which due to technology they cannot be because the rest of us refuse to just be peasants. I think that this is pertinant:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/search/la ... nmentalism

[Jccarlton]

You would think that if you wanted to have your supersecret elites meeting well, quiet, you would pick a nice place away from the center of the action:
http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-laun ... crackdown/
I can think of maybe a hundred hotels in that general area that would be better than the place they picked, but no, the elites of the bilderberg meeting have to have their big secret meeting right next to the airport and make a scene by chasing everybody out of the hotel for "security reasons." These are the people supposed to be our rulers. This is just pathetic.

[Jccarlton]

There's always Julian Simon:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html

[MSimon]

I recently had a talk about this with an old friend of mine who pointed out that the elites wanted to be rich, by which he meant that they wanted to be an aristocracy of the old style which due to technology they cannot be because the rest of us refuse to just be peasants. I think that this is pertinant:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/search/la ... nmentalism

Thanks for the alfin. It has been a while since I read one of his rants.

[palladin9479]

Greens always want to kill other humans, as long as their the ones doing the choosing.

[djolds1]

Greens always want to kill other humans, as long as their the ones doing the choosing.

Green-ism has collapsed in the last three years.

The huge expense of the desired global regulation (and pay offs to the developing world) can no longer be afforded;

Devil-take-the-hindmost mentalities are undermining the EU, refiring nationalism, and consequently undermining the willingness to submit to additional money-demanding transnational authorities; and

It is obvious the Kyoto is on the rocks and there will be no follow-on.

Copenhagen 2009 was bad, Durban 2010 was a joke, and no one even noticed the Bonn 2011 IPCC Conference. And to add insult to injury, the Climategate-1 and -2 datadumps have undermined the Olympian reputations of the pro-CAGW worker bees.

Time for the Reds to find yet another new home.

[tomclarke]

Greens always want to kill other humans, as long as their the ones doing the choosing.

Green-ism has collapsed in the last three years.

The huge expense of the desired global regulation (and pay offs to the developing world) can no longer be afforded;

Devil-take-the-hindmost mentalities are undermining the EU, refiring nationalism, and consequently undermining the willingness to submit to additional money-demanding transnational authorities; and

It is obvious the Kyoto is on the rocks and there will be no follow-on.

Copenhagen 2009 was bad, Durban 2010 was a joke, and no one even noticed the Bonn 2011 IPCC Conference. And to add insult to injury, the Climategate-1 and -2 datadumps have undermined the Olympian reputations of the pro-CAGW worker bees.

Time for the Reds to find yet another new home.

Wow.

So what is your solution for how we share common resources: atmosphere, seas, etc?

You sound as though what you want is a free-for-all in which there is no agreement between parties and therefore the resources are used non-optimally.

Yet, what is that agreement between parties? Looks very like your definition of greenism above.

Suppose Iran (or somewhere else) decides that atmospheric nuclear tests are sensible. Is it greenism to try to stop them? And if not, why are emasures to reduce or stop other undesirable global consequences wrong?

[MSimon]

So what is your solution for how we share common resources: atmosphere, seas, etc?

I'm taking your share of the atmosphere and breathing it before you have a chance. As an alternative I'm thinking of setting up a transnational committee to determine your proper share of the resources and see that you get your share. Minus necessary government services. Is today one of your breathing days comrade?

[tomclarke]

So what is your solution for how we share common resources: atmosphere, seas, etc?

I'm taking your share of the atmosphere and breathing it before you have a chance. As an alternative I'm thinking of setting up a transnational committee to determine your proper share of the resources and see that you get your share. Minus necessary government services. Is today one of your breathing days comrade?

You are assuming these resources are zero sum.

Usually (e.g. fish) they are negative sum.

It shows a certain idelogical inflexibility to imagine there can be no allocation problems requiring supranational agreements to sort out.