So we all know we have a problem.. What are we doing and or going to do about it!

Guy
Guy's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-03-17
User is offlineOffline
So we all know we have a problem.. What are we doing and or going to do about it!
The Thaw

I am new to the Rational Response squad. So many of these forums have posted the issues that we have with our environment. WE ALL KNOW THE ISSUES. The data and comments posted in these forums confirm this. We all could fix them if any one of us were benevolent dictators. NONE OF US ARE. So what can we do to clean up the world. What are you doing to solve the problems. Which groups are most effective that we should should work with and support?

I would like to propose an idea. If an issue is posted in this forum. A realistic rational solution is proposed. It would be nice to come out with a list of solutions to problems. Discuss the solution work out the kinks. Bringing up the issue of "Our economic system needs to be changed" Ok how you solve this and what system do you propose? Be realistic this is a huge mountain that needs to be moved. It can be changed it may take 2 lifetimes. Whats the plan.

The internet is a cool tool a powerful tool. What tools do we need and what resources do we need to put together. 

Sitting around and pointing the issues gets everyone angry about the situation and resolves nothing. Lets focus that anger on finding realistic solutions. Make the world a better place for all of us.

Personally I have reduced my energy consumption by 50% just by looking at things that didn't need to be plugged in. I had a lot of computers that ran 24/7 I thought I needed. Replaced lights that I knew were going to be on more than a few minutes. I have experimented with LED lighting. Installed a timer on the furnace. (I can be so forgetful at times.) I recycled a 1985 Pontiac Feiro converted it into an electric vehicle. I also live in the northwest where most of our power is hydro. So no coal comments. Although powering an electric car with coal is still less polluting than running a car from gasoline. If you want the data I can provide it. The oil companies seem to conveniently leave a large part out of their pollution formula. Go figure hey? 

I can reduce more and am working on that as funds allow. Reduction on everyones part will reduce production therefore reduce the stresses on our environment and just maybe change corporate behavior.

Lets all look for solutions not just restate the obvious.

Thanks ALL

Guy


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Guy wrote:I am new to the

Guy wrote:

I am new to the Rational Response squad. So many of these forums have posted the issues that we have with our environment. WE ALL KNOW THE ISSUES. The data and comments posted in these forums confirm this. We all could fix them if any one of us were benevolent dictators. NONE OF US ARE. So what can we do to clean up the world. What are you doing to solve the problems. Which groups are most effective that we should should work with and support?

I would like to propose an idea. If an issue is posted in this forum. A realistic rational solution is proposed. It would be nice to come out with a list of solutions to problems. Discuss the solution work out the kinks. Bringing up the issue of "Our economic system needs to be changed" Ok how you solve this and what system do you propose? Be realistic this is a huge mountain that needs to be moved. It can be changed it may take 2 lifetimes. Whats the plan.

The internet is a cool tool a powerful tool. What tools do we need and what resources do we need to put together. 

Sitting around and pointing the issues gets everyone angry about the situation and resolves nothing. Lets focus that anger on finding realistic solutions. Make the world a better place for all of us.

Personally I have reduced my energy consumption by 50% just by looking at things that didn't need to be plugged in. I had a lot of computers that ran 24/7 I thought I needed. Replaced lights that I knew were going to be on more than a few minutes. I have experimented with LED lighting. Installed a timer on the furnace. (I can be so forgetful at times.) I recycled a 1985 Pontiac Feiro converted it into an electric vehicle. I also live in the northwest where most of our power is hydro. So no coal comments. Although powering an electric car with coal is still less polluting than running a car from gasoline. If you want the data I can provide it. The oil companies seem to conveniently leave a large part out of their pollution formula. Go figure hey? 

I can reduce more and am working on that as funds allow. Reduction on everyones part will reduce production therefore reduce the stresses on our environment and just maybe change corporate behavior.

Lets all look for solutions not just restate the obvious.

Thanks ALL

Guy

You cant "clean" up the world, you can reduce pollution, but humans will always produce pollution. I don't like looking at what we do as "cleaning", the idea of trying to create a utopia is a bad idea for any label.

What humans can do is insist on a government that puts common law first and values education. But evolution isn't at the hands of  anyone, it will go on if we were all Muslims, or all Christians or all Buddhists or all atheists.

Evolution is independent of labels, it was around before all our myths or boarders or worldviews, and it will be around after we as individuals die. It's only goal is to get to the point of reproduction, evolution doesn't care HOW we get to that point, it uses both force and empathy and or a combo of both.

