Come on down Selma. My wife has a student that started after her seventies and I had an 86 year old student who studied until he moved to California and disappeared. Every day he sang at least 20 songs. Elliott Carter is 102 and still composing. You're only old enough to know the difference now. My voice teacher, who I still study with at 69, will be 90 in April and still enjoys teaching a full day. The key word here is enjoy. Make them pay and only do what you enjoy. Fools that they are. If they had learned that when they were in power, the world would have been so much better. Happy New Year.
REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Selma Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 10:59 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; 'Keith Hudson' Subject: Re: [Futurework] The tumultuous path Happy New Year to everyone!! Selma reads most all of Ray's posts, but most of the others seem to me to be so unable to understand that the very fundamental assumptions underlying the arguments are warped, and I don't have the energy anymore to keep spelling that out over and over when so few will even begin to deal with it. I know this is a cop-out, Ray; at the age of 82 and not in the best of health, I just now want to cop-out. Selma From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:59 PM To: 'Keith Hudson'; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] The tumultuous path I would like to thank Keith for all of his effort and reading that he does. I rarely agree with him but he is a stellar source of material of an absolutely dizzying array of subjects. I would also like to know why the women write so little on these lists. Play is fun and gotcha's are always little word games that keep us sharp but not writing is just plain ...... Everyone is SO busy! But no one escape Parkinson's Law no matter how young or pretty you may be :>))) I don't have any more time than you do and I suspect Keith doesn't either. I'm running a voice studio, teaching a community and an internet list for that community, organizing a whole library of writings by a major Native American philosopher, producing occasional concerts and coaching people at the NYCity Opera, in Major religious institutions in New York and tutoring students in the conservatories and that doesn't include my own personal piano and voice practice that holds my arthritis at bay in my hands and keeps my brain functioning and holding back old age as well as taking advanced lessons in artistry from the one of the greatest Masters on the planet, Daniel Ferro who himself will be 90 in April and still works a full day. I believe the housewife rule: You don't get credit for what you get paid for. Who has time to write the Future of work list? I don't. But people like Keith stir the waters and make adult contributions that require I take them as seriously as anyone. I could have said Arthur, Mike, Ed, Darryl, Natalia, Barry etc. but this today is about my appreciation for Keith even if I quibble. He puts his hand to the type and thinks. That keeps us all vital. So Happy New Year Keith and thank you for your continued effort. I Thank Arthur and Sally for their work and all of the rest of you. Barry, the two Eds, Pete, Gurstein [who like Keith is perpetual], Darryl and Natalia, Mike Spence and all the women, when they write. Also Gail, it's not our fault it's a male list plus Natalia, where the hell is Selma? ------------------------ Now for Keith and his comment below about the cost of energy. There is a reverse problem here Keith. What is plentiful is not economic. Solar cells are not so expensive today. Consider that 80$ cell developed by the Chinese government, but how do you charge for sunlight? You have to mess something already wonderful up, like sunlight, health or water for example. Then you can sell It for a higher price than gasoline by the glass in a plastic bottle that makes everyone sick and employs the doctors. Happy New year. It's a weird world you economist folks have made here. REH American aboriginal artist From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:29 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION Subject: [Futurework] The tumultuous path The reason why all the alternative energy technologies so far proposed can never become long-term replacements for fossil fuels is very simple. They can all produce electricity well enough, but the equipment that's needed -- wind turbines or nuclear power stations, for example -- can only be built if much cheaper energy is used. At present, this is derived from the burning of fossil fuels, either directly or via orthodox electricity generating stations. If manufacturers of alternative technologies were to exclusive use the electricity they themselves are able to make then the cost of making the materials for their equipment -- concrete, steel and plastics, for example -- would be anything between 20 and 50 times the present cost. And this prohibitive cost will still be the same, relatively, whatever the price of fossil fuels becomes in later decades and centuries. The manufacturers of alternative technologies know this. They employ scientists who are well-versed in thermodynamics. But so long as they can convince the more credulous wing of environmentalists and the public and, in turn, convince governments that they (or their customers for electricity) need massive subsidies in the short term, then they are laughing all the way to the bank. Thus nuclear power stations cannot be built (or insured) by corporations unless government supplies a large proportion of the capital cost (and insurance premiums). Wind turbines can't be used unless governments subsidize the electricity utilities for the proportion of the electricity coming from the wind. And, of course, government politicians (and their top civil servants) also know this. But so long as they can disguise the subsidies in one way or another -- which they do -- then they can convince their electorates that they are being responsible providers of electricity at cheapest cost. But if the present alternative technologies (or anything else requiring expensive mechanical infrastructure) are not the answer, what is? As fossil fuels decline and become exorbitantly expensive in the coming decades what can we do? Are there any genuinely long-term energy technologies? What if there were technologies which not only supplied energy (say, in the form of hydrogen) but also built their own mechanical equipment cheaply at the same time? Well, we have those already. They are called plants, algae and bacteria. Nature has well-nigh perfected these technologies for the better part of four billion years. From solar energy they all produce stored energy in the form of carbohydrates -- the energy being easily released, of course. At the same time they use solar energy to make their mechanical infrastructure -- proteins, collagen and cellulose. And at the same time they use built-in "software" procedures (epigenetics) which instructs, repairs and replenishes its genes from one generation to the next -- DNA. If we are not to throw our arms in the air in despair about the long-term future of our descendents, then we must have faith in those quirky mutations in our brain genes which enlarged our frontal lobes and made us scientifically curious. Hundreds, if not thousands, of the best young minds in the world are now actively seeking that first biologcal machine that will re-package solar energy much more economically than any alternative technology so far being tried. Ultimately it will be scalable in order to replace fossil fuels but only when world population is much smaller than it is now (a great deal of land presently used for agriculture will be required). It will also require vast amounts of freshwater now used by agriculture. Although research biologists are now very close indeed to that first practical bacterium which ultimately will give us all the energy we need, the coming decades are likely to be tumultuous as nations fight over fossil fuels (hopefully in non-military ways) and as world population (hopefully voluntarily) shrinks to manageable size. But we mustn't think that politicians are going to take us there painlessly by leading us up the "alternative" garden path as they are doing now. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
