http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n...
Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh
Europe: 2857
US: 4533
pdf warning - albeit free of charge.
By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.
No, it's a place that's energy demands are lower, are growing at a lower rate, while offering a comparable standard of living. Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? It's not a binary choice that has to be made.
Yes, the US system seems to have bad incentives and waste energy. At least, compared to Europe.
>>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy?
I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-)
I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)
I read it a few times before I replied. Andi was making a comment about the costs of energy for us and for future generations. Andi was saying that ignoring the cost for future generations is typical behaviour of people "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take." You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development. It's easy to see that better technology can be more efficient.
I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention.
EU, US and Asia are all guilty of creating percentage wise more pollution and using percentage wise more energy over the last ten years, have a look at the PDF.
A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness.
Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-)
Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.)
Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."
>>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development.
It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence...
>>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention
Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.)
Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.
Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment. Perhaps the quotes confused you, they were there to give context.
Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium? Storage will need to be guarded, keeping a list of what has been stored provides an incentive for terrorists but offers the possibility of future reuse.
Noted, go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years, much worse in many regards. I refer you back to pdf I already linked for energy consumption.
There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
>>Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment
AGAIN, "In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence".
You just made another claim. If you want to show a thesis, then quote the relevant part and show it. Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
From the rest of his comments, where he seems to think that natural resources will disappear if they are used, he has no clue about anything. (Hint: People are mining scrap heaps, etc.) He was against cities -- where each individual use less land and resources than people living in the countryside (or maybe he just want to kill everyone in cities -- where are they going to go, otherwise?)
>>Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium?
First, you changed the subject. I assume you yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.
Second, nothing are going to stop e.g. Iran, Pakistan and North Korea from building nuclear power plants and getting bombs. That cat is out of the bag. So that is irrelevant.
>>There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies
Afaik, western societies pollute less and less over the last 50-60 years. I gave examples. (The energy use is increasing, but less and less for each additional unit of GNP.)
>>go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years
When the economy reaches a certain level, countries start to invest in clean technology, etc. China has already started. The dirtiest phase is industrialisation -- it is still better than what was before.
Thank you for your reply. I think we need to cut down on what we are talking about here because the focus is being lost.
First and foremost I will not yield on Andi's "point" about cost to future generations.
Second, you brought up nuclear waste disposal in oil wells as a hand waving suggestion. I had no intention of changing the subject. I should not have responded to this disposal comment. There is quite a concerted effort to stop the countries you mentioned achieving nuclear arms, and it may stop them, so it's not irrelevant to the oil well point. It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium. This whole oil well thread of conversation is irrelevant however, in my opinion. I suggest we drop this element of the conversation, because it will not lead anywhere fruitful, I believe.
To bring some focus to this discussion: you have said that I have made two separate claims. I made one single claim. The claim I continue to make is that: Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress.
The second time I mentioned this, was as clarification to the claim.
Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations. As I see it, that is the claim I am making, and that quote is the evidence to back up my claim. This is not a second or third claim, this is the claim I have been making all along.
If you could please, tell me what separate claims you think I am making.
I don't think you can make a rule out of the claim that western societies' pollution has decreased over the last 50-60 years. You've given an example, I've given counter examples, i.e. it is not a rule. We can get into an example war, where I can give more and more examples of pollution increase, and you can give more and more examples of pollution decrease, and there's no point in it. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
Just because China has started to invest in clean technology (clean in some circumstances means nuclear, I assume you don't mean that), doesn't mean it's going to use it, and it doesn't mean it's pollution and energy usage will reduce. I've invested in pink socks, am I going to wear them?
I will read Andi's other comments now for better or worse. To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Is that clear?
>>This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations.
(I know what Andi wrote, I quoted it in the comment above...)
He talks about future generations -- and against technological progress being important; he is arguing against cities and some back-to-nature garbage. A confused Luddite.
He is of course welcome to go back to being too poor for education and having 30% child mortality. But he'll have to kill off most of the population that can't survive in his world, Khmer style.
Which was what I rested my case on before. You could have asked for links to his comments, instead of ignoring them in your answer.
(I meant that you repeated your claim again, without any support. Like here. Not made a new one. Sorry for any confusion.)
>>It should not be made easier for people to develop nuclear weapons grade plutonium.
So the West should close down a large part of the energy production -- because radioactive materials might, in ten years time, end up with dictators. The really unpleasant dictators already have nuclear reactors (and bombs, in at least two of the three cases mentioned). (I know that Pakistan isn't formally a dictatorship right now.)
That is just not coherent.
(The point about oil wells was more of a proof of principle which I've seen geologists argue -- it is not popular locally, because political parties has married another solution. We can get rid of radioactive materials, if we absolutely have to. It is not a good idea, yet.)
>>Just because China has started to invest in clean technology ... doesn't mean it's going to use it
Sigh... And China might also stop growing food?