So if we as a species want less violence and more harmony we have to accept life, not as a script, but a range., which evolution is.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Guy

Your name is very efficient. lol  I think people try to think too big. When you think too big, the people you are trying to reach just blow it off as an impossibility. If we set reasonable goals and accomplish them, then we can lead by example and pass the goals and accomplishments on to others. I'm not saying that we don't need our government to act, but our representatives need to be given reasonable goals as well. Holding signs up and screaming "fix all our problems" doesn't appear to work very well. Instead of expecting our government to put many plans into action to relieve such a huge range of issues, I think we should take just a few things at a time. Pollution is a big issue with many factors. We like to blame the industries, but we sure like to enjoy the luxuries they bring us. The whole environment is too big of a issue to take on all at once. All we can do is try to pick it apart. Start with clean water acts. I know there are many other factors like air pollution that apply to water, but cross that bridge when we get to it. I mean for fuck's sake have you seen how much shit we have flowing into the ocean? Let's start there and work backwards, then deal with the problems of air pollution that affect the water.

The seemingly unsolvable problem is for the U.S. to set an example to the rest of the major countries without falling behind in the process. How do we preach clean environment to them without leading the way? The whole world holding hands and doing it together- I don't see it happening.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 I currently explore a

 I currently explore a complete system of economic reform, which includes a new fair system of elections and government. It is very rational and usable, specially for a small country where I live. (frankly, we have nothing to lose)

This system is thoroughly descibed on the website ekonomickareforma.cz, you could give it a read. No need to re-invent the wheel. I am of course in favor of eventual transition to Resource-Based Economy, which is the best for the environment and the people, with greatly simplified life, yet full of top quality technology. We need simplicity, for the important things in our life. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4563
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 I agree with Tony, the

 I agree with Tony, the environmentalist movement as it stands today is looking for magic bullet solutions that either don't exist or are impractical. We are going to use energy and we are going to pollute. And for the most part, earth is a hell of a lot tougher than people give it credit for. In 50 billion years it will still be here and be getting along just fine. Humanity on the other hand has a great chance of becoming extinct in that time and very few remnants of our existence will be around except for the occasional fossil.

 

Cutting your own power consumption is nice, but I don't think it makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things. Even if every American cuts their personal power consumption 50%, you still have the massive amount of power used to create and transport everything we use. The obvious solution is to modify our power grid to include more energy sources that pollute less. Alright, which one?

 

Hydroelectric? There have been at least three attempts to build hydro plants here in Ohio the last 10 years and the fucking environmentalists have shut down every one. The most recent didn't even require building a new dam. The dam has been there for 100 years and someone had the brilliant idea of "well we have a dam, why not take advantage and throw in a small power plant?" The environmentalists through a fit and got the project shut down.

 http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/hydroelectric_power_plant_at_g.html

 

Wind? Several private companies have been attempting to build wind farms in Ohio and have met massive amounts of red tape and lawsuits. Wind makes great sense in Ohio because we have a lot of huge farms and it really isn't a big deal to throw up a few 1-5 mw wind turbines in the middle of the occasional cornfield. There was a company that wanted to do just that, they would lease 1/4 of an acre, put up a large commercial wind turbine, maintain the turbine and sell the electricity and pay the farmer $14,000 per year. Environmentalists and politicians said no making the permits impossible to get approved. Heaven forbid some evil private company be making a profit.

 

So now the largest wind turbine I could put on my land is 100 kw, which at a $400,000 initial investment simply does not provide enough guarantee that I would get my money back in a reasonable amount of time. Smaller wind turbines designed for basically personal use are equally cost prohibitive. For example, a 5 kw turbine sells for $50,000 and is basically going to produce enough electricity for me and a maybe a couple thousand kwh to sell. (I only pay 6 cents a kwh, the good part of living really close to two coal plants)   

 

Several wind farms are under construction in Ohio but they have been plagued by bureaucracy and lawsuits as well. Fortunately, the first state supreme court lawsuit was recently decided in favor of the wind farm.  This should speed up development of wind farms across the state because many companies were holding back waiting to see the results. You don't want to sink a couple million into a project only to discover it is shut down in the courts before you build the first turbine. 

