[John Byrns]

In article ,
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 8/20/08 2:13 PM:

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:15*pm, Bob Perilstein Bob.Perilstein.
wrote:
Mr. Turner,
You mentioned well back into your boorish diatribe that you too
purchased a "Hong Kong" labeled amp 1 or 2 years ago. I believe that
makes you a complete hippocrite.

--
Bob Perilstein

Bob:

Patrick can derive all of the items he mentioned based on many
thousands of hours of hands-on experience. For him, purchasing the
'competition' is a useful exercise in learning. Much as Ford, Mercedes
or Fiat purchase vehicles from their competition for reverse-
engineering and learning purposes.

Is reverse engineering of this sort legal? Many years ago, before the
creation
of this group, this subject came up in the rec.audio.tech group where the
statement was made that reverse engineering was illegal because it violates
the
manufacturers copyright on the design. Anyone have any thoughts on this
issue?


AFAIK, you are free to disassemble and document anything you buy unless
there is a ULA or other contractual document specifically enjoining you from
doing so.

Yes, I understand that restriction.

However, publishing or sharing the information thus gleaned would likely be
an actionable tort and a possible basis for a civil contest.

This is the part that I don't understand, how documentation you create on a
reverse engineered design can violate any copyright on the original design
documents, they would seem to be different works?

Other trade
secrets are protected under Federal statutes and different circumstances
apply.

I thought "trade secrets" were protected by, well being kept secret? That there
are laws against misappropriating trade secrets, like stealing them by means
such as industrial espionage, but that "trade secrets" are not protected against
someone observing the operation of a device and building a competing product
using the so called "trade secrets"? In other words "trade secret" protection
only applies as long as secrecy is maintained?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

Forgive the Top-Posting, but this is so typical of Mr. Byrns - and
largely contributory to why I killfiled him... Please note the
interpolations.

On Aug 20, 2:23*pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:

Is reverse engineering of this sort legal? *Many years ago, before the
creation
of this group, this subject came up in the rec.audio.tech group where the
statement was made that reverse engineering was illegal because it violates
the
manufacturers copyright on the design. *Anyone have any thoughts on this
issue?

AFAIK, you are free to disassemble and document anything you buy unless
there is a ULA or other contractual document specifically enjoining you from
doing so.

Yep. Once one owns an object, one owns every part of that object,
including the right to take it apart. That would void any warranty or
OEM product liability of course - but I seriously doubt that this is
of the smallest concern under the stated conditions. Exceptions relate
to land, real-estate and items used in/around the general public
(vehicles must pass inspection, aircraft have air-worthiness
certificates or be within rules-exceptions (ultra-lights for
instance))... none of which apply here.

Even with Licensing Agreements or similar documents if true
*ownership* is conveyed, then the penalties are confined to the
licensing party not having to continue to perform and that it may be
able to void any continuing responsibilities or contractual
obligations. But there are no additional penalties directly to the
licensee merely for the perceived destruction of the licensee's
property. There are a good many situations where this is important:
Franchisees often *lease* Specialized Trade Equipment vs. actually
purchase it for very obvious reasons. Or, if they actually purchase
it, they have the right to use the Copyrighted Trade Marks and
Patented Processes or Materials only so long as they toe the line.

However, publishing or sharing the information thus gleaned would likely be
an actionable tort and a possible basis for a civil contest. *Other trade
secrets are protected under Federal statutes and different circumstances
apply.

Again Yep - well - *except*: Knowledge is free. For instance, all
patented items including drugs, processes, machines, systems and
materials must be fully described in order to obtain a patent. And
those patents are a matter of public record. Similarly with
copyrighted material - it is right out there in the open for all to
see.

"Trade Secrets" legally obtained (not through theft or other illegal
forms of industrial espionage) are neither patented nor copyrighted -
and are fair game for reverse engineering or other legal means of
extraction. So, for instance, if one were to derive the formula for
Coca-Cola accurately and precisely by legal means (chemical analysis
or similar) - Coca-Cola could do nothing about it. Just don't try to
sell it as Coke/Coca-Cola. *THAT* violates copyright laws and
trademark laws.

Note that a very large number of Generic Materials (capitals intended)
write directly on their packaging: "Compare to XXX" typically followed
by a disclaimer: " XXX is a registered trade-mark of ZZZ. Our product
YYY is neither distributed by nor made by ZZZ." So, "Compare to Coca-
Cola!" Followed by... . You get the picture.

And, of course, Ford, Mercedes and Fiat are hardly about to tool to
another maker's designs. There is hardly a need - the knowledge that
they are attempting to extract has little or nothing to do with
copyright or patent but with the results achieved as a whole. AMD
creates computer chips analogous to those of Intel. They actually do
directly reverse-engineer from Intel but make sufficient internal
changes so as not to violate any patents... and there is much settled
legal discussion and precedent for this.

And, getting back to the topic, for damned-sure Patrick is not about
to copy the mistakes from a Chinese Manufacturer - Yaqin has nothing
to fear from him.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

I get worried more about the rising Nationalism in China
than about "alternatively sexed people".

Certainly. My experience with "alternately sexed" people is that they
make very good neighbors, tend to take very good care of their real-
estate, are generally very quiet - with exceptions as with all of us -
and make few demands on the social structure. They are certainly no
threat - less so than the Clergy, it seems.

Alternatively sexed ? That's a new one on me. You mean 'gay' ?

Graham

I mean anyone with preferences outside the generally accepted narrow
heterosexual norm and who do not scare the horses - that is fall
within consenting adult status. So, "gay" covers the conservative
middle-of-the-road segment of that territory, but by no means all of
it. I am not sure what Patrick meant - but took it to mean about the
same thing.

So, 'alternatively sexed' would include bisexuality ? Or even kinky stuff ?

Graham

[Bob Perilstein]

Patrick,
Thank You for your kind response,as well as the reccomendations. I shall begin my tutoridge post haste, before I blow anything else up.I do take offense to the veracity and rudeness of the remarks made by some of your cohorts. If this the norm in this little community of yours, perhaps I should try to bow out gracefully, if that's any longer possible.

Sincerely,
Bob

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 20, 4:27*pm, Eeyore
wrote:

So, 'alternatively sexed' would include bisexuality ? Or even
kinky stuff ?

Yes to the former, see "scare the horses" for the latter. Generally, I
could care less what passes between consenting adults each with the
full power to terminate any uncomfortable situation as they define it.
I rather take good Queen Victoria's attitude - hence the reference to
Horses.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 8/20/08 2:55 PM:

In article ,
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 8/20/08 2:13 PM:

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:15*pm, Bob Perilstein Bob.Perilstein.
wrote:
Mr. Turner,
You mentioned well back into your boorish diatribe that you too
purchased a "Hong Kong" labeled amp 1 or 2 years ago. I believe that
makes you a complete hippocrite.

--
Bob Perilstein

Bob:

Patrick can derive all of the items he mentioned based on many
thousands of hours of hands-on experience. For him, purchasing the
'competition' is a useful exercise in learning. Much as Ford, Mercedes
or Fiat purchase vehicles from their competition for reverse-
engineering and learning purposes.

Is reverse engineering of this sort legal? Many years ago, before the
creation
of this group, this subject came up in the rec.audio.tech group where the
statement was made that reverse engineering was illegal because it violates
the
manufacturers copyright on the design. Anyone have any thoughts on this
issue?


AFAIK, you are free to disassemble and document anything you buy unless
there is a ULA or other contractual document specifically enjoining you from
doing so.

Yes, I understand that restriction.

However, publishing or sharing the information thus gleaned would likely be
an actionable tort and a possible basis for a civil contest.

This is the part that I don't understand, how documentation you create on a
reverse engineered design can violate any copyright on the original design
documents, they would seem to be different works?

*** I am sure there is sufficient precedent law for this case; I'm not an
attorney and my grasp of intellectual property law revolves mostly around
software licensing. Remember, any party can bring suit against another for
a perceived breach and away they go . . .

Other trade
secrets are protected under Federal statutes and different circumstances
apply.

I thought "trade secrets" were protected by, well being kept secret? That
there
are laws against misappropriating trade secrets, like stealing them by means
such as industrial espionage, but that "trade secrets" are not protected
against
someone observing the operation of a device and building a competing product
using the so called "trade secrets"? In other words "trade secret" protection
only applies as long as secrecy is maintained?

*** Pardon my semantic fog. What I meant to say -- instead of trade secret
-- is the more general "proprietary and confidential info" and "intellectual
property" in general. I can't answer your questions about trade secrets
because I do not know the "correct" answers.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 8/20/08 2:55 PM:

In article ,
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 8/20/08 2:13 PM:

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:15*pm, Bob Perilstein Bob.Perilstein.
wrote:
Mr. Turner,
You mentioned well back into your boorish diatribe that you too
purchased a "Hong Kong" labeled amp 1 or 2 years ago. I believe that
makes you a complete hippocrite.

--
Bob Perilstein

Bob:

Patrick can derive all of the items he mentioned based on many
thousands of hours of hands-on experience. For him, purchasing the
'competition' is a useful exercise in learning. Much as Ford, Mercedes
or Fiat purchase vehicles from their competition for reverse-
engineering and learning purposes.

Is reverse engineering of this sort legal? Many years ago, before the
creation
of this group, this subject came up in the rec.audio.tech group where the
statement was made that reverse engineering was illegal because it
violates
the
manufacturers copyright on the design. Anyone have any thoughts on this
issue?


AFAIK, you are free to disassemble and document anything you buy unless
there is a ULA or other contractual document specifically enjoining you
from
doing so.

Yes, I understand that restriction.

However, publishing or sharing the information thus gleaned would likely
be
an actionable tort and a possible basis for a civil contest.

This is the part that I don't understand, how documentation you create on a
reverse engineered design can violate any copyright on the original design
documents, they would seem to be different works?

*** I am sure there is sufficient precedent law for this case; I'm not an
attorney and my grasp of intellectual property law revolves mostly around
software licensing.

Neither am I an attorney, but I have the distinct impression that the
intellectual property law surrounding software copyrights is different than that
related to hardware documentation derived from reverse engineering. I assume
these differences result from the fact that reverse engineering software yields
essentially the original copyrighted software source code, while reverse
engineering hardware simply results in documentation likely to be different in
expression than the original manufacturers documentation, hence I don't see the
problem in disseminating the documentation resulting from reverse engineering
hardware, but then as I said I am not an attorney.

Remember, any party can bring suit against another for
a perceived breach and away they go . . .

Yes, there is that, I did remember it but decided not to confuse the issue by
mentioning it.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[tubegarden]

Hi RATs!

Yes, we are occasionlly a rude lot, by example, if not design.

Not as rude and stupid as lawyers, but, often fully disgusting.

I am not familiar with many of the topics discussed in this thread,
but I am a bit familiar with one: reverse engineering software.

If one observes the operation of software carefully, using an in
circuit emulator, for instance, one may learn how the software
functions. It is possible to recreate source code that mimics this
behavior on a different platform (often more quickly than debugging
the object code created by a cross compiler using the original source
code, but, I digress).

I have been fairly close to lawsuits about stolen software. Even when
evidence shows that the the bad guy used illegal copies of the
original code, the courts are hesitent to act. One may legallly
recreate code which accomplishes the same effect, but, stealing the
source code is not considered very nice, but, even that is not going
to impress all judges.

The law is an ass. And if the judge is not quite "focused", you simply
appeal and hope the next judge ...

We are a rude lot, but many of us enjoy putting ideas to the test in
actual physical circuits.

I listen to the amps I modify and sometimes enjoy the music. I suspect
some of my brothers on this NG have other agendas. I just do not care.

Life is too short to bother about every unhappy camper who posts
insults and diagrams of his stupidities.

Text (or pix) on a free Internet is not always pleasant, but, it is
better than life out in the real, which is rarely pleasant

Happy Ears!
Al

[Patrick Turner]

Eeyore wrote:

Peter Wieck wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

I get worried more about the rising Nationalism in China
than about "alternatively sexed people".

Certainly. My experience with "alternately sexed" people is that they
make very good neighbors, tend to take very good care of their real-
estate, are generally very quiet - with exceptions as with all of us -
and make few demands on the social structure. They are certainly no
threat - less so than the Clergy, it seems.

Alternatively sexed ? That's a new one on me. You mean 'gay' ?

But what about the judge who dresses up as a school girl and gets off
with a girl dressed as a Nazi
tickling him with a feather duster?

Kinda queer sexuality to my mind, so why try to keep the range of
sexuality
to a bare minimum when its rather broader than talking about gays and
straights.

The only kind of objectionable sexuality is when one person forces
some unwanted sexual attention onto someone else, thus causing all the
drama
and trauma we see as claimed by so many victims in courts.

People say gays and alternatives are lesser than the straights because
they don't
breed, and don't produce future taxpayers, so they are a burden because
they don't do their duty.

Trouble is we already live in a world where there are too many ppl.

If you are wondering if I'm sane wondering about it, ask yourself
what Christ would say about this world if he was around right now.

In 30 or 40 years i expect robots to be able to look after the elderly
so that it wouldn't matter if they'd had children or not.