China has to implement clean tech -- since the economy will grow multiple times the coming decades and there are already bad environmental problems.
It is just too expensive not to do it. (Popular unrest, public health and destruction of farming land.)
I read his comments, you should go and visit some truly bad cities to appreciate why someone might argue against them. His other comments are not relevant to the claim I am making, now that I've read them. On weapons grade plutonium, you are trying to put words into my mouth - I can make my own points thank you.
You seem to have some narrative built up of how the world will progress. e.g. pollution and energy use, what China is going to do, what would happen if they don't, what happens if nuclear power is abandoned, how China's economy will develop over the next few decades. And if you don't mind me saying so, you cannot see into the future, you are far too sure of yourself.
Coal can be a lot cleaner than it is in China. However that country's disregard for its miners and workers, betrays a certain level of contempt for human life. Do you think that China will operate nuclear reactors as clean and as well as the rest of the world? Nuclear is not clean, clean is a classical propaganda term for nuclear, like pro choice and pro life camps in an American abortion debate. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology, not for China, any of the countries you mentioned, not for anywhere.
I will de-construct Andi's comment that is so contentious for you:
Here is what he wrote:
>>You are stuck in a view that energy needs to be cheap and that energy must be available despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.
The crucial words here are 'stuck in a view' and 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.'
It the phrase 'stuck in a view' links this sentence to the following one:
>>This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take.
Here he states that people 'stuck in this view' this 'classical view' see
'technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take' and this is the crucial link back to the first sentence, because people are stuck in this view 'despite the costs of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.' 'technical progress' here is dependent on the nuclear reactors of the first sentence.
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations.
to be more specific:
This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations.
It's really telling that you berate me for ignoring Andi's comments while I go to look at them, when at the same time saying my claims have no support(in what way - you never said what part is unsupported?) and then informing me that you are probably going to leave the conversation altogether, and ignore my reply to you completely.
To reiterate: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you disagree with this statement?
>>This does not argue against all technical progress, it argues against ignoring the cost to future generations.
Creative way of reading Andi's comment. Congratulations. I can see how someone could formulate a position like that, given that he/she is used to argue with people with certain opinions.
The problem, as I noted twice above, is that the other comments shows that Andi is a crazy Luddite which argues against cities. No facts, no references -- lots of claims. (There is a lower environmental impact with half the population in cities than if you spread them out all over the countryside. At leasts without doing a Green Khmer reorg...)
Now I have repeated that point three(?) times. You have acknowledged it without touching it twice. I've given a link. Enough.
And yes, it is theoretically possible that the Chinese commit a country-wide economic suicide by not starting to clean up e.g. pollution from coal. But stupidity is not the common sin of the Chinese leaders... (Strip mining and destroying inner Mongolia is another matter.)
Or are you claiming it is economically efficient to not clean up and accept health problems for a large part of the work force? Sure, the Chinese leadership is competent and would be cynical enough... That would be interesting -- do you have references?
Thanks for your reply.
I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming, and you think I'm getting creative? At what point do you think I got creative? How well do you score in reading comprehension? I have a feeling we would get along just fine if we were communicating on the same level, or as native speakers of the same language.
Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant, you can point it out as much as you want - you won't get any marks for it. I think you've typecast Andi as a crazy luddite very unfairly. You are putting quite a lot of extra words into his mouth.
Andi did not argue against all technical progress, he argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations.
One more time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree with this statement or not?
>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion.
So you are wrong -- Andi really meant what he said.
So much for your claim of proof.
(I accept that, given enough strange people to argue with, a reasonable person -- a non-Luddite/-econazi -- might have written what "Andi" wrote. Even if it seems unlikely. But "Andi" is not reasonable...)
>> Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant
See above -- Andi is just plain weird, your guess is very unlikely. Also, you made that claim without touching that I've commented on his weird comments three times, even gave a link.
My troll detector isn't sensitive enough.
>> ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations
And for nuclear power -- you haven't show that there is a net cost to future generations (not just creation of useful materials for their accelerator reactors).
Note also that the present humanity do research and infrastructure now, which will make future generations' lives better. (Which certainly is a religious view, according to Andi.)
(Also, there are lots of radioactive materials in nature. See my proof-of-principle solution.)
Excuse my lack of a reply this evening, I've been busy today - I'll respond tomorrow. If you have time could you please tell me what your proof of principle solution refers to,
Thanks.
>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion.
This poorly constructed sentence shows me to be wrong does it? It somehow refutes my claim? How exactly? Have you ever heard the phrase quasi-religious? Perhaps you should have some sympathy for someone with Andi's dearth of vocabulary. It adds nothing to his earlier comment and takes nothing away from it either.
You are making Andi out to be the unabomber, he does seem like a reasonable person - you are completely overreacting to all of his comments for some utterly bizarre reason. His comments are irrelevant to what we are talking about. Your whole basis of argument now is that Andi is some sort of certifiable nutcase. Time and again I've said his comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided?