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/summaries/2012/0306/101554.asp

 

Coal? Well new environmental regulations have forced several coal plants to close in Ohio.  Meanwhile, those fucking dumb asses at Ohio Citizen Action cheer the fact that they have blocked every attempt to build modern cleaner coal power plants. I wonder how they think their fucking tvs turn on? It is one thing to want to close 60 year old power plants that pollute a lot, but to do so while at the same time blocking every new power source? That is just stupid. Coal accounts for over 86% of Ohio's power, you can't just eliminate it. And coal is particularly efficient for us since we have significant coal mining right here in the state. Always easier to burn the fuel that is in your backyard. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/coal-power-plants-closing-firstenergy_n_1234611.html

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/coal/amp_ohio.html 

 

Nuclear? Those evil SOB's at Duke Energy are trying to build one of those in Ohio too. Forget a nuclear Iran, the real nuclear threat is Piketon, OH.  The enviro-wackos are already in full hysterics mode. I mean, those crazy people who live in Piketon can't be trusted with nuclear power, why they might weaponize it and attack Columbus (which might improve Columbus). As things stand, we probably have to wait at least another two years to get the initial application approved by the feds, a doubtful proposition if Bama is reelected. Then if it is approved the environmentalists will no doubt devote themselves full time to blocking it, and blocking a nuclear plant today is pretty easy because the public is irrationally fearful of them. 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/06/16/nuclear.html 

 

Solar? No one could have a problem with solar right? Well, environmentalists can. The federal government gave Brightsource a $1.6 BILLION loan to build a solar plants in the Mojave dessert. The Ivanpah project is on hold because of the Wildlands Conservancy group in California made a ruckus over the potential that 600 tortoises might have their habitat destroyed. Now we await the verdict of the US Fish & Wildlife Service which will almost certainly be challenged in court if it decides in favor of the power plant. A similar lawsuit is being pursued in Coyote Springs, NV against another solar plant. 

http://www.lvrj.com/news/39421007.html 

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/23/vision-desert-solar-power-plant-expands/

 

So what power source meets the approval of the brilliant minds in the enviro-wacko movement? Seems to me that they want to stop all power and live like the Amish, or for humans to simply cease to exist. Sure, a new coal plant pollutes, but the pollution is hardly environmentally devastating. I'm all for reducing our pollution as our technology improves and trying to minimize our environmental footprint. I am a fisher and a hunter, I like the environment to be clean. And for the most part we do a damn good job producing the power we want/need and not polluting. The best area in Ohio to hunt and fish is in the same county as two of our coal plants. There is no great end of the world emergency and no reason to destroy our standard of living to pollute a little less.

 

We can and should improve, but there is no reason those improvements can't be done in an economically viable manner, improving a little here and there. Instead of blocking every new power plant, the environmentalist movement should be embracing every new plant, because regardless of whether it is coal, oil, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear etc. all new plants pollute less than old plants. Our understanding and technology is better than it was 50 years ago. So even though the new plant might pollute, it pollutes less than whatever it is replacing. Instead, by blocking everything new they are forcing us to rely on ancient power plants built in a time when pollution wasn't considered and patched up with modifications to keep them working. One small step in the right direction is better than sitting down and refusing to move.

 

Edit: moved all my source links to the end of the relevant paragraph for ease of reading.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4563
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Luminon wrote: I currently

Luminon wrote:

 I currently explore a complete system of economic reform, which includes a new fair system of elections and government. It is very rational and usable, specially for a small country where I live. (frankly, we have nothing to lose)

This system is thoroughly descibed on the website ekonomickareforma.cz, you could give it a read. No need to re-invent the wheel. I am of course in favor of eventual transition to Resource-Based Economy, which is the best for the environment and the people, with greatly simplified life, yet full of top quality technology. We need simplicity, for the important things in our life. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29234

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31293

 

We have had a couple of in depth discussions of RBE recently. I remain skeptical but the RBE'ers have proposed a radical change and put some serious thought into how it might work. If you don't mind reading the verbose and are willing to actually to take the time to explore the linked sources you should get a good grasp of RBE, and the potential problems faced by the system. As much as I think RBE'ers are wrong, I do have to say the RBE'ers on this site are above average debaters, have some good points that will make you think.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:We have

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have had a couple of in depth discussions of RBE recently. I remain skeptical but the RBE'ers have proposed a radical change and put some serious thought into how it might work. If you don't mind reading the verbose and are willing to actually to take the time to explore the linked sources you should get a good grasp of RBE, and the potential problems faced by the system. As much as I think RBE'ers are wrong, I do have to say the RBE'ers on this site are above average debaters, have some good points that will make you think.

Looks like people want their new system handed to them on a silver plate. They want specific answers, but don't understand that everyone needs different specific answers. First we must go from generals to particulars. First we need to get out of the way the corrupt and obtuse people that aren't interested in real solutions but ideologies - boundless market capitalism, totalitarian communism, Amish life (technology bad!), the "Jesus-comes-and-destroys-and-rebuilds-everything" solution, paranoid military green brains (North Korea and Iran are gonna bomb us!) and so on. 

