Re: OT: Biofuels not environmentally friendly

On 2008-01-26, Ron Ruff <rruffrruff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 25, 1:24 am, Ben C <spams...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
but in spite of great population and
industrial growth in the last 50 years, in many places the environment
is much cleaner-- the streets of London aren't full of manure and dead
horses any more for example.

Oh, that's a good example! Horseshit and dead horses are rather
organic and wholesome... toss them in your field and the plants grow
better.

Not so organic and wholesome when tossed into the drinking water supply.

Not true of the stuff we are polluting with these days.

Well, carbon dioxide, which a lot of the fuss is about these days, is
plant food!

As for the decline of civilization, it's not clear that energy
consumption can't continue to grow indefinitely.

Like I said, energy isn't "evil". Any advanced civilization requires a
large amount of inexpensive energy.

At some point the next
thing (probably nuclear fission IMO) will become cheaper than oil and we
will gradually switch to using that (and probably electric cars). No
sudden disruption, no reason for generations of misery, poverty and war.

When did fission become even remotely benign?
And we currently have "misery, poverty, and war"... always have, and
likely will for the foreseeable future if a large portion of the
population are as blind and selfish as you seem to be.

The point (I thought) Chalo was making was that a civilization that used
up its resources too rapidly was heading for some kind of collapse which
would involve a sudden spike of extra misery, poverty and war for
everyone. Like something out of Mad Max. It is a reasonable point.

It might not happen though. As one resource runs out, or you figure out
that it's a bad idea to carry on using it, or another one becomes
cheaper, you switch to the alternatives, and progress can continue.

If the transitions are reasonably smooth nobody has to get hurt.

Yes there's lots of misery poverty and war anyway, I'm not claiming
there isn't.

Our gift to our kids is unprecedented scientific knowledge which they
can build on, long lifespans, high standard of living

Our standard of living has been declining for at least 30 years! The
*real* lifespan is no longer than it was thousands of years ago...
only now they save every baby no matter how sick, and will spend
millions of dollars to keep an 80 year old alive for another month. We
are not healthier and our natural lifespan has not increased.

Another great example is the "stimulus" being proposed for the economy
now. Bush has been "stimulating" the economy since he took office, and
now the only solution is to stimulate it some more! This is always
nothing but a short-term solution. Like getting more a more credit
card debt, we can ride on that for awhile, but eventually we pay one
way or another.

I tend to agree that completely unrestrained economic growth is
counter-productive. It needs to be restrained just the right amount.

Would you rather be born in 2008 or 1808?

Tough question for me to answer actually... does it have anything to
do with this topic? I'm not anti-technology or anti-energy... I'm anti
ostentatious consumption, waste, and polution.

Plenty of that in 1808 I'm sure.

Lack of knowledge or technology isn't the problem, rather our lives
are at the mercy ever larger corporate interests... and our government
caters to them rather than the well-being of the populous.

This is always a problem with capitalism. But if you elect a big
socialist state, some things get better, but they also just take
everyone's money and most of it disappears by way of corruption. It's a
matter of degree how big the state should be to balance all the pros and
cons.

The US is probably a bit too far right though.

We exist only to consume... more and more, always more. Everyone would
be better off if we were much more particular about the "stuff" that
we introduced into out lives, and more efficient in our use of energy.

Odd that many European countries with higher standards of living than
ours get by with half the per capita energy consumption. They are also
willing to reduce their CO2 emissions while the "US" is not.

There's all kinds of complex politics going on there. Of course the
French are more than happy to dig the US in the ribs whenever they get
the chance. As a very big producer of nuclear energy I would expect a
lot of anti-CO2 rhetoric from them.

Do you know why they hate us?

No. I don't hate you.

It isn't about freedom I assure you...

I suspect some of it might be rivalry.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interesting discussion
    ... She apologized for feeding so late and started talking about one of the other horses in the barn whose owner is getting some possibly bad advice from her trainer. ... I'm not even sure what he's eating but the trainer wants him fed 5 quarts of grain, plus protein supplements, plus other supplements and be brought in at two so he'll have more energy. ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Soylent Green (Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority)
    ... have "unlimited resources" to support that population, ... I know the energy from the sun is unlimited for all ... that much longer to grow their economy enough to lift them out of poverty. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: new member
    ... She is very experienced and is very kind with the horses she has ... >just has no energy). ... such as Timothy, and some minerals. ... beet pulp split into two feeds that have their minerals and ground ...
    (rec.equestrian)
  • Re: Runaway Global Warming Possible!
    ... live in as much luxury as possible, ... > environment, until the oil is gone, then live in poverty in a reeking, ... I personally consume a small fraction of the energy ...
    (sci.physics)