Even if you were somehow magically correct in delivering a devastating psychoanalysis of Andi, over the internet based on some comments, you can't argue with this: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. But you continue to. Do you disagree with this statement? It's what I'm calling you out on, and you seem to have a massive problem with it.
What proof of principle solution? Your oil well suggestion is no solution to anything. Are you referring to something else perhaps?
I'm sure they have pulled and will continue to pull lots of useful materials out of the areas and people near e.g. Fukushima and Chernobyl that our past, current and future research will make useful for future generations: cancerous thyroid glands, contaminated milk, water and aquatic life with 2Sv of radiation in it, irradiated metal and farmland.
To demonstrate that there is a net cost of nuclear power to future generations: accept that nuclear plants are supported by tax breaks, and the cost of shutting down nuclear plants is so great that it cannot be undertaken by their owners and caretakers. This must be undertaken by the state taxpayer. After they have been shut down, the waste cannot be processed by current technology and must be stored and protected by the taxpayer. When the plants are no longer generating profit - the vain hope for the enterprise to benefit future generations is that someone invents some way of processing their waste. This is the same vain hope those had when they built these reactors in the the 50s/60s/70s. Sure, they produced power for a few decades - the waste however will cost taxpayer money for millennia.
I will repeat myself again, perhaps you may notice this time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I gave a perfectly clear explanation of what he wrote in case you had any difficulty in reading it. Which, as it turns out you did. When confronted with this, you accuse me of getting creative and now say the clear explanation is strained. I will remind you that earlier you accepted the explanation as something a reasonable person might say (you qualified it saying it would be unlikely). They are two very simple sentences and the logic as I demonstrated is quite easy to follow. I think that perhaps you have misread them the first time, and are now just being stubborn.
You then moved on to trying to make Andi out to be some sort of miscreant to justify your argument. Andi didn't write other strange things. What Andi wrote in the first place wasn't strange either, Andi has not shown himself to be a stupid luddite.
In future if you are going to quote what I write or anyone else writes you would do well to include in full the part of the sentence you are responding to:
>>Time and again I've said [Andi's] comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided?
I've said that the other things that Andi wrote were not relevant, and that they aren't strange. You can't say that I accepted he wrote other strange things, again we are back to you trying to put words into other peoples mouths.
You made no points about R&D, I asked you twice about your proof of principle solution and can find no comments by you referring to them, you are being extremely cheeky accusing me of ignoring things.
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm getting deja vu here: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I'll just add another comment by "Andi", after the previous where he saw technical progress as a "religion"... This is also hardly coherent, but obviously anti-research and Luddite.
And here is the first: "This is the classical view of people who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take."
Pasting links does not an argument make, it also does not take a lot of effort. You've made few if any valid arguments, throughout the course of this discussion. To repeat an argument - first you have to make an argument.
Again I will help you with your obvious difficulties in reading comprehension, although I cannot help you with your stubbornness.
In the link you pasted Andi makes a short comment about education being more important than technical progress (especially technical progress at all costs). This is not anti research, and this is not Luddite. It's pro education! It's very important to read those last three words 'at all costs'.
If you have a look here at a comment in the same thread:
>> Of course it is OK and important - especially for the poorer countries - to make power cheaper. But NEVER at all costs.
See the phrase 'at all costs' he used in the later comment you refer to? Nowhere does he make an argument against all progress, he's arguing against ignoring the the cost ('at all costs') of nuclear reactors for future generations. He even argues for making power cheaper for people in poorer countries. Hardly the behaviour of a Luddite, don't you think?!
So these comments are irrelevant to our discussion, and they do not show Andi to have Luddite opinions.
Here's the question that you have gone to enormous lengths to ignore - one more time, and strangely, I amn't tired asking you again:
There is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
I made fun of a guy that wrote anti-technological arguments about expecting technical solutions to problems as being a "religion".
The guy wrote the same thing in multiple other comments.
You call me on that -- and write WALLS of text, insisting that the first comment was only about nuclear tech and that the other comments (note, pluralis) are irrelevant for other unlikely reasons.
If you didn't put time into writing well, I'd be certain you're a troll.
So congratulations, you got another comment out of me. I must assume that is your motivation into writing possible explanations for what "Andi" really means, when he wrote the same thing multiple times.
If you are going to make fun of people, make sure to read what they write carefully. Otherwise you might make yourself to look less intelligent than you are. It's not persuasive to try to make out that the person you have a disagreement with is crazy.
Andi really didn't write what you say he did, and he certainly didn't write "anti-technological arguments about expecting technical solutions to problems as being a "religion"." in one comment or multiple other comments. It's really pointless to try and put words into people's mouths like that.
I'll take your admission about how you 'made fun of a guy' as you agreeing that is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations.