What we need for a start is a rule of trusted people's representatives AND experts, that is, people who's job is engineering of solutions to problems. The first group is to provide political will to act in people's interest and with responsibility. The second group is experts in their respective fields, oriented on practical problem-solving, not any irrational ideologies, like Adam Smith or Margaret Thatcher. People who will invent automatically driven cars, rather than raise the punishment for drunk driving.

These people must be elected in a system by which nobody can vote for himself or promote himself. Let's say all citizens gather themselves into local groups of about 100 people. Every 100 people choose someone else from their group, whom they trust the most. These chosen form other local groups, of the second level and they vote again for someone else. It takes only several levels to get the most trusted and appreciated people to the top - or get them back to a certain level, by voting on that level which elected them. Any time, not just during the elections. 

When we have such a system, then any solutions can be invented, tested and applied. All these "fun facts" that (not) using this or that technology would cut American power consumption by 40% and so on. And if we need more nuclear reactors, then instead of building new ones, we can stop fighting and hook up all these aircraft carriers and submarines.

 

Edit: I see now that IBM essentially uses the RBE philosophy too! Their Smarter planet project offers digital cooperation and organization of city's infrastructure, institutions and public employees. This system is now used in many cities, including my country's Pilsen, which is surprising, considering how everything is so backwards here. But there is a city entirely built like that, Masdar in Saudi Arabia. It's a commercial project to create a digitally administrated city with zero carbon footprint. (which means burning the plentiful Saudi oil is not an option there) Of course, all with the best technologies and I suppose lots of them will be developed in the process and used elsewhere. If the Saudi Arabian fundies with their batman wives can make that work, there's no reason why civilized people couldn't.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4563
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Luminon wrote:Looks like

Luminon wrote:
Looks like people want their new system handed to them on a silver plate. They want specific answers, but don't understand that everyone needs different specific answers. First we must go from generals to particulars. First we need to get out of the way the corrupt and obtuse people that aren't interested in real solutions but ideologies - boundless market capitalism, totalitarian communism, Amish life (technology bad!), the "Jesus-comes-and-destroys-and-rebuilds-everything" solution, paranoid military green brains (North Korea and Iran are gonna bomb us!) and so on. 

What we need for a start is a rule of trusted people's representatives AND experts, that is, people who's job is engineering of solutions to problems. The first group is to provide political will to act in people's interest and with responsibility. The second group is experts in their respective fields, oriented on practical problem-solving, not any irrational ideologies, like Adam Smith or Margaret Thatcher. People who will invent automatically driven cars, rather than raise the punishment for drunk driving.

These people must be elected in a system by which nobody can vote for himself or promote himself. Let's say all citizens gather themselves into local groups of about 100 people. Every 100 people choose someone else from their group, whom they trust the most. These chosen form other local groups, of the second level and they vote again for someone else. It takes only several levels to get the most trusted and appreciated people to the top - or get them back to a certain level, by voting on that level which elected them. Any time, not just during the elections. 

When we have such a system, then any solutions can be invented, tested and applied. All these "fun facts" that (not) using this or that technology would cut American power consumption by 40% and so on. And if we need more nuclear reactors, then instead of building new ones, we can stop fighting and hook up all these aircraft carriers and submarines.

 

Edit: I see now that IBM essentially uses the RBE philosophy too! Their Smarter planet project offers digital cooperation and organization of city's infrastructure, institutions and public employees. This system is now used in many cities, including my country's Pilsen, which is surprising, considering how everything is so backwards here. But there is a city entirely built like that, Masdar in Saudi Arabia. It's a commercial project to create a digitally administrated city with zero carbon footprint. (which means burning the plentiful Saudi oil is not an option there) Of course, all with the best technologies and I suppose lots of them will be developed in the process and used elsewhere. If the Saudi Arabian fundies with their batman wives can make that work, there's no reason why civilized people couldn't.
 

 

Is there any reason to believe that representatives elected by 100 people would be any less corrupt than representatives elected by 500,000 people? That theory would seem to suggest that smaller democracies should be less corrupt than large democracies and in countries with separated governments like the US, local governments should be less corrupt than federal or state governments. I'm too lazy to look at statistics right now but off the top of my head it seems like small countries tend to be more corrupt than large countries. Not sure if size is a contributing factor at all, but I also don't think there is evidence that smaller voting blocks reduces corruption.