I'm ordering my Life Assistance Device, or LAD, tomorrow.
It'll look like Marylyn Munroe, and from the left tit will come Boubon,
and from the right tit will come good coffee,
and the middle lower part will have other uses I can't describe on this
family friendly
discussion group.
Maybe machifilia, or something. Alternative, anyway.


Get in early with your order, or else you'll die before you get a LAD,
because there
is already a long queue.

George Bush has ordered his LAD, with magic eye tube brain activity
level indicators mounted
in two rows on the LAD's head for a stereo effect.
They should last a long time.

Patrick Turner.



Graham

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:15 pm, Bob Perilstein Bob.Perilstein.
wrote:
Mr. Turner,
You mentioned well back into your boorish diatribe that you too
purchased a "Hong Kong" labeled amp 1 or 2 years ago. I believe that
makes you a complete hippocrite.

--
Bob Perilstein

Bob:

Patrick can derive all of the items he mentioned based on many
thousands of hours of hands-on experience. For him, purchasing the
'competition' is a useful exercise in learning. Much as Ford, Mercedes
or Fiat purchase vehicles from their competition for reverse-
engineering and learning purposes.

Is reverse engineering of this sort legal? Many years ago, before the creation
of this group, this subject came up in the rec.audio.tech group where the
statement was made that reverse engineering was illegal because it violates the
manufacturers copyright on the design. Anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Its legal to talk about anything or anyone here. Real freedom.

But it may be taken away anytime though, if companies or ppl
get the law changed to make it an offence to talk freely about the
details of the gear made
without consent.

There is a strong move now from a section of society to muzzle the
free press by new proposed "privacy legislation" which is seen by the
press as a way of shutting ppl up when the public really ought to know
something.

I don't defame ppl if I speak ill of their efforts and I am correct with
the facts.

Freedom gives the critic his say, and if anyone wants to avoid
criticism, then
they have to make their words, actions and deeds comply with standards
which cannot bring the criticisms.

Patrick Turner.



Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Patrick Turner]

John Byrns wrote:

In article ,
Jon Yaeger wrote:

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 8/20/08 2:13 PM:

In article
,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 19, 6:15 pm, Bob Perilstein Bob.Perilstein.
wrote:
Mr. Turner,
You mentioned well back into your boorish diatribe that you too
purchased a "Hong Kong" labeled amp 1 or 2 years ago. I believe that
makes you a complete hippocrite.

--
Bob Perilstein

Bob:

Patrick can derive all of the items he mentioned based on many
thousands of hours of hands-on experience. For him, purchasing the
'competition' is a useful exercise in learning. Much as Ford, Mercedes
or Fiat purchase vehicles from their competition for reverse-
engineering and learning purposes.

Is reverse engineering of this sort legal? Many years ago, before the
creation
of this group, this subject came up in the rec.audio.tech group where the
statement was made that reverse engineering was illegal because it violates
the
manufacturers copyright on the design. Anyone have any thoughts on this
issue?


AFAIK, you are free to disassemble and document anything you buy unless
there is a ULA or other contractual document specifically enjoining you from
doing so.

Yes, I understand that restriction.

However, publishing or sharing the information thus gleaned would likely be
an actionable tort and a possible basis for a civil contest.

This is the part that I don't understand, how documentation you create on a
reverse engineered design can violate any copyright on the original design
documents, they would seem to be different works?

Other trade
secrets are protected under Federal statutes and different circumstances
apply.

I thought "trade secrets" were protected by, well being kept secret? That there
are laws against misappropriating trade secrets, like stealing them by means
such as industrial espionage, but that "trade secrets" are not protected against
someone observing the operation of a device and building a competing product
using the so called "trade secrets"? In other words "trade secret" protection
only applies as long as secrecy is maintained?

Patents are supposed to protect "trade secrets"

Not much else would.

In re-engineered hi-end brandname amplifiers I have used very different
schematics to the original.
I plan to post quite a few soon, but most certainly not with the
originals used.

The companies concerned will not be hurt from the publicity I give them.

Keen owners of such brandnames might compare notes; the designers of the
brands themselves might
tune into what I am saying and compare notes, see what I've done, maybe
adopt what I've done,
or loathe what I have created.

You won't see any of them appearing in the Sewers Of the Internet, ie,
the unmoderated news groups
where they have every opportunity to speak up and say exactly why I'd be
wrong to
re-arrange their amplifiers the way I have.

Meanwhile, anyone else will be able to try my well tested circuit
designs or apply part of them
in anything they build themselves.

I cannot see why anyone would ever want to make an exact copy of say a
VT100 made by ARC.

But anyone would be welcome to try the drastic mods I applied.
There wouldn't be many who would. 99% of those owning VT100
might barely know enough to adjust the bias correctly.


I can say that the schematic I have used in a VT100 will give better
technical
results, much greater reliability, and better music. I don't seek to
convince
anyone who isn't deeply interested in circuit working.
The few really interested ppl will find the original VT100 circuit
and compare it with mine, and make their appraisals.
I have no intention of publishing original schematics of hi-end
brandname amps.
I won't be seeking their approval to do so. I don't seek to shame
anyone.
I intend to provide genuinely constructive criticisms.

The surface floaters who don't understand amps much and who mouth off a
lot about lots of things
don't have anything to gain from what i say.

At my website, I have published original Leak and Quad schematics though
because these ancient
designs have become very public property over the last 50 years.
I have shown ways of improving Quad and Leak and other old brand
performances.
But over the last 3 years, I have worked on numerous examples of
much more modern amps whose schematics are nowhere to be seen unless you
get one from the maker
if he agrees to give you one, which usually means you have to own such
an amp,
and be able to quote serial numbers.

OK, the makers like their privacy.

I don't like the smoke when it pours out of their amps.

OK, what to do?

Provide an alternative that doesn't smoke.

Discerning tube amp crafters will have an additional source of
valuable information to draw inspiration from I hope.

I cannot change the world by charging at it like Don Q, but
rather I invite it to consider what I have said, and shown to it some
alternative
ideas.


Patrick Turner.



--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Jon Yaeger]

in article
,
tubegarden at wrote on 8/21/08 1:58 AM:

Hi RATs!

Yes, we are occasionlly a rude lot, by example, if not design.

Not as rude and stupid as lawyers, but, often fully disgusting.

I am not familiar with many of the topics discussed in this thread,
but I am a bit familiar with one: reverse engineering software.

If one observes the operation of software carefully, using an in
circuit emulator, for instance, one may learn how the software
functions. It is possible to recreate source code that mimics this
behavior on a different platform (often more quickly than debugging
the object code created by a cross compiler using the original source
code, but, I digress).

I have been fairly close to lawsuits about stolen software. Even when
evidence shows that the the bad guy used illegal copies of the
original code, the courts are hesitent to act. One may legallly
recreate code which accomplishes the same effect, but, stealing the
source code is not considered very nice, but, even that is not going
to impress all judges.

The law is an ass. And if the judge is not quite "focused", you simply
appeal and hope the next judge ...

We are a rude lot, but many of us enjoy putting ideas to the test in
actual physical circuits.

I listen to the amps I modify and sometimes enjoy the music. I suspect
some of my brothers on this NG have other agendas. I just do not care.

Life is too short to bother about every unhappy camper who posts
insults and diagrams of his stupidities.

Text (or pix) on a free Internet is not always pleasant, but, it is
better than life out in the real, which is rarely pleasant

Happy Ears!
Al



Al,

You'll recall the famous IBM vs. Phoenix Software contest. IBM published
the details of their ROM code & Phoenix emulated the functionality. They
were not guilty of copyright violation, and an entire clone PC industry was
started.

Is that being rude?

Jon

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"tubegarden" wrote in message
...

I envy Iain and his adventures in the Suomiland theme park. My sister
was there some years ago with her family visiting shirt tail relatives
(our mom's parents were illegals before illegals were hip in
Texasville). They had the PM to dinner.

It's nice to live in a country larger than the UK with
only half the population of London, where trees
outnumber people by millions to one:-)

But you probably live somewhere warm and sunny, Al.
Despite a very good summer, we have a pretty stiff
winter here, probably not unlike parts of Canada.

Glad you are still "havin' fun with tubes", Al

Regards
Iain

[tubegarden]

On Aug 21, 8:32�am, Jon Yaeger wrote:

Al,

You'll recall the famous IBM vs. Phoenix Software contest. �IBM published
the details of their ROM code & Phoenix emulated the functionality. �They
were not guilty of copyright violation, and an entire clone PC industry was
started.

Is that being rude?

Hi Jon,

Not at all. In a case where IBM was the defendant, the court was shown
that the source code had every mis spelling in the comments fields
that the original, non-IBM source. That is rude.

Happy Ears!
Al

[tubegarden]

On Aug 22, 1:35�am, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"tubegarden" wrote in message

...

I envy Iain and his adventures in the Suomiland theme park. My sister
was there some years ago with her family visiting shirt tail relatives
(our mom's parents were illegals before illegals were hip in
Texasville). They had the PM to dinner.

It's nice to live in a country larger than the UK with
only half the population of London, where trees
outnumber people by millions to one:-)

But you probably live somewhere warm and sunny, Al.
Despite a very good summer, we have a pretty stiff
winter here, probably not unlike parts of Canada.

Glad you are still "havin' fun with tubes", Al

Regards
Iain

Hi Iain,

I used to live in a hot and sunny place. Now I live in a very warm and
rainy place,

The drought map of this world changes endlessly. Only silly people
claim knowlege of why

Happy Ears!
Al

[keithr]

"tubegarden" wrote in message
...
On Aug 21, 8:32?am, Jon Yaeger wrote:

Al,

You'll recall the famous IBM vs. Phoenix Software contest. ?IBM published
the details of their ROM code & Phoenix emulated the functionality. ?They
were not guilty of copyright violation, and an entire clone PC industry
was
started.

Is that being rude?

Hi Jon,

Not at all. In a case where IBM was the defendant, the court was shown
that the source code had every mis spelling in the comments fields
that the original, non-IBM source. That is rude.


The standard method in the computer industry is to have 2 groups of
engineers. The first group disassemble (physically or logically) the product
and learn how it functions, but are not allowed to take part on the design
of the "Compatible" product. The second group design the new product but are
not allowed to examine the original. The second group are allowed to ask as
many questions as they wish to the first group who can answer all questions,
but not volunteer any information. The second group are also allowed to
consult any publically available documentation from the original
manufacturer, but not any unpublished docs.



The method was tested in the courts, and as long as the actual designers can
claim not to have examined the original, the law is satisfied. It all came
out of the BIOS wars back in the 80's

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"tubegarden" wrote in message
...

Hi Iain,

I used to live in a hot and sunny place. Now I live in a very warm and
rainy place,

The drought map of this world changes endlessly. Only silly people
claim knowlege of why

Be thankful for the rain, Al. It may turn out to be a very valuable
commodity. We had some visitors during the summer holidays, fruit
farmers from Oz, who told us that there has not been rain there for
two years. When I expressed surprise they mentioned that some
districts had no rain for seven years!

Finland has plenty of water in 100 000 lakes. Some time ago there
was a plan for Finland to import oil from Saudi Arabia, and
export water. The water was more valuable than the oil. The
idea could not be sustained due to the difficulties in logistics -
the same tankers could not be used for both commodities.

Regards
Iain

[Patrick Turner]

Iain Churches wrote:

"tubegarden" wrote in message
...

Hi Iain,

I used to live in a hot and sunny place. Now I live in a very warm and
rainy place,

The drought map of this world changes endlessly. Only silly people
claim knowlege of why

Be thankful for the rain, Al. It may turn out to be a very valuable
commodity. We had some visitors during the summer holidays, fruit
farmers from Oz, who told us that there has not been rain there for
two years. When I expressed surprise they mentioned that some
districts had no rain for seven years!

Finland has plenty of water in 100 000 lakes. Some time ago there
was a plan for Finland to import oil from Saudi Arabia, and
export water. The water was more valuable than the oil. The
idea could not be sustained due to the difficulties in logistics -
the same tankers could not be used for both commodities.

Regards
Iain

A large % of NSW is still drought declared since about 2002.

Here in the ACT, it looks sort of marginal.
The main city dams are about 47%, but were down to 30% at the official
end of
drought here in about 2006. We did have 3 years of less than 1/2 average
rainfall, ie, 265mm pa.
Thousands of trees across the city died.
People couldn't water their gardens. Bye bye gardens.

We have always had recurring droughts in Oz. When they are done, usually
we get floods,
but not this time except for small areas; overall it just rained
slightly more than in a drought,
and in the worst drought striken places the rain's been useless with so
little of it.
Meanwhile the Murray-Darling river system is dying from over use of
water; ie, river inflow
has become much smaller than what's going out to agriculture.

It looks like the climate sure is changing here.

But up in the tropical north of Oz more rain falls than they can ever
store or use,
but tropical conditions 2,000 km to my north doesn't mean a bounty for
agriculture down here.
And apples and grapes won't grow in Darwin.

There was talk of building a canal and pipe system from nth to south.
But the construction costs and the water evaporation, soakage, leakage,
and power needs for pumps
was way too much and Oz looks to desalination plants now for clean
water.
They are considering re-cycling cleaned up sewerage after its been
through the
clean up ponds. Then some smart arses said there was too much risk, and
another big row over water
occurred in local parliment and where a politician was filmed drinking
re-cycled sewerage.
But ppl saw this as a stunt. Most residents here have no intention of
drinking re-cycled sewerage.
They won't even shower in it, or top up the swimming pool.
They are increasing the height of a local dam to boost water storage
capacity by 35%, a big job.
But will there ever be rain to fill it? we dunno, and when rains fall
the city will have grown 35%.

