This post from Ed has roused me to comment. Everyone chewing on this problem should go to their bookstore and get Jared Diamond's book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". Ecology, resources, and how people react to them are very much part of the problem, and there are no glib answers but Pogo's: We have Met The Enemy and He is Us. The specific catastrophes that have been discussed here are beyond the publication time window, but the pattern is there. And there is reason to hope, and Vortex and BLP and CF are part of that scene which are also outside the scope. I have written to Diamond to call his attention to these initiatives.
> Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored. > > revtec wrote: > > > What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF? > > > > Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming? > Yes, this is an important goal. But not the only result. In this discussion both Mills' BlackLight Power and CF should have equal voice, for their end result is very similar and BLP is probably much closer to commercialization than CF; it has corporate focus, finanace, and leadership. The far-reaching result is dismantling the economic and political power structures based on the monopolization of energy sources. > > > > Is it to improve the quality of life by providing an inexhaustable > > source of cheap energy to everyone on the planet? > Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point > civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start > now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as > is the usual approach? See Diamond. One of his students asked what the thoughts were of the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island, which was once heavily forested. Fundamentally, it is the short time horizon of people as consumers and as investors in corporations who want quick returns and do not see the future creeping up on them. > > > > Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more than offset by the > > waste heat output of billions of CF engines, and that global warming > > will accelerate by direct heating alone! Could it be that with > > perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box? > Not possible. Mankind's use is too trivial compared to the sun and > sources internal to the earth. Correct. A heat engine produces a bit of heat and is done, but the greenhouse gases inhibit the cooling of the earth by radiation of far infrared to the cold blackness of space, as on a clear night. That continues 24/7 for decades or more. Whether that is *the* major cause of warming is open to debate, for the computer models are not as complex as the actual atmosphere of Earth. > > > > I brought this up before without getting a single comment. Did I have > > silent agreement with this concern from most of the group, am I > > considered totally nuts, or maybe most subscribers dump every post from > > revtec without reading a single word. I really don't know. > > > > God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that > > it is central. Our perception of threats to our existance is directly > > linked to our perception of God. Our attitudes toward "God sized" > > problems are determined by our concept of God. The thermal condition of > > this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two > > percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here > > is totally irrelevant. > > Not true. We can change how much of the energy we get from the sun > stays on earth. The earth is not a perfect absorber. Changes in the > amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere changes the amount of energy > retained by the earth. This is the issue, not the total amount of > energy emitted by the sun. True. But changes in the sun's output, coincident with man's activities, may increase effects. There have been profound climate changes long before man had any impact. > > > > Christians think God has his hand on the solar thermostat. Athiests > > think no one does. > > > > Christians trust God to dial it back if necessary in response to our > > increased heat load. People, who either don't believe in God or don't > > trust God, think we must master these adjustments ourselves. This is based on conceptions of God based on the Bible, which is not that of the majority of humanity. > > Anyone that thinks God is concerned about the survival of the human race > has no understanding of how God works. Christianity teaches free will. > If we as a species freely act in such a way to destroy our world, we > are free to do so. Why would God care? Many species on other planets > would have the common sense not to destroy their world so that > intelligent life would go on. We would be just one more attempt to > produce intelligent life that failed. The presumption that we are > special to God is just too self-serving to be real or rational. I agree with Ed to an extent. I will add that a great many people have 'religious experiences' which subjectively to one degree or another, give an internal sense of connectedness to some essence of the world. This experience leads to a sense of relatedness and stewardship toward the planet. But the villager who goes a bit further to find wood to cook the evening meal does not see her part in the deforestation, leading to the mudslide that buries the village. > > > > Christians are thought callous for not recognizing the need to tackle > > "God sized" problems while there are nonbelievers amoung us who think > > the solution to planetary thermal overload and other environmental > > problems is to eliminate five of the six billion people on the Earth's > > surface. > > Where did you get this idea? This is not only not true, but not even > rational. It floats around. It is Genocide and Prejudice wearing the mask of rational population control. Diamond cites a study indicating that if the world population continues to increase at the present rate, the photosynthetic capcity of the plant life to feed humans will be reached, with nothing left over for other species. We are in a bubble caused by improvements in medicine and public health and agriculture which have resulted in an explosion of human population from beow one billion at 1800 to 6+ billion now. The industrial revolution fueld this with rapid increases in the energy utilized per individual, and a crisis of rising expectations. As China and India reach for First World living standards, the drain on the global capacity will increase. It is also true that humans accomplished great things whenthe world population was much smaller. Cultural habits appropriate to short life spans and low mortality change slowly but may lead to collapse. Fundamental to the way out is safe energy, and the ONLY technologies in view are CF and BLP. > > > > For anyone who wants to play the God game, the stakes are fantastically > > high. > > > > What will be the most likely cause of calamity: trusting God or playing God? > > The route to survival is to observe how nature works and adjust behavior > to be consistent with a behavior that allows survival. This is true of > individuals as well as nations. It does not involve playing God, but > simply understanding the consequences of one's actions. The US, > especially, has lost the ability to understand the consequence of > actions, instead has substituted what a few people WANT to happen. > Unfortunately, these wants seem to be justified by assuming that this is > what God wants. The arrogance is overwhelming. Amen and Amen. It is fashionable in some quarters to pin this on Bush and rationalizations by some labeled "conservatives" as bad guys as opposed to the "liberal" preservationists. Labels are dangerous: I have a simple question -- what is it that is to be 'conserved'? Years ago in a conversation with a liberal friend, I convulsed him in laughter by pointing out that he wanted to conserve his liberal traditions :-). > Mike Carrell