 

In the US there is plenty of corruption at the local level, it just isn't as noticeable because a really corrupt mayor might skim $200,000 which isn't really a lot in the grand scheme of things compared to a President that might give a friend a $500,000,000 loan. But when you consider there are over 8,000 mayors all of that little corruption adds up but for the most part flies under the radar because most Americans only pay attention to national politics if they pay attention at all. I am of the theory that it is safest to trust no one who voluntarily goes into politics because no trustworthy person would want the job.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
inevitable paradox

I'll answer you as soon as I get my hands on a time-traveling delorian... easy enough problem to fix in the past. Eye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Guy
Guy's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-03-17
User is offlineOffline
I was hoping we weren't going to attempt to move mountains.

 I have actually studied the Venus project and Zeitgeist movement quite a bit. It all sounds interesting. The issues I had with them were:

  • No real explanation how you get from here to there.
    • Except wait for the collapse of the current society.
    • This is problematic as well because you have a vacuum of power where you don't know who will fill it. You can plan to fill the void but there are others waiting as well.
  • They don't deal with human nature very well.
    • Humans tend to take advantage of either being lazy or power hungry. While this may be a small percentage it is damaging to these systems as it is damaging to our current system.
    • If all resources were available to everyone to used however you want. I am afraid that humans will become even more wasteful.

On the other hand we will need to go that direction to go from a type 0 civilization to a type 1. We are in a very interesting time. If we can keep from destroying ourselves moving to a type 1 civilization will look similar to the Venus project I suspect. We have a lot of changes that need to be made. See the following for just a few items.

Dr. Michio Kaku has some very interesting insights I think. I think he explains what is going on today and the gradual movement towards type 1 civilization is quite interesting. This is a very large mountain to move. We need to move it as carefully as possible the dangers he mentions are real as well. This is why we should all be looking for realistic solutions for now and the future both on a local level and a global level. 

One of the reasons that I like to look at my house as an energy producer rather than a consumer is if you could produce more energy than you use from your home then we move one step away from funding terrorism and we employ people locally for our energy needs. I know of people who live in California using 2 solar panels and propane for cooking and refrigeration. They have a TV, computer, hot and cold running water indoor plumbing. My configuration I think I would need 12 panels currently. I would be truly happy if I could reduce it to 6 panels and I believe I can. Each home owner can have a house that could generate enough power to support a fairly nice life style. Each roof has plenty of space. Cost is a real issue that slows us all down. So its not going to happen over night.

It can and must happen or we will cycle back into the dark ages and that is exactly where the faither leadership would love to have us.

Things to think about.

Guy

 


Guy
Guy's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-03-17
User is offlineOffline
Some else to think about.

 I saw this today I found his proposal toward the end very interesting.

 

Things to think about.

Guy

My future is so bright I have to wear shades. 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Primitivism, anyone?

Have you ever considered 21st century earth without civilization, or any trace of it? It's likely a bit... feral, if you get my drift. But at least "biodiversity" remains intact and along it's natural course.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4563
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Guy wrote: One of the

Guy wrote:
 

One of the reasons that I like to look at my house as an energy producer rather than a consumer is if you could produce more energy than you use from your home then we move one step away from funding terrorism and we employ people locally for our energy needs. I know of people who live in California using 2 solar panels and propane for cooking and refrigeration. They have a TV, computer, hot and cold running water indoor plumbing. My configuration I think I would need 12 panels currently. I would be truly happy if I could reduce it to 6 panels and I believe I can. Each home owner can have a house that could generate enough power to support a fairly nice life style. Each roof has plenty of space. Cost is a real issue that slows us all down. So its not going to happen over night.

If solar is supplying all of your power why would you worry about reducing the number of panels? Is there a shortage of solar panels? Or the materials to make them? 

 

Guy wrote:
 

It can and must happen or we will cycle back into the dark ages and that is exactly where the faither leadership would love to have us.

Explain how we are going to cycle back to the dark ages and provide evidence please. It seems to me that you want us living closer to a dark ages standard of living...It is one thing to say we should use new technologies to limit our environmental impact, I can be all for that. But when you proclaim the end of the world is coming because we are polluting so much we are going to destroy earth and or civilization unless we live like upgraded Amish, well call me a skeptic. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Guy
Guy's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-03-17
User is offlineOffline
So it looks like the flash insert doesn't work the way I expect.

The reason that I would like to use half of the solar panels  and half of the energy is fairly simple. Cost, its half the capital investment. A second reason is manufacturing solar cells does have an environmental impact. Anytime you can reduce your consumption you reduce your impact. Its not I do not like my toys and I do like my toys. Another way is to upgrade my toys to newer ones to reduce power consumption. Newer toys generally consume less power. The catch is that it also increases consumption of raw materials for half the power consumption. Where is the tipping point of continuing to use older equipment using more power vs getting new toys and using more raw materials.