For the first 15 years I've lived here I remember many times that the
city dams ran over full.
Previous generations enjoyed building huge dams, this one likes getting
fat watching PC screens.
Times were mild even in summer with maybe 10 days over 32C max. Now we
have 30 days over 35C max.
I remember seeing my swimming pool freeze over during winter sometimes 4
times year.
But not since about 1990. Pipes in the house would freeze, and stop the
water to bathrooms.
Very rare now.

China and India want to get modern. Progress first, then fix the
environment.

And while they make nearly everything for us, we won't pay them a decent
price
so they can afford to keep the environmental damage low.

Round and round we go, to where? Oblivion?

Americans and Aussies can pay a large increase to keep greenhouse
emissions low and afford the increased prices.
But struggling other big countries can't afford much at all, so what
happens in Bangledish when the sea levels rise 2 metres?

And another huricane more powerful than Katrina might be a real bother
in New Orleans.

Humans have had some wars over land and water, and it looks set to
happen again.

Meanwhile ppl tell me I should install water tanks for both clean roof
water and grey water, and
install solar panels but I say well if that's what YOU want, then YOU
pay me to do it.

Trouble is that there are 110,000 dwellings in my city, mostly filled
with
people unable to save money in this affluenza infected territory,
so 100,000 homes would have to be subsidized to make them green,
and maybe $50,000 for each one is needed to retro fit them with the best
green ideology.
50 grand pays a man for a year here, so there is about 100,000 man years
of work to be done to greenarize it all.
If we could find 10,000 tradesmen, they'd take 10 years to do it all,
but
that many tradies can't be found, maybe only 1,000, so the work would
take 100 years.

Nobody has ever offered as good an estimate of the future in such a
short paragraph.
All too hard.

Nor can the 5 billion dollars be found to pay them from the 330,000
residents of this city.
Each working person, about 100,000 ppl, would have find and ADDITIONAL
$50,000.
Even spread over 10 years its 5 grand pa, or only $100 per week.
Pie in the sky? Porcine flight? yup, definate possibilities compared to
what really needs doing....

PPl would never vote for a government that was really green and one
which said
to its people.....
"Ladies and Gentleman, **** youse all. Youse all are not gonna
have any more luxuries such as wide screen TV sets or live the high life
for the next 20 years, and instead,
after we turn off all the media and Internet, youse are all gonna have
to work your guts out 12 hrs per day 6 days a week
out for very little until the job is done to greenarize everything, and
after we train youi how to do it,
which may still be too little too late. In addition, youse are all
going to travel by bicycle instead of by your filthy damn cars, which
all will be outlawed from next
Monday except for doctors and the army which will be used to control
youse all.
Public rioters and those forming a Resistance will be hunted down and
made to work in chain gangs.
Meanwhile get used to raising a sweat and watching your fat arse shrink,
and not needing
heart specialists, and staying sober all the time while never playing
poker machines,
gorging youself on a big Mac, or smoking a cigarrette."

And they'd be a knock on the door at midnight, with 3 guys in trenchoats
at the door with hammers and recycling bins....

"Sir, we have reason to believe you have KT88 in your house, and we have
an Order from the
Green Government to simplify the structual in-correctness of the
aforesaid objectionable glasswork.
Where are the tubes sir, we won't take longer than we have to."

Old codgers fear the future, even though there isn't much of it for
them.


Patrick Turner.

[Dersu Uzala]

PPl would never vote for a government that was really green and one
which said
to its people.....
"Ladies and Gentleman, **** youse all. Youse all are not gonna
have any more luxuries such as wide screen TV sets or live the high life
for the next 20 years, and instead,
after we turn off all the media and Internet, youse are all gonna have
to work your guts out 12 hrs per day 6 days a week
out for very little until the job is done to greenarize everything, and
after we train youi how to do it,
which may still be too little too late. In addition, youse are all
going to travel by bicycle instead of by your filthy damn cars, which
all will be outlawed from next
Monday except for doctors and the army which will be used to control
youse all.
Public rioters and those forming a Resistance will be hunted down and
made to work in chain gangs.
Meanwhile get used to raising a sweat and watching your fat arse shrink,
and not needing
heart specialists, and staying sober all the time while never playing
poker machines,
gorging youself on a big Mac, or smoking a cigarrette."

And they'd be a knock on the door at midnight, with 3 guys in trenchoats
at the door with hammers and recycling bins....

"Sir, we have reason to believe you have KT88 in your house, and we have
an Order from the
Green Government to simplify the structual in-correctness of the
aforesaid objectionable glasswork.
Where are the tubes sir, we won't take longer than we have to."

Old codgers fear the future, even though there isn't much of it for
them.


Patrick Turner.

http://dieoff.org/

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and
it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have
helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of
their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective,
the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to
redress the planet's energy balance. David Price

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
The past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path is
cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about
through the "crash" that many fear -- a genuine collapse over a period of one
or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population.
The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for - a voluntary
change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and
less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial
nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology. Joseph A. Tainter

[Patrick Turner]

Dersu Uzala wrote:

PPl would never vote for a government that was really green and one
which said
to its people.....
"Ladies and Gentleman, **** youse all. Youse all are not gonna
have any more luxuries such as wide screen TV sets or live the high life
for the next 20 years, and instead,
after we turn off all the media and Internet, youse are all gonna have
to work your guts out 12 hrs per day 6 days a week
out for very little until the job is done to greenarize everything, and
after we train youi how to do it,
which may still be too little too late. In addition, youse are all
going to travel by bicycle instead of by your filthy damn cars, which
all will be outlawed from next
Monday except for doctors and the army which will be used to control
youse all.
Public rioters and those forming a Resistance will be hunted down and
made to work in chain gangs.
Meanwhile get used to raising a sweat and watching your fat arse shrink,
and not needing
heart specialists, and staying sober all the time while never playing
poker machines,
gorging youself on a big Mac, or smoking a cigarrette."

And they'd be a knock on the door at midnight, with 3 guys in trenchoats
at the door with hammers and recycling bins....

"Sir, we have reason to believe you have KT88 in your house, and we have
an Order from the
Green Government to simplify the structual in-correctness of the
aforesaid objectionable glasswork.
Where are the tubes sir, we won't take longer than we have to."

Old codgers fear the future, even though there isn't much of it for
them.


Patrick Turner.

http://dieoff.org/

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and
it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have
helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of
their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective,
the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to
redress the planet's energy balance. David Price

Perhaps we are not so important as we like to think we are, and
if Homo sapiens didn't evolve, then there wouldn'r be god somewhere up
in the sky
to watch over us. Did dinosaurs worship anything? anyway, they came and
went,
maybe without our gods or consciousnesses. But so will we come and go
even with gods and consciousness.

One way of going would be to downsize ourselves if there's less room for
us.
Genetic engineering of homo sapiens looms large imho, within the future.
Anything imaginable is possible.

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
The past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path is
cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about
through the "crash" that many fear -- a genuine collapse over a period of one
or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population.
The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for - a voluntary
change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and
less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial
nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology. Joseph A. Tainter

Greenhouse is only one thing of many that affect us all.

Somehow, I think mankind will try to all get rich first, then fix the
environment.

Porcine flight looks likely too.

Nobody really cares about much about the future unless forced.
Children born in 50 years won't know what we thought was so nice about
now,
but maybe how they will see their world and life prospects will be
more positive than we see ours. We really cannot tell exactly what may
happen,
because modelling the world and its systems is fraught with complexities
that challenge
the best intelligence, but somehow I don't wish to be fast forwarded to
2058.

Maybe in 2058, when the last elephant in the world dies in a zoo
someplace,
The ppl can rejoice that elephants won't ever have to suffer our
farnarkulations ever again.


Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

flipper wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:30:31 -0500, (Dersu Uzala) wrote:


PPl would never vote for a government that was really green and one
which said
to its people.....
"Ladies and Gentleman, **** youse all. Youse all are not gonna
have any more luxuries such as wide screen TV sets or live the high life
for the next 20 years, and instead,
after we turn off all the media and Internet, youse are all gonna have
to work your guts out 12 hrs per day 6 days a week
out for very little until the job is done to greenarize everything, and
after we train youi how to do it,
which may still be too little too late. In addition, youse are all
going to travel by bicycle instead of by your filthy damn cars, which
all will be outlawed from next
Monday except for doctors and the army which will be used to control
youse all.
Public rioters and those forming a Resistance will be hunted down and
made to work in chain gangs.
Meanwhile get used to raising a sweat and watching your fat arse shrink,
and not needing
heart specialists, and staying sober all the time while never playing
poker machines,
gorging youself on a big Mac, or smoking a cigarrette."

And they'd be a knock on the door at midnight, with 3 guys in trenchoats
at the door with hammers and recycling bins....

"Sir, we have reason to believe you have KT88 in your house, and we have
an Order from the
Green Government to simplify the structual in-correctness of the
aforesaid objectionable glasswork.
Where are the tubes sir, we won't take longer than we have to."

Old codgers fear the future, even though there isn't much of it for
them.


Patrick Turner.

http://dieoff.org/

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and
it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have
helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of
their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective,
the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to
redress the planet's energy balance. David Price

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
The past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path is
cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about
through the "crash" that many fear -- a genuine collapse over a period of one
or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population.
The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for - a voluntary
change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and
less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial
nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology. Joseph A. Tainter

Crap

Bravo! Crap is the essence of what is wrong with existance.

Patrick Turner.

[Dersu Uzala]

http://dieoff.org/

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy,
and
it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have
helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of
their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective,
the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to
redress the planet's energy balance. David Price

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will
be.
The past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path
is
cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come
about
through the "crash" that many fear -- a genuine collapse over a period of
one
or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population.
The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for - a
voluntary
change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and
less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial
nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology. Joseph A. Tainter

flipper sez:
Crap

I say, not crap! Does that mean I'm correct?

I bow to your superior rhetorical skills. Such a level of persuasive logic,
especially supported by the facts you present, can only leave myself in awe,
quiverting under the shadow of your most excellent denial, you fool. If you
were to jump off the Empire State building, I'm sure you'd say "everthing
fine, so far!" as you passed the mid-point of you descent. Did you read
anything at the website? Is there any claim there that you contest? What part
of 'finite resources' do you not understand?

[Dersu Uzala]

"One often-discussed path is
cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about
through the "crash" that many fear -- a genuine collapse over a period of one
or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population.
The alternative is the "soft landing" that many people hope for - a voluntary
change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and
less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested
above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial
nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be
removed from the realm of ideology. "

In article ,
says...

"and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of
energy that have helped define its niche." No doubt referring to that
"dense accumulations of energy" we call the sun. No? Don't know about
you but when the sun wanes I'm planning to take the next space ship
out.

Not the Sun, but fossil fuels are the "dense accumulations of energy".
Although the Sun is dense, its radiation of energy as it reaches the Earth is
rather diffuse. All those solar cars built by undergrads weigh in at 75 lbs, a
go-cart powered by gasoline would beat them in a race with 5 ounces of gas.
Nothing beats fossil fuels as a dense energy source. Your basic
misunderstanding is evident here. Not only do you misunderstand the quote you
rebuke, but your general knowledge of the situation is lacking. Mistaking
fossil fuels for the Sun is a major flub.

Frankly, I don't give a tinker's dam if you want to believe that crap
but I'll fight to the last bullet, then sticks and stones if need be,
neo Nazi sophists that want to plunge mankind into a new dark age with
their "utopian alternative" of "severe, prolonged hardship."

Well, here's a problem. It is not that some evil people want to "plunge
mankind into a new dark age with their "utopian alternative" of "severe,
prolonged hardship." Your understanding of the quote at the top of this post
is in error. The quote says that a "voluntary change to solar energy and green
fuels" will not be attempted until great hardship is first experienced due to
not making the switch to alternative energy sources, and the decline of
present energy sources. This is quite different from your reading of the
quote, where you claim Nazis "want to plunge mankind into a new dark age", by
I assume, limiting energy consumption.You have the sequence of events all
wrong. First, if we do nothing regarding overpopulation and resource depletion
this causes "severe, prolonged hardship". Then we move to renewable energy as
a solution. The original writer I quoted called it 'utopian' because he doubts
that the changes needed will be done voluntarily, and will only be attempted
after great hardship. You do know that 'utopia' means 'no-where', right? As
in, 'not gonna happen'. And how does "a voluntary change" become the fiat of
'Nazi sophists'? Godwin's Law applies here.

I asked: Did you read anything at the website?

You replied:I read it a long time ago and numerous times since. It began as
crap and still is.

You're funny.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 3, 3:19*am, flipper wrote:

Frankly, I don't give a tinker's dam if you want to believe that crap
but I'll fight to the last bullet, then sticks and stones if need be,
neo Nazi sophists that want to plunge mankind into a new dark age with
their "utopian alternative" of "severe, prolonged hardship."

