--- James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> When the original doomsayers' manual Limits to
> Growth was published, Sussex
> University scientist William Page pointed out the
> error of assuming that
> reserves were a known, or fixed quantity. With
> drilling going no further
> than six of the 25-40 miles of the earth's crust,
> reserves have hardly been
> touched yet. Page's point is not that the resources
> of the Earth are
> infinite. Only that the Limits to Growth computer
> model massively
> understated them. He predicted then that, in
> principle, resources were
> sufficient for ".perhaps tens of thousands of
> years". As Page says ".the
> most pressing limits to growth are not geological:
> Mother Nature has put
> ample on the planet". Rather ".what limits there
> may be come from man's
> economic and technological ability to exploit these
> resources". (HSO Cole et
> al, Thinking About the Future, Sussex University
> Press, 1973, p38)
[WS:] To me, the Panglossian notion of infinite progress is as idiotic and annoying, as doomsaying. These two sides of the simpleton's mind unable to see the world in more than one dimension.
The idea of energy crisis is foolinh, because it does not take into account multiple energy sources already availble to us - coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind. The shortages, even sigificant ones, in one of these sources can be easily compensated by increased outputs in other - technologies are already there.
But it is equally foolish to belive in infinite progress. The fact that we can tap to more energy sources does not mean that we should. There is always a price to pay for that. I am not talking here about environmental degradation abut which, I recon, you do not give a shit. After all, this is a long term effect, and as your hero Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead.
I am talking about short term effects that affect our own lives. Cheap gasoline = more suburban sprawl and shoddy construction, which for me and like-minded indviduals carries a very heavy social cost, more cars which means alienation and traffic congestion, more expense on transport, more opportunites for anyone from cops to mechanics, to insureres, to money lenders, and to crooks to fleece me, more automobile-related litter etc, longer lonely commute, more disadavantage and dependence for those who cannot drive, and so on. Cheap electricity = more urban development, which I value, better constructionmore transit and the freedom it allows, etc.
Since oil is place-specific resource - oil depenedence necessarity translates into more international conflicts over control of this resource. Since electricity generation (especially nuclear) is not place specific - this means less conflict over resource control, and more peaceful coexistence.
In short one needs to look at the broader picture and all possible implications, advanatages, and disadvantages to decide what mix of energy sourcews, land uses, and life styles create the optimum benefit to humankind. The ideal of industrialized/militarized Festung Europa or Festung Amerika guarding their Lebensraum (or "American way of life" as they say it here) with gasoline powered tanks and jets that oil dependency necessarily creates has zero appeal to me.
"Optimism is the opium of the masses" Milan Kundera's protagonist(_The Joke_) wrote to his girlfriend, and that had very unpleasant consequences for him. It seems that the bosses want us to be optimisitic and have faith in the status quo. This is one the main reasons why I cannot in good connscience subscribe to your ideas of progress, even thought I reject the doomsaying that you critize as well.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html