As to the dark ages comment.  I went back and looked at the Videos that I thought I inserted and they didn't.  The first was a video from Dr. Michio Kaku explaining levels of civilizations they look for when looking in space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdILmgJGuvw He states that we are in a transition from a type 0 civilization to a type 1 civilization. A very dangerous transition. He also states that there is a group of mainly terrorists / faithers who do not like the idea of a type 1 civilization. Look at the idea of sharia law. Very similar to to dark age christianity. The radical right winged christians would like to see this obedience among their flock as well. They are all in fear of both loosing their flock and power. They will not go away without a fight. Look at the republican primaries in the US each candidate. They MUST be conservative christians to be elected. I look at that as a step backwards to bronze age / dark age theology. We as humans have some hurdles mentally to get over as well during this period. Can we progress forward or do we end up rolling backwards? Only time will tell.

The second video I think brought up an interesting possibility to some of our environmental woes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8&feature=relmfu  I never did understand why we still give corporations that are showing record profits government subsidies. 

I hope that clarified things.

 I am optimistic for our future but I am also a realist I understand both the good an the bad of our actions. So I prefer to change my world as positively as possible. 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Opie

Hi OPie,

It is impossible for a rational solution to occur if one uses irrational methods and presuppositions based on a absurdity. Since all atheists are not capable at logical discourse in  reference to reality and the practicle, then logically atheism is just a spiral of infinitie problems with no solutions in sight.

The only way for this to happen is if you are a Chrisitan and actually have understanding in science, philosophy, logic, mathematics, etc.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4563
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Guy wrote:The reason that I

Guy wrote:

The reason that I would like to use half of the solar panels  and half of the energy is fairly simple. Cost, its half the capital investment. A second reason is manufacturing solar cells does have an environmental impact. Anytime you can reduce your consumption you reduce your impact. Its not I do not like my toys and I do like my toys. Another way is to upgrade my toys to newer ones to reduce power consumption. Newer toys generally consume less power. The catch is that it also increases consumption of raw materials for half the power consumption. Where is the tipping point of continuing to use older equipment using more power vs getting new toys and using more raw materials.

As to the dark ages comment.  I went back and looked at the Videos that I thought I inserted and they didn't.  The first was a video from Dr. Michio Kaku explaining levels of civilizations they look for when looking in space. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdILmgJGuvw He states that we are in a transition from a type 0 civilization to a type 1 civilization. A very dangerous transition. He also states that there is a group of mainly terrorists / faithers who do not like the idea of a type 1 civilization. Look at the idea of sharia law. Very similar to to dark age christianity. The radical right winged christians would like to see this obedience among their flock as well. They are all in fear of both loosing their flock and power. They will not go away without a fight. Look at the republican primaries in the US each candidate. They MUST be conservative christians to be elected. I look at that as a step backwards to bronze age / dark age theology. We as humans have some hurdles mentally to get over as well during this period. Can we progress forward or do we end up rolling backwards? Only time will tell.

The second video I think brought up an interesting possibility to some of our environmental woes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8&feature=relmfu  I never did understand why we still give corporations that are showing record profits government subsidies. 

I hope that clarified things.

 I am optimistic for our future but I am also a realist I understand both the good an the bad of our actions. So I prefer to change my world as positively as possible. 

 

Gotcha, although the economic problems might be solved in a few years. The price of solar panels has been dropping rapidly. Already buying a solar array is often cheaper than many people spend on other home improvements like finishing a basement, building a room addition or and enclosed porch. I don't know why more people living in sunny areas don't buy them. For myself solar isn't practical unless I want to cut down all my trees, which I don't, I bought my house because I liked the trees. But if I ever go batshit crazy buy a house in Arizona I'd probably install panels. 

 

As for the "dark age" our technology alone forces a certain amount of integration and limits the ability to rule through brute force. Historically, oppressive regimes maintained control of their population by having near monopolies on propaganda, often through religion and hatred/fear of other cultures. Technology makes it easy for that propaganda to be countered and extremely difficult for a regime to control. I see the unrest in Arab countries and the boiling pot that is China as examples that governments no longer have enough power to completely control propaganda and efforts to do so backfire more often than not. That isn't to say that tyrannies will stop existing, they will simply take on very different forms than they have historically.

 

I don't think it is possible for us to really "go backwards" because the one thing that is inevitable is change and once a technology is invented it is remembered. I don't think humans really change, but the circumstances they exist in and available technology does. There might be similarities with the past but even in those similarities there are significant differences. For example, governments give subsidies to profitable corporations because in modern politics giving out the carrot is a more effective form of control than using the stick. You use a stick and your citizens revolt, you get in charge of handing out carrots and you can control everything. We shall see what happens when you run out of carrots. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Have you ever

Kapkao wrote:

Have you ever considered 21st century earth without civilization, or any trace of it? It's likely a bit... feral, if you get my drift. But at least "biodiversity" remains intact and along it's natural course. 