Um... what the US has spent on Iraq if it had been spent on wind-power
(at ~$1800/KW installed + distribution) would replace all the oil that
the US imports from the Middle East (not all the oil entirely, but
from the Middle East). If "real" numbers are counted - such as those
fees paid to Halliburton and other contractors doing what the military
did in the past, that cost would nearly double.

Imagine that amount spent on wind-power.

There is no need for hardship, there is no need for significant
reductions in a meaningful standard of living - there is not even any
great need for redistribution of wealth. However, there is a need for
a collective will towards spending treasure and time on different
means of production for energy. Nuclear power is one option such that
it *could* make the electrolysis of hydrogen practical even if net-
energy negative. Wind power is another gentle option. Trash-to-steam
is a short-term fix for certain types of waste-disposal and about
energy neutral if life-cycle costs are included (and they must be
realistically). Burning food to make cars go is simply nuts on so many
levels as to be not worth discussing. And drilling in Alaska (or
similar options elsewhere) is similarly nuts, but for very different
reasons. There will come a time within the next 50 - 75 years when
petroleum distillates will be far to precious to burn for heat,
locomotion or power - as they remain the only really practical feed-
stocks for many, many materials and chemicals without which pain,
suffering and hardship actually would occur. So, we need to develop
other types of fuel for things like flight, long-distance locomotion
and so forth.

But all of this is within existing technology and all of this exists
at practical levels right now. What is lacking is the will to get on
with it. And it is the *THREAT* of hardship that will initiate that
process, not necessarily hardship itself.

Culling the herd happens every minute of every day. And the Human Race
effectively has stopped evolving in any meaningful way as its mutants
and defectives (and consider that everything from myopia through club-
foot through diabetes renders one "defective") are protected and
allowed to breed. So we cull ourselves with war, 100% preventable
diseases allowed to thrive, famine and other stupidities having
nothing much at all to do with global warming or mother nature. And we
are making a direct run at rendering significant portions of the
planet uninhabitable due to our activities - also on the 'stupid'
level.

But, most of us here are sitting in the water-rich, food-rich,
resource-rich, energy-rich, infrastructure-rich northern & western
hemispheres. Other parts of the world are very gradually catching up -
with specific reference to China and India - so there is for the very
first time genuine competition for ores and energy outside the North &
West. But still, it is hard for me to identify with Patrick's
situation in Australia - OK, I did spend a few years in Saudi - but we
had a good well and plenty of water - but the mind boggles at no rain
in six or seven years when we will get an average of 48 inches per
year and as many as 2 inches at a clip. And when our summer house
shallow-well (13 feet deep) produces at over 20gpm of very clear,
clean water - even after our short-term droughts of a few months at a
time.

And, it is very easy for 'fat-and-happy' sorts to either give
themselves cheap thrills by catastrophising and postulating dire
conditions "at some point in the future" - and equally, stunningly
stupidly postulating that as things are, they must continue to be.
These are the irrisistable forces meeting the immovable objects - and
the bulk of this discussion. Add a little bit of pretense to these
positions and it becomes pretty entertaining on its face, but
exceedingly sad in that there are people who have lied to themselves
and those around them so very long that they have come to believe
their tripe.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Dersu Uzala]

In article ,
says...

"and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of
energy that have helped define its niche." No doubt referring to that
"dense accumulations of energy" we call the sun. No? Don't know about
you but when the sun wanes I'm planning to take the next space ship
out.

Not the Sun, but fossil fuels are the "dense accumulations of energy".

I know what the sophist 'meant' and it's sophist crap.

It may, or may not be crap, but are you saying he 'meant' the Sun? He doesn't
mean the Sun. You have deficient comprehenson skills if you think he means the
Sun.




Although the Sun is dense, its radiation of energy as it reaches the Earth is
rather diffuse.

And so is the released energy from burning 'oil'.

I'd rather float in a pool wearing a bathing suit than burn to death in a oil
fire, how about you? What the hell are you talking about? Napalm is as diffuse
an energy reaction as a sunny day's warmth? Are you bonkers?


All those solar cars built by undergrads weigh in at 75 lbs, a
go-cart powered by gasoline would beat them in a race with 5 ounces of gas.
Nothing beats fossil fuels as a dense energy source.

B.S. Both fission and fusion does.

Modern cars directly powered from fission would be rather heavy, I think,
correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't seen that new Mr Fusion powered DeLorean
yet, which dealership is carrying now? Or a battery powered 18 wheeler.





Your basic
misunderstanding is evident here. Not only do you misunderstand the quote you
rebuke, but your general knowledge of the situation is lacking. Mistaking
fossil fuels for the Sun is a major flub.

No, the 'problem' is you can't recognize sophist crap even though
buried eyeball deep in it.

What, was "sophist" on your "word for the day" calender?



Frankly, I don't give a tinker's dam if you want to believe that crap
but I'll fight to the last bullet, then sticks and stones if need be,
neo Nazi sophists that want to plunge mankind into a new dark age with
their "utopian alternative" of "severe, prolonged hardship."

Well, here's a problem. It is not that some evil people want to "plunge
mankind into a new dark age with their "utopian alternative" of "severe,
prolonged hardship." Your understanding of the quote at the top of this post
is in error. The quote says that a "voluntary change to solar energy and
green
fuels" will not be attempted until great hardship is first experienced due to
not making the switch to alternative energy sources, and the decline of
present energy sources.

If you think there's anything 'voluntary' in that crap, despite the
sophist use of the word, then you're deluded.

Let me use little words for you . He says that he doubts these
changes will happen until a disaster occurs. Are you claiming the
switch to renewables will not be voluntarily done after a disaster,
that is to say people would rather freeze in the dark than use
solar heating? Or are you saying alternative energy will be forced
upon the populace after the last well's production of oil is priced
at $1000 a barrel?

Let's test your theory. I 'voluntarily' chose to not abide by that
crap. Argument over, case closed.

No?

This is quite different from your reading of the
quote,

It's 'different' because you don't even understand the thrust of what
you're defending.

where you claim Nazis "want to plunge mankind into a new dark age", by
I assume, limiting energy consumption.You have the sequence of events all
wrong. First, if we do nothing regarding overpopulation and resource
depletion
this causes "severe, prolonged hardship".

Wrong. Read it again. The 'do nothing', supposed only, 'alternative'
is "a genuine collapse over a period of one or two generations, with
much violence, starvation, and loss of population."

The above paragraph, as I read it in context, seems to mean that there are two
possible secenarios. One where renewable energy is developed, and the other
where its business as usual, and we get a collaspe. They writer I quoted says
that he wants renewables because without them, there will be a collaspe. He
does not want a collaspe, but thinks that politics will prevent renewables from
being developed absent a crises. I don't understand why you write: "Frankly, I
don't give a tinker's dam if you want to believe that crap but I'll fight to
the last bullet, then sticks and stones if need be, neo Nazi sophists that want
to plunge mankind into a new dark age with their "utopian alternative" of
"severe, prolonged hardship." "
The "utopian alternative" is renewable energy that prevents "severe, prolonged
hardship." You got it all ass-backwards.





Then we move to renewable energy as
a solution.

The Sophist is telling you that, in his opinion (which he
misrepresents as 'fact') people will *not* make that move unless there
is enough 'pain' to make it 'attractive' (another Sophism {see below])
so, to 'save' you from the artificially constructed alternative hell,
they will *impose* the 'pain'... for your own good, of course. (This
is why you occasionally hear an enviro freak 'slip up' and publicly
rejoice at $4/gallon gasoline, Yippee, some of that 'pain' finally
coming in. It's also why the Congress will never do anything about the
high prices as long as the current crop of incompetent boobs is
running the place because, as Pelosi explained, she's "trying to save
the planet.")

The depletion of fossil fuels is independent from all ideologies and politics
as long as we continue to burn them in the present manner. The depletion of
fossil fuels is geology. You can't drill you way out of the problem. Ask Texas
oilman T.Boone Pickens.



That won't sit well so, along the way, they have to 'purge' the
'wrongthink' of "economic growth and consumerism" and 'reeducate' the
dumb ass stupid 'herd' to 'goodthink'.


I have read many analysis of "limits to growth" that claim unending consumerism
is impossible. Please educate me. Point to me a study that says otherwise. And
the authors must be in the hard sciences such as geology, biology, physics,
etc. None of this "wish upon a star" magical economics BS where the market
creates energy from demand.




The original writer I quoted called it 'utopian' because he doubts
that the changes needed will be done voluntarily,
and will only be attempted
after great hardship. You do know that 'utopia' means 'no-where', right?

A lovely bit of sophist crap. Utopian means having the characteristics
of 'Utopia', an 'ideal community', taken from the title of a book
written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More describing a fictional island in
the Atlantic Ocean, possessing a seemingly perfect
socio-politico-legal system.

Unless otherwise made clear, 'Utopia', and variants, refers to
'idealness' and not 'imaginary' but it is typical sophist crap to
employ doublespeak.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utopian
u·to·pi·an
adj.
1. often Utopian Of, relating to, describing or having the characteristics of a
Utopia: a Utopian island; Utopian novels.
2.
a. Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme for
equalizing wealth.
b. Proposing impracticably ideal schemes.

I see both 2a and 2b using 'imaginary' as intrinsic to the definition.
The word comes from Greek: ??, "not", and t?p??, "place", indicating that More
was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal place
to be realistically possible. I'd say the primary meaning must include the
sense that "it ain't gonna happen"
I'm begining to think " sophist crap " means something written by anyone more
intelligent than Flipper.


You, however, didn't 'get' what he's saying. He's saying "severe,
prolonged hardship" is (as) 'ideal' (as one can get) compared to his
false 'one choice' alternative of "a genuine collapse over a period of
one or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of
population."

One is a 'horrid hell', the other a 'utopian hell'.

As in, 'not gonna happen'. And how does "a voluntary change" become the fiat
of 'Nazi sophists'?

As you just said, 'not gonna happen'. So how is it going to be 'made'
to happen, eh?

You said you'd fight "a voluntary change" forced upon us by 'Nazi sophists',
not me. You explain your own twisted logic, I can't. In my version of english,
voluntary and fiat are antonyms. If civilization lasts, it will choose
alternative energy sources, since fossil fuels will not be an option available.



Godwin's Law applies here.

Calling a duck a duck is not Godwin's Law.

yes, but calling someone you disagree with a NAZI in an internet debate is an
example of Godwin's Law, unless your opponent lived in Germany during the
1920-1940's.




I asked: Did you read anything at the website?

You replied:I read it a long time ago and numerous times since. It began as
crap and still is.

You're funny.


I'm glad you're amused.

I'm easily amused. Maybe another go-round for you will finally do the trick.
You seem to hope that it will one day de-crappify itself, which is interesting,
since, as I'm sure you have noticed, the site has been static for years, as the
site itself tells you on it's homepage. Perhaps your unconscious mind is hoping
your conscious mind will retract from your asshole enough to not misinterpet
the site.

[Patrick Turner]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 3, 3:19 am, flipper wrote:

Frankly, I don't give a tinker's dam if you want to believe that crap
but I'll fight to the last bullet, then sticks and stones if need be,
neo Nazi sophists that want to plunge mankind into a new dark age with
their "utopian alternative" of "severe, prolonged hardship."

Um... what the US has spent on Iraq if it had been spent on wind-power
(at ~$1800/KW installed + distribution) would replace all the oil that
the US imports from the Middle East (not all the oil entirely, but
from the Middle East). If "real" numbers are counted - such as those
fees paid to Halliburton and other contractors doing what the military
did in the past, that cost would nearly double.

Imagine that amount spent on wind-power.

The original idea was to have taxpayers fund a war in Iraq that'd cost 5
billion max, then
the oil companies would invest 20 bill over the next 20 years to extract
Iraq oil
for the "free world". We'd all be better off regardless of whether you
agreed or disagreed with
the war.

But hasn't the war cost 3 trillion?

Yes, is a pile of cash, but governments make decisions they cannot
easily retreat from.

And better than wind power that kills birdlife would be solar power,
but ya can't talk the oil lobby to accept the change into solar.
And the whole energy thing looks set to become affected by greenhouse,
and if solar was accepted, then expect to have to pay a lot more for
everything,
not just for your electricity bills.

So life looks set to become harder, at least for the poor. The rich
survive far better.

But ppl vote, and if life gets too hard to allow the environment to
get no worse, then ppl will just despair, especially if governments
cannot
cause any change to C02 emissions despite carbon trading and carbon
taxes.


There is no need for hardship, there is no need for significant
reductions in a meaningful standard of living - there is not even any
great need for redistribution of wealth.

Hardship is a percieved thing, and mostly unreal.

Young folks wanna buy a house that has 5 bedrooms, room for 3 cars,
and the 2008 house is 4 times the size of a house bought by youngfolks
in 1950.

Today's young folks whinge like mad that everything is so damned hard,
and that they can't save, and that house ownership is so difficult
and that petrol prices have doubled in 4 years, and so on.
meanwhile the divorce rate is 50%, and dhit happens a lot,
and rampant materialism didn't bring happiness.
Life's hard. But not really.

Talk to average Tibetan farmer.
He'll tell you about real hardness.



However, there is a need for
a collective will towards spending treasure and time on different
means of production for energy. Nuclear power is one option such that
it *could* make the electrolysis of hydrogen practical even if net-
energy negative. Wind power is another gentle option. Trash-to-steam
is a short-term fix for certain types of waste-disposal and about
energy neutral if life-cycle costs are included (and they must be
realistically).

All the alternatives to coal and nuclear may be addopted in the long
term,
by someone, somewhere, but I dunno who.

China is opening a large coal fired power station about every week.
The wanna get rich first, ha ha, then fix environment.

Yeah, sure.....


Burning food to make cars go is simply nuts on so many
levels as to be not worth discussing.

I have to agree.

Homo sapiens isn't always very rational.....


And drilling in Alaska (or
similar options elsewhere) is similarly nuts, but for very different
reasons. There will come a time within the next 50 - 75 years when
petroleum distillates will be far to precious to burn for heat,
locomotion or power - as they remain the only really practical feed-
stocks for many, many materials and chemicals without which pain,
suffering and hardship actually would occur. So, we need to develop
other types of fuel for things like flight, long-distance locomotion
and so forth.

Indeed...

But all of this is within existing technology and all of this exists
at practical levels right now. What is lacking is the will to get on
with it. And it is the *THREAT* of hardship that will initiate that
process, not necessarily hardship itself.

The will to get on with change for the better resides in a huge number
of people.

But they have to pay for it.

When they realise how much, suddenly they lose enthusiasm.

A big ugly fat man would love to be thin and athletic.

But he knows how difficult it is to stop eating so much and
to exercise a lot more.

He has terrible mental blocks.

But although he hates himself, he has a good paying job,
and there isn't anything to force him to change, so he doesn't,
and falls victim to diabetes and other rich folks problems.

Some love themselves no matter how ugly and dysfunctional they become
away from work.

Nothing matters except the job.


Culling the herd happens every minute of every day. And the Human Race
effectively has stopped evolving in any meaningful way as its mutants
and defectives (and consider that everything from myopia through club-
foot through diabetes renders one "defective") are protected and
allowed to breed. So we cull ourselves with war, 100% preventable
diseases allowed to thrive, famine and other stupidities having
nothing much at all to do with global warming or mother nature. And we
are making a direct run at rendering significant portions of the
planet uninhabitable due to our activities - also on the 'stupid'
level.

Well, sure the deathrate will always be there because everyone does has
to die.
100 years ago, death took you 20 years sooner than now, on average,
and despite conceiving more children, fewer survived.
But defects in people that you say now are able to weaken our species
were passed on 100years ago. People didn't live long enough to
know they had defects.

Most people are conceived by parents under 40.
But many more folks survive, despite their faults.
But how can we support 12 billion ppl at present day North American
consumption levels?

Paul Erlich warmed about this 30 years ago, but then a gree revolution
occurred, and rice yeilds doubled.
GM cropping will be a boost, but not a complete saviour.
GM people engineered to eat **** and drink raw sewerage might be a great
idea,
with GM lungs that absorb CO2, and exhale 02.
Anyway, if Crunch Time happens, maybe we'll think of something.

Meanwhile, we'll leave the farm in worse condition than when we came to
it.

Andre thought I was wrong on this, and cited wildlife was worse on the
landscape than man
ever was, and cited Africa as an example.
In Oz, its man that's done HUGE damage to a fragile environment,
with crude farming practices. Before white men came, the kangaroos did
far less damage
than the cattle and sheep herds. Aboriginies numbered only maybe 3/4
million.
They'd been here for 60,000 years.
But since white men have been here, 200 mamal species have vanished
forever, and countless
other species are under threat, and the Murray Darling basin river
system
has nearly dried up completely as a result of 100 years of gross
mismanagment, outright greed,
and greenhouse effect.

Many other parts of the world have suffered environmental degradation
even without thr added
pressure of greenhouse and too many people.
Iraq is a prime example.
8,000 years of civilisation, and what's so marvellous about Iraq?

A village by a river in a nice fertile green valley turns into a town,
then a city, and
people have to travel further out for resources and finally, the city
becomes unable to
continue, so it all turns to dust.
But we discovered oil and technology, and mass transport, so cities just
keep
growing, like a cancer that's force fed.

The surrounding areas to support the city become as large as whole
countries,
and nature is forced back and back, and oops, no more tigers in the
wild,
oops, elephants have all been poached, etc, etc, etc.
People survive instead.
In 1,000 years at present rates, maybe only people in whatever form
evolves due to whatever gene research allows will be around.

Maybe it matters not one tiny bit because life probably is evolving on
millions of
other planets right now. Could have evolved, perished long ago,
and might evolve somewhere in the future.
We are utterly dumb when it comes to knowing what's out there.
And we have not found alternative life, let alone benefitted from
considering their science.

But if we found another world that was like ours but full of large
lizards, like here
some 100million years ago, then we mightn't be able to get there, to
kill them all and make the place ours.
There'd be nothing to learn from the dinosaurs. Alternatively, we make
contact with a planet that
is a million years ahead of us, and they kill us all in a week and take
our little home.

Meanwhile, there is no escape from being right here, right now.
Better be nice to the dentist.






But, most of us here are sitting in the water-rich, food-rich,
resource-rich, energy-rich, infrastructure-rich northern & western
hemispheres. Other parts of the world are very gradually catching up -
with specific reference to China and India - so there is for the very
first time genuine competition for ores and energy outside the North &
West. But still, it is hard for me to identify with Patrick's
situation in Australia - OK, I did spend a few years in Saudi - but we
had a good well and plenty of water - but the mind boggles at no rain
in six or seven years when we will get an average of 48 inches per
year and as many as 2 inches at a clip. And when our summer house
shallow-well (13 feet deep) produces at over 20gpm of very clear,
clean water - even after our short-term droughts of a few months at a
time.

Oz has always been a dry continent.
The vast majority of Oz gets below 10" of rain pa.
Its out of bounds for farmers.

We are a great big flat desert nation nearly as large as the US.

But we have 40% of the world's known deposits of uranium.
And huge amounts of other saleable minerals.

Population is about the same as Iraq, or California, but mostly
spread around the edge of the continent in cities.

I doubt very much Oz could support twice its polulation easily.

We may not be able to export food in future.

Much food grown here depends on rainfall, and river in-flows.
It only takes a few degrees of average temperature rise to
make land that has just sustained farming as we know it
from becomming non-farmable.

The aborginies have been here for at least 60,000 years and must have
witnessed
several ice ages come and go, and how they managed is a mystery,
but famine determined their fate like it still determines fate elsewhere
now.
Andre said so.
So the Abos didn't seem to have the time to invent the wheel, pottery,
or build cities.

When the whites came here in the late 1770s, european life styles
were more difficult than the blacks living in the good spots like
Sydney Harbour. So the blacks didn't seem to have any reason
to invent european civilisation on their own. Plenty land, good fishing,
good game, plenty other good bush tucker, and their life expectancy
wasn't too bad for hunter gatherer nomads.
They fought amoung themselves of course, but the smartest survived.

But Oz could never handle 22 million living like the abos.


And, it is very easy for 'fat-and-happy' sorts to either give
themselves cheap thrills by catastrophising and postulating dire
conditions "at some point in the future" - and equally, stunningly
stupidly postulating that as things are, they must continue to be.

Fat happy ppl have the time to wonder.

Some become archaeologists, and discover way **** has happened to folks
long dead.
Look at what happened to the people of Pompei.
But for me, I could fall off my bicycle, or be diagnosed with prostate
cancer
any time soon, so that'd be a disaster for me, even though life went on
OK for
many others.

Isn't getting old and dying the waste of a good man?

Poor, slim and mostly brown ppl don't wonder about much.
Thought is a threatening experience, because survival
might be challenged. There isn't much freedom.
People are so tired they don't think.


These are the irrisistable forces meeting the immovable objects - and
the bulk of this discussion. Add a little bit of pretense to these
positions and it becomes pretty entertaining on its face, but
exceedingly sad in that there are people who have lied to themselves
and those around them so very long that they have come to believe
their tripe.

If you believe all your own BS, you are in trouble.
To be successful, imho, one should know one can't ever be right all the
time.

I try to sometimes share the wonderment, and things which are
at least less than uncertain, like vacuum tube operation.

I've never been really fat, but I did become 2 stone overweight for
awhile,
and while overweight I didn't feel happy about it.
But I've always been a unhappy about a lot of things, so I cannot
classify myself
as part of the fat&happy brigade. I did find that after a rest of 13
years, I went
back to a bicycle and third world diet, and my weight went down to
what it was at my ideal best at 30, and I became happier overall.


I live a very different life to the majority around me who
rarely exercize, are very overweight, and have far more problems they
struggle with
than I do.
And how I am and how all those other ppl are makes it extremely unlikely
I will ever marry again.
Jenifer Hawkins isn't interested in me, but then she's terribly
expensive to run.


I look at the stars, and realize how little I know, and how unimportant
I am.
I ride up a mountain, and look down on my city, and what does it all
mean?

And I don't mind the uncertainty of thought and wonder.

Patrick Turner.






Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 4, 7:23*am, Patrick Turner wrote:

And better than wind power that kills birdlife would be solar power,
but ya can't talk the oil lobby to accept the change into solar.
And the whole energy thing looks set to become affected by greenhouse,
and if solar was accepted, then expect to have to pay a lot more for
everything,
not just for your electricity bills.

Patrick:

Solar power has a great many problems, amongst which a

a) Based on 2008 US Dollars, of the three primary sources of
"alternate enegy" being Wind, Nuclear and Solar, solar is the most
expensive.
- Wind: ~$1,800 KW installed.
- Nuclear: ~$7,900 KW installed
- Solar: ~$8,200 KW installed

b) Wind Turbines have an indefinite service life at 10% of installed-
cost/year in programmed maintenance, mostly bearings and blade care.
That is mightily cheap relative to any fuel-fired plant. As to bird-
life, recent studies (*NOT* by the power industry) suggest that good
design, slightly slower (longer, finer-pitch blades) and proper layout
(land hungry, sure) almost eliminate intereference with birds.
Further, at their worst, turbine farms kill fewer birds than tall
glass buildings both by area and absolute quantity.

c) Nuclear plants require relatively little maintenance as a
percentage of installed-cost as the installed cost is so immense. Fuel
and vigilance are the keys - as well as a very definite service-life
factor - thought 40 years ago to be approximately 30 years based on
the only serious reactor life studies available at the time - US naval
operations. Today it is considered to be between 50 and 75 years based
on units-in-service. Disposal of waste is another item that depends on
a national will - the logistical problems are long-solved - it is
BANANA and NIMBY that are the impediments.

d) Solar-to-Electricity is at the rump end of alternate power
generation. It is far-and-away the most costly to install, even the
best allotropic (nanocrystaline) flexible-film solar cells (not yet
practical for mass production, but close) have a less-than-20 year
service life, capture less than 15% of the available energy from
direct solar radiation at the equator, become less and less practical
as one moves further from the equator, require massive storage
facilities in order to meet overnight demand, considerable acreage
(exposure area) for any sort of practical application (such as
providing heating, cooling and cooking requirements for an average
household - and maybe charge the electric car as well) and so forth.
The state of New Jersey will subsidize solar installations for
residential and farm applications - the typical installation has an
exposure footprint of ~800 square feet (75 square meters), and costs
the homeowner roughly US$25,000 (the rest comes from the State) to
produce ~10KW. That comes to 10,000 watts of power, the equivalent of
about 80 amps @ 120V - for an average of about 6 hours per day.

At $0.14/kwh, and average us household consumption of 11,000 KW/
annually ($1540/year), that payback is 16 years - assuming solar will
provide all power required which it will not. *With* the subsidy.
Figure 10 years with anticipated rate increases. If there is no
subsidy, the equation goes over to net-negative by any measure as the
system will not generate enough power before failure to pay for
itself.

Rich people can afford it to be 'off the grid' and feel good about it.
But the life-cycle costs of solar power don't stop at the
installation. The manufacture use large quantities of toxic materials
(although the feedstock - sand - is nearly free), and disposal of the
ultimate waste is awkward - not to mention the battery storage system
manufacture and disposal costs.

Solar is quite practical in outer space, very distant locations off
the grid and desert-installed cell-towers, temporary highway signs
where servicing is difficult and so forth. But as a practical means of
general power generation, it is flat-out silly, wildly impractical but
an awfully attractive feel-good solution to the uninformed.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

snip much banter...


Let me use little words for you . He says that he doubts these
changes will happen until a disaster occurs. Are you claiming the
switch to renewables will not be voluntarily done after a disaster,
that is to say people would rather freeze in the dark than use
solar heating? Or are you saying alternative energy will be forced
upon the populace after the last well's production of oil is priced
at $1000 a barrel?



Interesting. At just what price will oil have to rise to before
we say. "**** it, we gotta build a lotta solar power stations!"
And,
"Where is that sales brochure for that electric car?"

Everyone moaned here when petrol went to $1.70 a litre.
It's gone down again a bit, so no more moans.
Interest rates just got lowered 0.25% from a high of around 7%, saving
home buyers $20 a week. Peanuts.

But the aud is heading lower against the usd, and our petrol price is
tied to the usd,
so in weeks to come petrol will rise as the aud falls, and that 0.25%
interest
cut will be swallowed up by fuel prices increasing and everything else
rising,
just when the Reserve bank thought they had inflation flattened
by damping demand. The banks will continue to make huge profits.

So, nothing seems to really change, and CO2 emissions continue
and people need their cars to get to work, even if they cannot repay
their mortgages
and have the house repossesed by the bank, and have given up
all expense on luxuries.

One wonders what $1,000 per barrel would do, but my guess
is that ***if it was sudden***, it'd bring a lot of real economic
misery, a Depression in fact.
Some filthy rich might survive, but the poor will be screwed.
In Oz with maybe 7 million vehicles, how do you suddenly change them all
to gas operation?
The Govt subsidises a change to gas power for cars now at $2,000 each
here,
but that sent up the price of the tradesmen who do it, and there is a
12mth waiting list.
If oil rose too fast, gas prices would rise in response to demand.
Still, if we trained those put out of work by rising oil prices to
be gasfitters to fit gas to vehicles, they'd be gainfully employed,
and life would proceed without oil for cars, busses, and trucks without
too much complaint.

But then coal would also have to rise in price to really make us shift
off carbon
burning to make electricity to avoid oil.

With coal AND oil prices both rising, we MIGHT build solar power
stations, and switch to electricity
for all energy needs including transport. Electric locomotives
will shift the freight.
But don't count on it because of the huge gas reserves.
Nuclear power stations have been considered for Oz, and they don't tell
us that we could then build our
own atomic weapons, but we could, to defend the remaining huge uranium
reserves we have.
But such stations take ages to build!

It looks likely we will try to burn what can be burnt rather than wean
ourselves off carbon NOW.
Vast gas reserves are being found in Oz now as we speak.

Gas burns with less CO2 emission per unit of heat.
It makes CO2 though.

The CO2 reduction may still be too little too late.

If we went to solar, maybe we'd wonder why the **** we used coal or oil
or gas or uranium.

But we are pre solar, not post solar, and the change over would cost us
dearly,
and nobody wants to pay.

But some things without carbon burning will be difficult, like baking
bricks for houses,
or making cement, or steel. Since China and India and other emerging
countries want to
have the good life NOW, then CO2 looks set to rise and rise.
And stay risen when the world population rises.

CO2 is only one of a huge range of problems, or at least very ugly world
happenings though.

Everyone can be rich, sure, at a price.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 4, 7:23 am, Patrick Turner wrote:

And better than wind power that kills birdlife would be solar power,
but ya can't talk the oil lobby to accept the change into solar.
And the whole energy thing looks set to become affected by greenhouse,
and if solar was accepted, then expect to have to pay a lot more for
everything,
not just for your electricity bills.

Patrick:

Solar power has a great many problems, amongst which a

a) Based on 2008 US Dollars, of the three primary sources of
"alternate enegy" being Wind, Nuclear and Solar, solar is the most
expensive.
- Wind: ~$1,800 KW installed.
- Nuclear: ~$7,900 KW installed
- Solar: ~$8,200 KW installed


I agree solar has heaps of problems.
ENORMOUS problems. Hell, for starters the sun don't shine at night,
and in winter it shines feebly.

We have a large coastline, so wave power looks like a good thing.
Also geothermal power from hot rock.

But if prices for oil, coal and gas rise enough then all alternatives
might become viable, but not without pain,
especially amoung the vested interests who hate change.

Many people around here hate the wind farms though. Noise, bird kills,
ruined views across the landscape, rural land values plummeting.
Meanwhile farmers not able to make it
anymore love the windmills being installed on hill tops on their farms
for the revenue they bring.

The market prices will propel the painful changes of the future.
And as supply changes, prices alter, and its a complex mix,
and not completely predictable.

Patrick Turner.





b) Wind Turbines have an indefinite service life at 10% of installed-
cost/year in programmed maintenance, mostly bearings and blade care.
That is mightily cheap relative to any fuel-fired plant. As to bird-
life, recent studies (*NOT* by the power industry) suggest that good
design, slightly slower (longer, finer-pitch blades) and proper layout
(land hungry, sure) almost eliminate intereference with birds.
Further, at their worst, turbine farms kill fewer birds than tall
glass buildings both by area and absolute quantity.

c) Nuclear plants require relatively little maintenance as a
percentage of installed-cost as the installed cost is so immense. Fuel
and vigilance are the keys - as well as a very definite service-life
factor - thought 40 years ago to be approximately 30 years based on
the only serious reactor life studies available at the time - US naval
operations. Today it is considered to be between 50 and 75 years based
on units-in-service. Disposal of waste is another item that depends on
a national will - the logistical problems are long-solved - it is
BANANA and NIMBY that are the impediments.

d) Solar-to-Electricity is at the rump end of alternate power
generation. It is far-and-away the most costly to install, even the
best allotropic (nanocrystaline) flexible-film solar cells (not yet
practical for mass production, but close) have a less-than-20 year
service life, capture less than 15% of the available energy from
direct solar radiation at the equator, become less and less practical
as one moves further from the equator, require massive storage
facilities in order to meet overnight demand, considerable acreage
(exposure area) for any sort of practical application (such as
providing heating, cooling and cooking requirements for an average
household - and maybe charge the electric car as well) and so forth.
The state of New Jersey will subsidize solar installations for
residential and farm applications - the typical installation has an
exposure footprint of ~800 square feet (75 square meters), and costs
the homeowner roughly US$25,000 (the rest comes from the State) to
produce ~10KW. That comes to 10,000 watts of power, the equivalent of
about 80 amps @ 120V - for an average of about 6 hours per day.

At $0.14/kwh, and average us household consumption of 11,000 KW/
annually ($1540/year), that payback is 16 years - assuming solar will
provide all power required which it will not. *With* the subsidy.
Figure 10 years with anticipated rate increases. If there is no
subsidy, the equation goes over to net-negative by any measure as the
system will not generate enough power before failure to pay for
itself.

Rich people can afford it to be 'off the grid' and feel good about it.
But the life-cycle costs of solar power don't stop at the
installation. The manufacture use large quantities of toxic materials
(although the feedstock - sand - is nearly free), and disposal of the
ultimate waste is awkward - not to mention the battery storage system
manufacture and disposal costs.

Solar is quite practical in outer space, very distant locations off
the grid and desert-installed cell-towers, temporary highway signs
where servicing is difficult and so forth. But as a practical means of
general power generation, it is flat-out silly, wildly impractical but
an awfully attractive feel-good solution to the uninformed.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 4, 9:20*pm, flipper wrote:

Almost as much as Andre does on his good days.

Flipper, you are a purblind idiot. With that in mind, your latest
buzzword (sophist/ry) may be taken for what it is worth - a cute
evasion by an equally ignorant advocate of the polar-opposite opinion.
This is not grade-school debate. Both of you might do with a slight re-
acquaintance with the writings of William of Occam.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 4, 10:14*pm, flipper wrote:

Thank you so very much for the vapid babble. I had forgotten how good
at it you are.

Mpffff... .

Your show is slipping.

(With apologies to Heywood Broun).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Dersu Uzala]

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:54:32 -0500, (Dersu Uzala) wrote:


In article ,
says...

"and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of
energy that have helped define its niche." No doubt referring to that
"dense accumulations of energy" we call the sun. No? Don't know about
you but when the sun wanes I'm planning to take the next space ship
out.

Not the Sun, but fossil fuels are the "dense accumulations of energy".

I know what the sophist 'meant' and it's sophist crap.

It may, or may not be crap, but are you saying he 'meant' the Sun? He
doesn't
mean the Sun. You have deficient comprehenson skills if you think he means
the
Sun.

Just how dense can you get? I know he 'meant' fossil fuels, for lack
of better specificity.

I did not write "No doubt referring to...the sun"- you did.
If you intended to mean ""No doubt referring to...fossil fuels", perhaps you
should have written "fossil fuels" or "oil", if that is what you meant to
say.






Although the Sun is dense, its radiation of energy as it reaches the
Earth is

rather diffuse.

And so is the released energy from burning 'oil'.

I'd rather float in a pool wearing a bathing suit than burn to death in a
oil
fire, how about you? What the hell are you talking about? Napalm is as
diffuse
an energy reaction as a sunny day's warmth? Are you bonkers?

I am 'talking about' what YOU said. You made the utterly irrelevant
point that the sun's radiant energy is 'diffuse' (by the time it
reaches earth) and I pointed out the irrelevancy of it by observing
the energy released from burring oil is also 'diffuse'.

Where the hell you come up with burning to death in an oil fire vs
going swimming is anyone's guess but if you're going to throw around
'bonkers' then that certainly qualifies.


When I read "dense accumulations of energy", I believe we are talking about
relative levels of energy concentration. You brought the Sun into the
discussion, as a 'dense accumulation of energy'. I pointed out that the Sun's
energy is not dense, I can be exposed to it all day, and end up a little
rosy. Oil, on the other hand, when its energy is released, burns hot.






All those solar cars built by undergrads weigh in at 75 lbs, a
go-cart powered by gasoline would beat them in a race with 5 ounces of
gas.
Nothing beats fossil fuels as a dense energy source.

B.S. Both fission and fusion does.

Modern cars directly powered from fission would be rather heavy, I think,
correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't seen that new Mr Fusion powered DeLorean
yet, which dealership is carrying now? Or a battery powered 18 wheeler.

You didn't say "Nothing beats fossil fuels for powering automobiles."
You said "Nothing beats fossil fuels as a dense energy source" and
that is not true. Both fission and fusion does.

Nit picking. As has been true for 50 years, fusion power is just around the
cornor.



Frankly, I don't give a tinker's dam if you want to believe that crap
but I'll fight to the last bullet, then sticks and stones if need be,
neo Nazi sophists that want to plunge mankind into a new dark age with
their "utopian alternative" of "severe, prolonged hardship."

How obtuse can you be? There are two concepts here! Two! Not one! Count them
with me!
1 renewable energy ("utopian alternative")
2 fossil fuel depletion ("severe, prolonged hardship.")

You repeated claim that he wants to, like a Nazi, force the world into
"a new dark age with their "utopian alternative" of "severe, prolonged
hardship."

You are conjoining the two concepts, with illogical, illiterate
mental super-glue! He did not write that! If you think he did, read it again,
give it to someone else to read, get their interpretation. How could a
"utopian alternative" be "severe, prolonged hardship"? He offers these TWO
scenarios as two distinct, not conjoined, independant concepts.

You got it all ass-backwards.

You can't drill you way out of the problem.

That is a currently popular sophism, to refer to 'the problem' without
stating what 'the problem' is. Do you know what 'problem' Pickens is
talking about? It's domestic energy production vs buying from others;
the "massive transfer of wealth" he speaks of.

That has nothing to do with the sophist's argument and nothing to do
with imposing "severe, prolonged hardship" on anyone.

re-insert:
The depletion of fossil fuels is independent from all ideologies and politics
as long as we continue to burn them in the present manner. The depletion of
fossil fuels is geology. You can't drill you way out of the problem. Ask
Texas
oilman T.Boone Pickens.

I doubt you know what Pickens thinks but if you open your eyeballs you
might see his latest commercial where he opens with "I say drill,
drill, drill."

**** you.
http://www.pickensplan.com/
America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70% of our
oil at a cost of $700 billion a year - four times the annual cost of the Iraq
war.

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill
our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy network, we can break
our addiction to foreign oil.



History shows that supply and demand works. The burden of proof is on
your 'disaster' scenario sophists to show otherwise and just writing a
pile of sophist "the world is coming to an end" papers isn't 'proof'.

I will pay you $50,000,000 for a Dodo. I guess not enough for you to be
bothered with, huh? But the market will provide, yes? The market isn't
geology.



The original writer I quoted called it 'utopian' because he doubts
that the changes needed will be done voluntarily,
and will only be attempted
after great hardship. You do know that 'utopia' means 'no-where', right?

A lovely bit of sophist crap. Utopian means having the characteristics
of 'Utopia', an 'ideal community', taken from the title of a book
written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More describing a fictional island in
the Atlantic Ocean, possessing a seemingly perfect
socio-politico-legal system.

Unless otherwise made clear, 'Utopia', and variants, refers to
'idealness' and not 'imaginary' but it is typical sophist crap to
employ doublespeak.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utopian
u·to·pi·an
adj.
1. often Utopian Of, relating to, describing or having the characteristics
of a

Utopia: a Utopian island; Utopian novels.
2.
a. Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme for
equalizing wealth.
b. Proposing impracticably ideal schemes.

I see both 2a and 2b using 'imaginary' as intrinsic to the definition.
The word comes from Greek: ??, "not", and t?p??, "place", indicating that
More
was utilizing the concept as allegory and did not consider such an ideal
place
to be realistically possible. I'd say the primary meaning must include the
sense that "it ain't gonna happen"

Let's test your theory by substituting what you claim is 'the meaning'
of the word for the word.

His text then becomes

"This is a not-going-to-happen alternative that, as
suggested above, will come about only if..."

How can it be 'not-going-to-happen' if, in the very next breath, he
explains how to make it come about?

He says, the switch to renewables would be best done before a crises, but
will most likely only happen after a crises. Saying the switch will occur
before the crises is 'utopian', ie, 'not-going-to-happen'. After a crises, it
may well happen, but the crises is not something engineered to force the
switch to renewables.


So, now, let's be fair and test my theory that he means 'ideal'. His
text then becomes

"This is a(n) ideal alternative that, as
suggested above, will come about only if..."

You are such an ass. A less awkward phrase could be 'desired, but unlikely'
"This is a 'desired, but unlikely' alternative that, as
suggested above, will come about only if..."


I'm begining to think " sophist crap " means something written by anyone
more
intelligent than Flipper.

That's amusing coming from someone who can't even see what the sophist
they're defending is actually proposing.

Ha Ha Ha


You explain your own twisted logic, I can't. In my version of english,
voluntary and fiat are antonyms. If civilization lasts, it will choose
alternative energy sources, since fossil fuels will not be an option
available.

As just shown above, the quote you pasted explicitly says the "soft
landing" is 'not-going-to-happen' voluntarily. It "will come about
only if severe, prolonged hardship" is imposed.

Where does he say imposed? Where? He says it will occur naturally if nothing
is done.




Godwin's Law applies here.

Calling a duck a duck is not Godwin's Law.

yes, but calling someone you disagree with a NAZI in an internet debate is
an
example of Godwin's Law, unless your opponent lived in Germany during the
1920-1940's.

In the first place I said "Neo NAZI," not "NAZI," and it is still the
case that calling a duck a duck is not Godwin's Law.

Ha ha ha, well, I guess that 'neo' gets you off the hook.



I asked: Did you read anything at the website?

You replied:I read it a long time ago and numerous times since. It began
as
crap and still is.

You're funny.


I'm glad you're amused.

I'm easily amused. Maybe another go-round for you will finally do the
trick.
You seem to hope that it will one day de-crappify itself, which is
interesting,

since, as I'm sure you have noticed, the site has been static for years, as
the

site itself tells you on it's homepage. Perhaps your unconscious mind is
hoping

your conscious mind will retract from your asshole enough to not
misinterpet
the site.

I don't know if you're intentionally shooting for most irrational
non-sequitur of the week, or not, but you're in the running
regardless.

To wit, if I see a pile of crap and say "that's a pile of crap" it
doesn't mean I expect the pile of crap to magically turn into a rose
garden and you imagining otherwise is, to use your own words,
"bonkers."

"I read it a long time ago and numerous times since."
Then why do you repeatedly go back to the site, and read static pages that
have not changed in years? Failing memory?

"Never argue with a porpoise. It just frustrates you and irritates the
porpoise."

[tubegarden]

Hi RATs!

OK, so my poetic pairing of "Nazi Nixies" was pretty ****ty and has
drawn several flies. Oh, well.

Each of us lives and suffers and enjoys various bits of the journey
from pussy to grave. Some fall out of the pussy, dead before they are
born, but ...

I am not worried about us ruining the Universe. It is clear, to me, it
was well ruined already, long before us humans showed up and started
complaining about every silly thing we encountered, even if only in
our somewhat less than Brilliant! imaginations.

If you want to believe you are the Crown of Creation, fine, but, we
all only get one ride and then, poof, we return to perfection, +/- 3dB

I was once "young and smart and looking around".

I am old and have been retrofitted with less brain power and lots of
pain.

It does not change what happens when I hear music, fresh and alive, or
long confused and mostly forgotten memories, which only survive
because of the joy I encountered, occasionally.

If you really think human speech can conquer our ability to define any
and every thing as a problem which requires a solution, good on you,
mate.

John Lennon was a silly git, but, he did hear some good things. "There
are no problems, only solutions."

"We may talk of all things dear, while we drink our gin and beer, but
when the party turns to slaughter, we will do it on potable water.
There may be nobler thoughts than I have had, Rusty Tin."

Happy Ears!
Al

[Peter Wieck]

Would it be possible for you to write one cogent and coherent
sentence?

Further, would it be possible for you to write an entire sentence
without using "sophist" or one of its forms, cogency and coherence
notwithstanding?

Apart from that, there is a certain perverse pleasure in watching two
pigs wrestling in their own manure - sadly and unusually in this case,
neither of the pigs appears to be enjoying itself particularly much.
Both take themselves far to seriously.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Peter Wieck]

You are what? 19? 24? Usually after age 24, or so, individuals are not
so tickled when they almost learn the meaning of a new word. That you
manage to use it three times in three successive sentences illustrates
that you do not understand that even "neat new" words lose their
impact on excessive repetition. I also use the adverb "almost" as you
do not understand the word, its roots or its intended meaning. The way
you choose to abuse it, "artful" would likely be more appropriate, if
not more accurate. But your writings are so obtuse as to make your
actual intention unclear.

That you have been posting a while puts you more at the 24 range by my
guess. Sad.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Dersu Uzala]

Here is the original quote, found near the bottom of this post, in
conclusions, in better context:

http://dieoff.org/page134.htm
PROBLEM SOLVING, ENERGY, AND SUSTAINABILITY
This historical discussion gives a perspective on what it means to be
practical and sustainable. A few years ago I described about two dozen
societies that have collapsed (Tainter 1988). In no case is it evident or even
likely that any of these societies collapsed because its members or leaders
did not take practical steps to resolve its problems (Tainter 1988). The
experience of the Roman Empire is again instructive. Most actions that the
Roman government took in response to crises-such as debasing the currency,
raising taxes, expanding the army, and conscripting labor-were practical
solutions to immediate problems. It would have been unthinkable not to adopt
such measures. Cumulatively, however, these practical steps made the empire
ever weaker, as the capital stock (agricultural land and peasants) was
depleted through taxation and conscription. Over time, devising practical
solutions drove the Roman Empire into diminishing, then negative, returns to
complexity. The implication is that to focus a problem-solving system, such as
ecological economics, on practical applications will not automatically
increase its value to society, nor enhance sustainability. The historical
development of problem-solving systems needs to be understood and taken into
consideration.

Most who study contemporary issues certainly would agree that solving
environmental and economic problems requires both knowledge and education. A
major part of our response to current problems has been to increase our level
of research into environmental matters, including global change. As our
knowledge increases and practical solutions emerge, governments will implement
solutions and bureaucracies will enforce them. New technologies will be
developed. Each of these steps will appear to be a practical solution to a
specific problem. Yet cumulatively these practical steps are likely to bring
increased complexity, higher costs, and diminishing returns to problem
solving.' Richard Norgaard has stated the problem well: "Assuring
sustainability by extending the modem agenda ... will require, by several
orders of magnitude, more data collection, interpretation, planning, political
decision-making, and bureaucratic control" (Norgaard 1994).

Donella Meadows and her colleagues have given excellent examples of the
economic constraints of contemporary problem solving. To raise world food
production from 1951-1966 by 34%, for example, required increasing
expenditures on tractors of 63%, on nitrate fertilizers of 146%, and on
pesticides of 300%. To remove all organic wastes from a sugar-processing plant
costs 100 times more than removing 30%. To reduce sulfur dioxide in the air of
a U.S. city by 9.6 times, or particulates by 3.1 times, raises the cost of
pollution control by 520 times (Meadows et al. 1972). All environmental
problem solving will face constraints of this kind.

Bureaucratic regulation itself generates further complexity and costs. As
regulations are issued and taxes established, those who are regulated or taxed
seek loopholes and lawmakers strive to close these. A competitive spiral of
loophole discovery and closure unfolds, with complexity continuously
increasing (Olson 1982). In these days when the cost of government lacks
political support, such a strategy is unsustainable. It is often suggested
that environmentally benign behavior should be elicited through taxation
incentives rather than through regulations. While this approach has some
advantages, it does not address the problem of complexity, and may not reduce
overall regulatory costs as much as is thought. Those costs may only be
shifted to the taxation authorities, and to the society as a whole.

It is not that research, education, regulation, and new technologies cannot
potentially alleviate our problems. With enough investment perhaps they can.
The difficulty is that these investments will be costly, and may require an
increasing share of each nation's gross domestic product. With diminishing
returns to problem solving, addressing environmental issues in our
conventional way means that more resources will have to be allocated to
science, engineering, and government. In the absence of high economic growth
this would require at least a temporary decline in the standard of living, as
people would have comparatively less to spend on food, housing, clothing,
medical care, transportation, and entertainment.

To circumvent costliness in problem solving it is often suggested that we use
resources more intelligently and efficiently. Timothy Allen and Thomas
Hoekstra, for example, have suggested that in managing ecosystems for
sustainability, managers should identify what is missing from natural
regulatory process and provide only that. The ecosystem will do the rest. Let
the ecosystem (i.e., solar energy) subsidize the management effort rather than
the other way around (Allen and Hoekstra 1992). It is an intelligent
suggestion. At the same time, to implement it would require much knowledge
that we do not now possess. That means we need research that is complex and
costly, and requires fossil-fuel subsidies. Lowering the costs of complexity
in one sphere causes them to rise in another.

Agricultural pest control illustrates this dilemma. As the spraying of
pesticides exacted higher costs and yielded fewer benefits, integrated pest
management was developed. This system relies on biological knowledge to reduce
the need for chemicals, and employs monitoring of pest populations, use of
biological controls, judicious application of chemicals, and careful selection
of crop types and planting dates (Norgaard 1994). It is an approach that
requires both esoteric research by scientists and careful monitoring by
farmers. Integrated pest management violates the principle of complexity
aversion, which may partly explain why it is not more widely used.

Such issues help to clarify what constitutes a sustainable society. The fact
that problem-solving systems seem to evolve to greater complexity, higher
costs, and diminishing returns has significant implications for
sustainability. In time, systems that develop in this way are either cut off
from further finances, fail to solve problems, collapse, or come to require
large energy subsidies. This has been the pattern historically in such cases
as the Roman Empire, the Lowland Classic Maya, Chacoan Society of the American
Southwest, warfare in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and some aspects of
contemporary problem solving (that is, in every case that I have investigated
in detail) (Tainter 1988, 1992, 1994b, 1995a). These historical patterns
suggest that one of the characteristics of a sustainable society will be that
it has a sustainable system of problem solving-one with increasing or stable
returns, or diminishing returns that can be financed with energy subsidies of
assured supply, cost, and quality.

Industrialism illustrates this point. It generated its own problems of
complexity and costliness. These included railways and canals to distribute
coal and manufactured goods, the development of an economy increasingly based
on money and wages, and the development of new technologies. While such
elements of complexity are usually thought to facilitate economic growth, in
fact they can do so only when subsidized by energy. Some of the new
technologies, such as the steam engine, showed diminishing returns to
innovation quite early in their development (Wilkinson 1973; Giarini and
Louberge 1978; Giarini 1984). What set industrialism apart from all of the
previous history of our species was its reliance on abundant, concentrated,
high-quality energy (Hall et al. 1992). 5 With subsidies of inexpensive fossil
fuels, for a long time many consequences of industrialism effectively did not
matter. Industrial societies could afford them. When energy costs are met
easily and painlessly, benefit/cost ratio to social investments can be
substantially ignored (as it has been in contemporary industrial agriculture).
Fossil fuels made industrialism, and all that flowed from it (such as science,
transportation, medicine, employment, consumerism, high-technology war, and
contemporary political organization), a system of problem solving that was
sustainable for several generations.

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
If our efforts to understand and resolve such matters as global change involve
increasing political, technological, economic, and scientific complexity, as
it seems they will, then the availability of energy per capita will be a
constraining factor. To increase complexity on the basis of static or
declining energy supplies would require lowering the standard of living
throughout the world. In the absence of a clear crisis very few people would
support this. To maintain political support for our current and future
investments in complexity thus requires an increase in the effective per
capita supply of energy-either by increasing the physical availability of
energy, or by technical, political, or economic innovations that lower the
energy cost of our standard of living. Of course, to discover such innovations
requires energy, which underscores the constraints in the energy-complexity
relation.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter on the past clarifies potential paths to the future. One
often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy
costs. This could come about through the "crash" that many fear-a genuine
collapse over a period of one or two generations, with much violence,
starvation, and loss of population. The alternative is the "soft landing" that
many people hope for-a voluntary change to solar energy and green fuels,
energy-conserving technologies, and less overall consumption. This is a
utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will come about only if severe,
prolonged hardship in industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic
growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology.

The more likely option is a future of greater investments in problem solving,
increasing overall complexity, and greater use of energy. This option is
driven by the material comforts it provides, by vested interests, by lack of
alternatives, and by our conviction that it is good. If the trajectory of
problem solving that humanity has followed for much of the last 12,000 years
should continue, it is the path that we are likely to take in the near future.

Regardless of when our efforts to understand and resolve contemporary problems
reach diminishing returns, one point should be clear. It is essential to know
where we are in history (Tainter 1995a). If macroeconomic patterns develop
over periods of generations or centuries, it is not possible to comprehend our
current conditions unless we understand where we are in this process. We have
the the opportunity to become the first people in history to understand how a
society's problem-solving abilities change. To know that this is possible yet
not to act upon it would be a great failure of the practical application of
ecological economics.

[Jon Yaeger]

Fascinating, Dersu.

Just what does this essay have to so with the subject of tubes?

Maybe you and Andre can become pen pens, and spare us the obiter dicta.

Cheers,

Jon






in article , Dersu Uzala at
wrote on 9/5/08 10:21 AM:

Here is the original quote, found near the bottom of this post, in
conclusions, in better context:

http://dieoff.org/page134.htm
PROBLEM SOLVING, ENERGY, AND SUSTAINABILITY
This historical discussion gives a perspective on what it means to be
practical and sustainable. A few years ago I described about two dozen
societies that have collapsed (Tainter 1988). In no case is it evident or even
likely that any of these societies collapsed because its members or leaders
did not take practical steps to resolve its problems (Tainter 1988). The
experience of the Roman Empire is again instructive. Most actions that the
Roman government took in response to crises-such as debasing the currency,
raising taxes, expanding the army, and conscripting labor-were practical
solutions to immediate problems. It would have been unthinkable not to adopt
such measures. Cumulatively, however, these practical steps made the empire
ever weaker, as the capital stock (agricultural land and peasants) was
depleted through taxation and conscription. Over time, devising practical
solutions drove the Roman Empire into diminishing, then negative, returns to
complexity. The implication is that to focus a problem-solving system, such as
ecological economics, on practical applications will not automatically
increase its value to society, nor enhance sustainability. The historical
development of problem-solving systems needs to be understood and taken into
consideration.

Most who study contemporary issues certainly would agree that solving
environmental and economic problems requires both knowledge and education. A
major part of our response to current problems has been to increase our level
of research into environmental matters, including global change. As our
knowledge increases and practical solutions emerge, governments will implement
solutions and bureaucracies will enforce them. New technologies will be
developed. Each of these steps will appear to be a practical solution to a
specific problem. Yet cumulatively these practical steps are likely to bring
increased complexity, higher costs, and diminishing returns to problem
solving.' Richard Norgaard has stated the problem well: "Assuring
sustainability by extending the modem agenda ... will require, by several
orders of magnitude, more data collection, interpretation, planning, political
decision-making, and bureaucratic control" (Norgaard 1994).

Donella Meadows and her colleagues have given excellent examples of the
economic constraints of contemporary problem solving. To raise world food
production from 1951-1966 by 34%, for example, required increasing
expenditures on tractors of 63%, on nitrate fertilizers of 146%, and on
pesticides of 300%. To remove all organic wastes from a sugar-processing plant
costs 100 times more than removing 30%. To reduce sulfur dioxide in the air of
a U.S. city by 9.6 times, or particulates by 3.1 times, raises the cost of
pollution control by 520 times (Meadows et al. 1972). All environmental
problem solving will face constraints of this kind.

Bureaucratic regulation itself generates further complexity and costs. As
regulations are issued and taxes established, those who are regulated or taxed
seek loopholes and lawmakers strive to close these. A competitive spiral of
loophole discovery and closure unfolds, with complexity continuously
increasing (Olson 1982). In these days when the cost of government lacks
political support, such a strategy is unsustainable. It is often suggested
that environmentally benign behavior should be elicited through taxation
incentives rather than through regulations. While this approach has some
advantages, it does not address the problem of complexity, and may not reduce
overall regulatory costs as much as is thought. Those costs may only be
shifted to the taxation authorities, and to the society as a whole.

It is not that research, education, regulation, and new technologies cannot
potentially alleviate our problems. With enough investment perhaps they can.
The difficulty is that these investments will be costly, and may require an
increasing share of each nation's gross domestic product. With diminishing
returns to problem solving, addressing environmental issues in our
conventional way means that more resources will have to be allocated to
science, engineering, and government. In the absence of high economic growth
this would require at least a temporary decline in the standard of living, as
people would have comparatively less to spend on food, housing, clothing,
medical care, transportation, and entertainment.

To circumvent costliness in problem solving it is often suggested that we use
resources more intelligently and efficiently. Timothy Allen and Thomas
Hoekstra, for example, have suggested that in managing ecosystems for
sustainability, managers should identify what is missing from natural
regulatory process and provide only that. The ecosystem will do the rest. Let
the ecosystem (i.e., solar energy) subsidize the management effort rather than
the other way around (Allen and Hoekstra 1992). It is an intelligent
suggestion. At the same time, to implement it would require much knowledge
that we do not now possess. That means we need research that is complex and
costly, and requires fossil-fuel subsidies. Lowering the costs of complexity
in one sphere causes them to rise in another.

Agricultural pest control illustrates this dilemma. As the spraying of
pesticides exacted higher costs and yielded fewer benefits, integrated pest
management was developed. This system relies on biological knowledge to reduce
the need for chemicals, and employs monitoring of pest populations, use of
biological controls, judicious application of chemicals, and careful selection
of crop types and planting dates (Norgaard 1994). It is an approach that
requires both esoteric research by scientists and careful monitoring by
farmers. Integrated pest management violates the principle of complexity
aversion, which may partly explain why it is not more widely used.

Such issues help to clarify what constitutes a sustainable society. The fact
that problem-solving systems seem to evolve to greater complexity, higher
costs, and diminishing returns has significant implications for
sustainability. In time, systems that develop in this way are either cut off
from further finances, fail to solve problems, collapse, or come to require
large energy subsidies. This has been the pattern historically in such cases
as the Roman Empire, the Lowland Classic Maya, Chacoan Society of the American
Southwest, warfare in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and some aspects of
contemporary problem solving (that is, in every case that I have investigated
in detail) (Tainter 1988, 1992, 1994b, 1995a). These historical patterns
suggest that one of the characteristics of a sustainable society will be that
it has a sustainable system of problem solving-one with increasing or stable
returns, or diminishing returns that can be financed with energy subsidies of
assured supply, cost, and quality.

Industrialism illustrates this point. It generated its own problems of
complexity and costliness. These included railways and canals to distribute
coal and manufactured goods, the development of an economy increasingly based
on money and wages, and the development of new technologies. While such
elements of complexity are usually thought to facilitate economic growth, in
fact they can do so only when subsidized by energy. Some of the new
technologies, such as the steam engine, showed diminishing returns to
innovation quite early in their development (Wilkinson 1973; Giarini and
Louberge 1978; Giarini 1984). What set industrialism apart from all of the
previous history of our species was its reliance on abundant, concentrated,
high-quality energy (Hall et al. 1992). 5 With subsidies of inexpensive fossil
fuels, for a long time many consequences of industrialism effectively did not
matter. Industrial societies could afford them. When energy costs are met
easily and painlessly, benefit/cost ratio to social investments can be
substantially ignored (as it has been in contemporary industrial agriculture).
Fossil fuels made industrialism, and all that flowed from it (such as science,
transportation, medicine, employment, consumerism, high-technology war, and
contemporary political organization), a system of problem solving that was
sustainable for several generations.

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
If our efforts to understand and resolve such matters as global change involve
increasing political, technological, economic, and scientific complexity, as
it seems they will, then the availability of energy per capita will be a
constraining factor. To increase complexity on the basis of static or
declining energy supplies would require lowering the standard of living
throughout the world. In the absence of a clear crisis very few people would
support this. To maintain political support for our current and future
investments in complexity thus requires an increase in the effective per
capita supply of energy-either by increasing the physical availability of
energy, or by technical, political, or economic innovations that lower the
energy cost of our standard of living. Of course, to discover such innovations
requires energy, which underscores the constraints in the energy-complexity
relation.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter on the past clarifies potential paths to the future. One
often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy
costs. This could come about through the "crash" that many fear-a genuine
collapse over a period of one or two generations, with much violence,
starvation, and loss of population. The alternative is the "soft landing" that
many people hope for-a voluntary change to solar energy and green fuels,
energy-conserving technologies, and less overall consumption. This is a
utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will come about only if severe,
prolonged hardship in industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic
growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology.

The more likely option is a future of greater investments in problem solving,
increasing overall complexity, and greater use of energy. This option is
driven by the material comforts it provides, by vested interests, by lack of
alternatives, and by our conviction that it is good. If the trajectory of
problem solving that humanity has followed for much of the last 12,000 years
should continue, it is the path that we are likely to take in the near future.

Regardless of when our efforts to understand and resolve contemporary problems
reach diminishing returns, one point should be clear. It is essential to know
where we are in history (Tainter 1995a). If macroeconomic patterns develop
over periods of generations or centuries, it is not possible to comprehend our
current conditions unless we understand where we are in this process. We have
the the opportunity to become the first people in history to understand how a
society's problem-solving abilities change. To know that this is possible yet
not to act upon it would be a great failure of the practical application of
ecological economics.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 5, 10:21*am, (Dersu Uzala) wrote:

Much stuff of dubious utility.

Without oversimplifying too much, historical events such as the fall
of the Roman Empire, the eventual dissolution of the British Empire,
the abortive attempt by Japan to expand their empire in this century
and so forth haven't much relevance to "our" present situation.

a) The world population has increased just a bit in the last 1900
years, or so.
b) Warmaking (and defense) have gotten a bit more sophisticated in the
last 1900 years, or so.
c) The top tier of society is hugely more separated from the bottom
tier of society than it was 1900 years ago - although the illusion of
upward mobility is far more universal today than it was then.

Right now, for the "typical North American/European/Japanese" (about
15% of the world's population) individual to live as they do, it is
necessary that the remaining 85% (for the most part) live as they do.
That 85% is getting a bit testy about that, further, they are getting
even more testy about *not* being able to enjoy the top-tier life-
style _ever_ as the world simply cannot sustain it. Example: Were
China and India to use the same amount of energy per-capita as the
typical American, they would consume something over 200% of the total
energy presently produced on earth by all sources, annually. That is
ONE single "consumable" - not extending to good protein, clean water
and clean air.

As few as 20 years ago, it was reasonably accurate to state that the
United Euro States of the World consumed relative to their
productivity and ingenuity. Today, that is no longer such a good
argument - and those "states" are also starting for the very first
time to lose both their educational primacy and their creative
primacy. Not yet entirely, but on an increasingly steep curve.

Put simply, the world is different. Our grandchildren will live in
something that is not even the first cousin of what we enjoy today.
The best we can do for them is educate them, and prepare them to be
better, brighter, more creative, more attentive, more resilient than
their peers in the next house, county, country and hemisphere. Within
a very few years, pretty much every intellectual task up to and
including micro-surgery will no longer require a physical presence to
perform.

Under this scenario - and I challenge any individual here to dispute
its inevitability by actual facts showing otherwise - "sustainability"
has an entirely different meaning than net-neutral use of energy. It
cannot be net-neutral without huge social and political fallout. The
use of energy, the need for good protein, clean water and clean air
will only increase or what is increasingly and inevitably a homogenous
society "by need" will break down. And break-down means War at one
level or another, economic or shooting.

The likes of Flipper (in my opinion) represent that sort of person who
has never traveled by choice further than 200 miles from his
birthplace - and makes all judgments, renders all opinions based on a
provincial view sustained by carefully chosen data is culled so as not
to threaten a fiercely defended illlusion of superiority. In this so-
called "knowledge based society" here in the United States, the *HIGH
SCHOOL* graduation rate has dropped 20 points in the last 35 years.
Howinhell does the United States expect to retain its self-claimed
World Primacy with an increasingly ignorant society?

As to Drilling in ANWR - it will take (per the DOE) somewhere between
3 and 6 years, somewhere between 3 and 6 Billion (with a B) dollars
and the further development of on-North America refining capacity (at
additional cost, of course) before the first drop of this oil reaches
the first SUV in Arkansas. And, even using the DOE's most optimistic
prediction, ALL the oil there would last at present consumtion, from
14 to 30 months. Then it would be gone. Of course this is an "artful"
statement as it would take about 10 years (at about 20% of present
demand) to really pump it dry using the North Slope production figures
as the base. Further to this, the US has only about a 95% in-country
refinery capacity - assuming 100% production - which is never.

"Sophistry" - Flipper's word for "I don't understand, so it must be
wrong".

But using historical examples is equally dangerous as it almost
inevitably leads to the belief that the problem is insoluble - only
delaying the inevitable is possible. And by historical examples, it
is. So, we will have to respond differently. And _CHANGE_ is the most
terrifying threat of all, especially that which reaches down to every
aspect of our life, personal space and closely held beliefs.

The only thing that is clear is that "more of the same" whether that
same is 8 or 8000 years old won't work.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

The confessed garage vermin Jon Yaeger wrote:
Fascinating, Dersu.

Just what does this essay have to so with the subject of tubes?

Maybe you and Andre can become pen pens, and spare us the obiter dicta.

Cheers,

Jon

Leave me out of it, sonny. Flipper is doing such a good job of putting
down the neo-Marxist compusionists, he doesn't need my help, so I
haven't even read the latest splodge of stodge from the anonymous
clown Dersu Uzala (is he not Pompass Plodnick, aka Henry Pasternack?).

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent for inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing elegantly

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 5, 12:09*pm, Andre Jute wrote:


so I haven't even read the latest splodge of stodge from the anonymous
clown Dersu Uzala (is he not Pompass Plodnick, aka Henry Pasternack?).

Keeerist, Andre, pretty soon you will be thinking Henry is living
under your bed. It is absolutely amazing that you give someone that
sort of power over you. It is almost as precious as the interactions
between the "brothers Morein".

Just a bit of advice on that by the way and assuming that you own a
bed: Cut the legs off of it. That should give you at least a little
peace-of-mind.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA