It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals.
It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Your poetic expression is utterly disgusting. What happens to your perfect life form after it has drained the whole universe of its energy potential? Or even before it has drained it, when the sun don't shine?
>It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals.
Huh? How do you propose increasing standard of living for 70% of worlds population that currently uses way less than you or me or our US cousins? ( Total Energy consumption per capita: US 87KWh, EU 40KWh, China 18KWh, India 6KWh, The World Average=6.6KWh). Unless you try to argue that standard of living has nothing to do with energy consumption or even that 3rd world people have higher standard of living than we do?
>It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
It is? If we freeze the quota of produced energy - then we have turned energy market into a zero sum market. Thus any increase of consumption by one party is counterbalanced by decrease of another. The 50's and 80% is indeed wrong - since I just used them as arbitrary placeholders. Please don't expect me to go on a 10year research, just due to an internet argument.
>You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You haven't provided a single proof of your claims. You just keep spinning your make-believe story. Also I didn't say you're dishonest AND lacking in perspective. I said that you are either - but you might as well be both.
>You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Its your delusion that there are painless or negative side effect free power sources. Those used currently are used since in fact they (due to various reasons) ARE the LEAST painful of known options. Also for nuclear power we by now know very well what the negative side effects are (under what circumstances).
What you're lobbying for has only plans - like some very smart people predicted we would be on Mars in 40 years. I certainly believe that all solar, wind, water and trees society is possible. But we need to get by until we get there.
Regarding my belief regarding energy consumption of living beings... The whole universe is trying to equalize its energy potentials (the entropy) and life is just one of mechanisms that helps to dissipate them. So any life at all, now matter how green and how much it tries to not eat animals (instead eating imported papayas?) it will contribute to the untimely thermic death of the universe.
I don't need to argue that standard of living has nothing to do with energy consumption, it is self evident. Leave your air conditioning or heating on for 24 hours for no reason, or keep your engine running while in a tail back. Wonder at how your standard of living has not improved one iota. I propose improving standards of living by people being more efficient. QED this is not spinning a make believe story. Your figures for energy consumption also back my point up, unless european standards of living are lower than the US because of power consumption. It is the reckless waste I am lobbying against. We are not just getting by.
I never stated that there were painless or negative side effect free power sources, you are the one who stated it was the most painless way forward. The additional power sources you are advocating are nuclear. I said nothing about eating animals. The whole universe isn't trying to do anything. When the power sources you speak of are consumed by your ideal life form, is it going to consume itself? Have you ever heard that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form? Contributing to as animals do, against directly causing like you advocate your ideal form doing, are different notions.
As far as my hypothetical uber life form goes - its an thought experiment. It was never meant to go and devour all there is.
I'm well aware of conservation of energy and I wasn't talking about it. I was talking about equalization of potentials. Thats what entropy means. The tendency that our universe has to equalize energy potentials. Thats what wind is. And thats why stars shine, the ice melts etc... Because if an more stable (read equal) energy state is available - the universe will find a way to achieve it.
Just as all elements heavier the iron try to (and will eventually) fission into lighter particles and just as elements lighter than iron try to (and again will eventually) fuse together, until eventually whole universe will consist of nothing but iron atoms. That would be so called thermic death of the universe, which is valid only in some end of universe scenarios, which depend upon shape of spacetime.
It is a fallacy to say that we cannot improve living conditions for the entire human populace without increasing power consumption. They are not conflicting goals.
It is a fallacy to say that the standard of living must devolve for all those in the western world to the 1950s era levels, to support improvement for the other 80% of the human populace.
You are drawing conclusions based on that fallacy to claim that I am dishonest and lacking in perspective. It is a fallacy to claim any percentage forfeit is necessary to improve living conditions.
You may believe that it is painless to find additional power sources, but the power sources you advocate have already been found and demonstrated as not painless.
Your poetic expression is utterly disgusting. What happens to your perfect life form after it has drained the whole universe of its energy potential? Or even before it has drained it, when the sun don't shine?