No, never! With Internet for all times and never otherwise! 

Beyond Saving wrote:

If solar is supplying all of your power why would you worry about reducing the number of panels? Is there a shortage of solar panels? Or the materials to make them? 

I had actually  read some scary things about rare earth elements, that are so popular with modern ecologic and microscopic technologies, maybe including solar panels, not sure here. There are few places to mine neodymium and stuff, they will deplete soon and it takes a long time to build new ones. So meanwhile there might be a significant shortage and China with its vast territory is there to make an advantage of it. Chinese mines might save the day, but for a price. People say China never sells raw materials to anyone - they'll sell you a product, they'll manufacture your product for you, but they'll never sell you the materials so your people could have a job.

So basically, the less of the stuff we use, the better. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Is there any reason to believe that representatives elected by 100 people would be any less corrupt than representatives elected by 500,000 people? That theory would seem to suggest that smaller democracies should be less corrupt than large democracies and in countries with separated governments like the US, local governments should be less corrupt than federal or state governments. I'm too lazy to look at statistics right now but off the top of my head it seems like small countries tend to be more corrupt than large countries. Not sure if size is a contributing factor at all, but I also don't think there is evidence that smaller voting blocks reduces corruption. 

In the US there is plenty of corruption at the local level, it just isn't as noticeable because a really corrupt mayor might skim $200,000 which isn't really a lot in the grand scheme of things compared to a President that might give a friend a $500,000,000 loan. But when you consider there are over 8,000 mayors all of that little corruption adds up but for the most part flies under the radar because most Americans only pay attention to national politics if they pay attention at all. I am of the theory that it is safest to trust no one who voluntarily goes into politics because no trustworthy person would want the job.

It doesn't have to be like that exactly. It is meant to allow anyone to be a candidate and remove self-propaganda. In my country, which calls itself "democracy" but really really isn't, people can't vote for who they want, a party makes a list of their candidates and people vote for the party, which usually means a guy on top of the list. The parties are 100% corrupted by business mafia, which proves itself by countless  scandals every year. Even the new party, Public Affairs - led by a man who did a detective or publicistic show on TV for years, turned out to be one businessman's private project and the candidates had to subscribe what are they going to do when they get into the parliament, which is de facto a high treason. 

And once the right people get there, the plan is to take them down any time, if the people who electronically voted for them take the votes away and give them to someone else. And even while they're up there, they must be responsible to law and must have their property strictly supervised. I believe people on top of the society should not be paid much money. They should be materially secure and their families, but with a limit and supervision on the amount of property they can own. I also believe that artisans and other workers deserve their weight in gold. But in high places people can't be in it for money. I believe that separation of money and state is just as necessary as church and state. Your founding fathers missed that one.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Guy i think i've seen you

Guy i think i've seen you before...atheist nexus website? i remember someone on there with "guy" and the same car you have.... small world indeed..


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi OPie,

It is impossible for a rational solution to occur if one uses irrational methods and presuppositions based on a absurdity. Since all atheists are not capable at logical discourse in  reference to reality and the practicle, then logically atheism is just a spiral of infinitie problems with no solutions in sight.

The only way for this to happen is if you are a Chrisitan and actually have understanding in science, philosophy, logic, mathematics, etc.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

^Again contributing nothing to the conversation. lol

I stopped driving years ago. That alone drops my footprint far below average. I don't have an air conditioner, though the way things are going I may have to get one just for my health in a couple years.
I never turn the heat on in the winter, though I'm not sure we actually have a winter anymore, so I guess that isn't saying as much as it used to...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Guy wrote:
...Personally I have reduced my energy consumption by 50% just by looking at things that didn't need to be plugged in. I had a lot of computers that ran 24/7 I thought I needed.

I have run the numbers on this one having started Seti@Home in the first year. The simple fact is the great cause of failure of computers, electronic and electrical equipment in general is temperature cycling. How long should a CFL last? I have one that has been on 24/7 for eight years and still going strong. That is far beyond the rated hours. I have run multiple computers for years just keeping the oldest. I have never had one fail for old age after five years on 24/7. Of course they were running just S@H and now Einstein under BOINC. I retire computers when their performance isn't worth the power consumption.

So the question is what is the total replacement cost in terms of whatever you think is nasty of electronics that burn out years "early" because they are turned off and on several times a day.

If you want to do what the greenies say you have to assume the greenies know what they are talking about and they never do.

Quote:
Replaced lights that I knew were going to be on more than a few minutes. I have experimented with LED lighting. Installed a timer on the furnace. (I can be so forgetful at times.)

In most all cases lowering the temperature while at work costs more than running it constant assuming your home isn't draughty. Let you utilities bill be your guide not "good" ideas.

Quote:
I recycled a 1985 Pontiac Feiro converted it into an electric vehicle. I also live in the northwest where most of our power is hydro. So no coal comments. Although powering an electric car with coal is still less polluting than running a car from gasoline. If you want the data I can provide it.

Please post the URLs. But if they do not include electrical transmission losses and ignore the hydrogen burning of gasoline I don't want to be botherered.

Quote:
The oil companies seem to conveniently leave a large part out of their pollution formula. Go figure hey? 

I can reduce more and am working on that as funds allow. Reduction on everyones part will reduce production therefore reduce the stresses on our environment and just maybe change corporate behavior.

Lets all look for solutions not just restate the obvious.

Terms like "stresses on the environment" are meaningless. I am not interested in being told it is "obvious" or a simple example, I am only interested in the exact example with the complete scientific basis for whatever it is being a problem and a quantification of the magnitude of the consequences and the impact. That is not asking too much. If there is a warning about quenching fires when camping the whole forest fire scenario is the equivalent of what I am asking for. That is not asking for much.

I wrote the following 22 years ago.

www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml

In it I get around to talking about the prediction at that time that we had only ten years or it would be too late to do anything about it. I note the year 2000 is ten years later. For 12 years it has been too late to do anything about it. There has never been a scientific presentation of the prediction being wrong and why and what the new prediction is.

And I do keep thinking about this matter. It is not like I quit in 1990. Just yesterday I made the following observation.

If there is massive global warming in the next century our society will
change beyond comprehension. That will also happen if there is no warming.
        -- The Iron Webmaster,4394
 

Besides I own the palm tree franchise for Wash DC. I will be rich.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Guy wrote:

 I have actually studied the Venus project and Zeitgeist movement quite a bit. It all sounds interesting. The issues I had with them were:

  • No real explanation how you get from here to there.
    • Except wait for the collapse of the current society.
    • This is problematic as well because you have a vacuum of power where you don't know who will fill it. You can plan to fill the void but there are others waiting as well.
  • They don't deal with human nature very well.
    • Humans tend to take advantage of either being lazy or power hungry. While this may be a small percentage it is damaging to these systems as it is damaging to our current system.
    • If all resources were available to everyone to used however you want. I am afraid that humans will become even more wasteful.

On the other hand we will need to go that direction to go from a type 0 civilization to a type 1. We are in a very interesting time. If we can keep from destroying ourselves moving to a type 1 civilization will look similar to the Venus project I suspect. We have a lot of changes that need to be made. See the following for just a few items.

Dr. Michio Kaku has some very interesting insights I think. I think he explains what is going on today and the gradual movement towards type 1 civilization is quite interesting. This is a very large mountain to move. We need to move it as carefully as possible the dangers he mentions are real as well. This is why we should all be looking for realistic solutions for now and the future both on a local level and a global level. 

One of the reasons that I like to look at my house as an energy producer rather than a consumer is if you could produce more energy than you use from your home then we move one step away from funding terrorism and we employ people locally for our energy needs. I know of people who live in California using 2 solar panels and propane for cooking and refrigeration. They have a TV, computer, hot and cold running water indoor plumbing. My configuration I think I would need 12 panels currently. I would be truly happy if I could reduce it to 6 panels and I believe I can. Each home owner can have a house that could generate enough power to support a fairly nice life style. Each roof has plenty of space. Cost is a real issue that slows us all down. So its not going to happen over night.

It can and must happen or we will cycle back into the dark ages and that is exactly where the faither leadership would love to have us.

Things to think about.

Guy

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

That last is  server screw up.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
It happens. I think the

It happens. I think the 'powers that be' are moving MySQL tables back-and-forth from the main server, in hopes of getting an upgrade to the forums' software, Graphical User Interface (the thing you use to read the stuff on the site) and possible other features that haven't been divulged yet.

When MySQL is moved around or data is being edited by one of the Site Admins, the server stops responding.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
"Without the Utopians of

"Without the Utopians of other times, men would still live in caves, miserable and naked. It was Utopians who traced the lines of the first City…..Out of generous dreams come beneficial realities. Utopia is the principle of all progress, and the essay into a better future. "
- Anatole France 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies