[lbo-talk] Growth

[ravi]

On 2 Jul, 2007, at 19:25 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:00 PM, ravi wrote:
>> On 2 Jul, 2007, at 18:47 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>>
>>> It is far from impossible that we could get forms of energy that
>>> pollute little or not at all, which would entirely change the
>>> picture.
>>
>> I am curious: what gives you the above belief/hope/suspicion?
>
> A naive faith in scientific progress? Because Gar Lipow says so?
>
> I just get suspicious when people say something is inevitable. Maybe
> it won't happen, and maybe the neo-Malthusians are right.

Have I stirred up the ghost of Malthus again? Of course I know little  
about him, and I would venture so do most scientists. I asked not  
because I think pollution is inevitable or some such, but because the  
opposite of 'inevitable' is not 'far from impossible'. So far, the  
only form of energy that I have come across that is free of pollution  
is nuclear fusion, which seems to remain well out of our reach. There  
are probably things I do not know of... including the polluting  
effects they may have (the matrix of wind, waves, etc vs noise, by- 
product, etc) hence my question.

	--ravi