[Luis Dias]

Anything that remotely changes the status quo becomes a threat to these guys. Nuclear can solve the whole climate change thing, and being at the same time the safest energy technology ever invented? Oh darn that cannot be it, they must be hiding the corpses somewhere, I got these conspiracy papers that tell me at least a million died in Chernobyl, this **** is too dangerous for mankind, this is not the solution!

Alright, so lets build water dam.... WHAT are you talking you ecossystemic threat! Dams are the worst **** ever invented for local ecossystems, they change everything, what about the fishes that try to go up the river, what abo

OK OK, sigh, so what about this wind thing, can we get it to work, like, you always digged win.... HAVEN'T You noticed the skyrocketing numbers of birds being killed in their blades? Are you this ****ing BLIND and IMPERVIOUS to nature's suffering? Clearly you are borderline psych

OOOKK man, jesus, alright, so what about solar? It's getting up and up and eventually it will give us the ent.... PATHETIC. You obviously failed to notice the eggregious amounts of toxic materials these evil corporations are using in these panels, we will kill the environment sooner rather than lat

I GIVE UP, what the HELL do you propose THEN?

Well, I thought it was obvious, I mean even Aardwolf gets it perfectly right: we should simply stop consuming, this capitalist world is just terribad and the caves were just awesome.

[zookeeper]

The last time I checked, basically all "greens" like solar and wind power a whole lot and want to see more of it, not less. In what country is the opposite true?

[Phantom Hoover]

Aye, in the UK anti-wind power campaigns are mainly the domain of the rural right wing, who are pretty much diametrically opposed to the Greens.

[SpardaSon21]

I'm sorry Luis, but Greens in the U.S. do love wind and solar, despite wind turbines killing migrating birds left and right.  Apparently its okay to harm animal species if you're an "approved" power source, but things that doesn't have the official stamp of approval like clean natural gas and clean nuclear get hated at every turn.

For those unaware, the U.S. has immense reserves of shale-locked natural gas we need to frack to get.  What makes getting at it so vital to the environmental cause is all that gas would allow us to convert existing coal plants to burn CNG instead of coal, drastically cutting emissions.

[swashmebuckle]

I would guess that there is significant overlap between the group of people that is most adamant about moving us exclusively to renewables and the group of people that is most easily alarmed by the environmental drawbacks of those renewables. I don't know if those concerns have much of an impact on the overall platform of the green party here in the US though.

It is true though that every time a windmill kills an endangered bird an oil tycoon gets a boner.

[Scotty]

The primary backlash against fracking (at least from what I saw; this is not an objective claim) was that it had a tendency to turn water supplies flammable near fracking sites.

Which of course is mostly false, but when did that ever stop anyone?

[Aardwolf]

If you continue to push an absurd argument that makes you look like a colossal dick, perhaps you should reexamine your argument.

No. You made assumptions about what my argument is, and those assumptions were untrue.

Specifically, it seems you assumed that I was advocating reverting to ye olden food/medicine/shelter technology. Why would I advocate cutting the essentials, when there are things that are wasteful and unnecessary like automobiles and bottled water¹ that could be cut? I wouldn't, and I didn't.

In case you didn't understand the rationale for including the Sitting Bull quote: we have the technological and industrial means to leave no person unfed, unclothed, or unsheltered. We also have the means to make a whole lot of unnecessary consumer goods and to burn a whole lot of unnecessary fuel getting people and things from one place to another, and turn this planet into Venus II in the process. We can do one without the other. Take a guess which one I'm advocating.




@SpardaSon21: Yes, natural gas is better than coal, but reduced consumption is better than both, and especially better than natural gas + poisoned water.

@swashmebuckle, Spardason21: I think that birds-hitting-windmills thing is greatly exaggerated. Although IIRC it does cause trouble for bats?

@Scotty: "mostly false"? It's definitely true in some places. And it's not just flammable water, it's also the fact they're putting a slurry of (probably) toxic chemicals down to break up the rock. Chemicals which are kept secret, presumably because it would be very bad publicity if word got out. Secret even from the government, because Dick Cheney made a deal with the fracking companies that the government wouldn't ask what they were putting in the slurry as long as they promised they weren't putting diesel fuel in the slurry... and of course once that deal got made, they could have gone right back to putting diesel fuel in it and nobody would know. And there's also been a substantial increase in the severity and frequency of earthquakes in high-fracking areas.




¹I am aware that in some places the availability of potable water is a serious concern. I am not talking about cutting bottled water in those places. Do I really have to explicitly state that the position I'm advocating isn't the absurd one you'd get if you didn't apply common sense exceptions? Don't answer that.

Edited to add replies to more recent posts

[ssmit132]

when there are things that are wasteful and unnecessary like automobiles and bottled water that could be cut?

Erm, since when are automobiles "wasteful and unnecessary"? Look, I'm all for people to use public transport and walk short distances instead of using their cars. But, can everyone on the planet get anywhere they need to go, while transporting what they need with them, without using any sort of personal motor vehicle? Unless that's true, automobiles are hardly unnecessary.

[General Battuta]

If you continue to push an absurd argument that makes you look like a colossal dick, perhaps you should reexamine your argument.

No. You made assumptions about what my argument is, and those assumptions were untrue.

No assumptions were even necessary. You missed a basic truth of development - the increased efficiency per unit input that technological and capital growth enables. You asked why development couldn't be left to stagnate: ergo you asked why we can't just stop making factor productivity more efficient.

Again, you flat out asked what was bad about stagnation. Now you're asking why we can't be more efficient with what we have. These are opposite requests. Development over the course of the twentieth century was the process of learning how to make more out of less.

¹I am aware that in some places the availability of potable water is a serious concern. I am not talking about cutting bottled water in those places. Do I really have to explicitly state that the position I'm advocating isn't the absurd one you'd get if you didn't apply common sense exceptions? Don't answer that.

You will get common sense exceptions when your argument displays common sense.

The end you are arguing for is sane. It's the road map you have for getting there that's utterly disconnected from reality.

[General Battuta]

You proposed letting development stagnate in the third world. 'What's so bad about stagnation?' Stagnation is the failure to do more with less (thanks to smarter, healthier, more developed people and systems). That's what is bad about stagnation from a sustainability standpoint: it is the road to the Malthusian trap.

[Aardwolf]

Here is an absurd argument:

Let their development stagnate, in all fields, including the essentials for survival, i.e. food/water/shelter/clothing/medicine, while at the same time continuing to increase their population and rate of consumption.

Notice how as your remove some of those caveats the argument becomes less absurd. Now let's try looking at my actual argument:

Consume less, and don't reproduce so much. If reduced consumption causes factories to close and people to lose their jobs, there is still enough food/water/shelter/clothing/medicine to hypothetically support everyone, if only it can be distributed sanely.

Note that "consume less" was effectively the first thing I said. Then notice how I considered the fact that people would lose their jobs, and said "bleh" a lot, because if we can't distribute stuff sanely that's going to be a bad time¹ for a lot of people. And the thought of that displeases me, hence "bleh".

I then proceeded to ask what's so bad about stagnation. Apparently people can't take a "what's so bad about" question at face value. It would've been nice if somebody would've articulated what the problem is. The best answer I can extract from what you guys have said is "If you do it stupidly, it will be very bad." (which I already knew), and I had to come up with "To do it smartly would require a significantly different economic system" on my own (although I sort of already knew that one too).



When did I ask if we can't be more efficient? When I used the words "wasteful and unnecessary?, I wasn't talking about "make the process of making plastic for bottled water more efficient", I'm saying "drink tapwater".




¹Understatement

[Scotty]

Uh, "consume less and don't reproduce as much" is very much not what you actually said. 

]Seriously, what's so bad about letting development stagnate?

This has been explained to you in detail.  It has also been explained to you that development leads directly to consuming less per unit produced.

[General Battuta]

I then proceeded to ask what's so bad about stagnation. Apparently people can't take a "what's so bad about" question at face value. It would've been nice if somebody would've articulated what the problem is. The best answer I can extract from what you guys have said is "If you do it stupidly, it will be very bad." (which I already knew), and I had to come up with "To do it smartly would require a significantly different economic system" on my own (although I sort of already knew that one too).

Your question was taken at face value, and you received articulate answers, at great length. All you have managed to do in reply is desperately backpedal from the position you yourself defined:.

1Stagnation, the cessation of growth.

Most economic growth over the past century has been in the form of increased output per unit input: increased efficiency. You asked why it would be a bad idea for that to stop. You were told why it was a bad idea. Now the onus is on you to process what you've learned.

You have pitched several great ideas for sustainable development, all of which will be achieved through - and result in - economic growth. You yourself have made a compelling argument why stagnation is bad.

[General Battuta]

Maybe this is the simplest example that can drive the point home:

A steady-state resource economy, one which extracts resources only as fast as they are replaced, can still experience economic growth. Resources can be used to develop ways to better use resources.

A resource economy that pulls resources less quickly than they are replaced can still experience economic growth.

The key is in increasing factor productivity. And over the past century, increased factor productivity has been responsible for the lion's share of growth, not increased resource use.

[Aardwolf]

Uh, "consume less and don't reproduce as much" is very much not what you actually said.

It's the first think I said,

If everyone consumed less, emissions would decrease.

plus a bit of nuance to make explicit the fact that "while at the same time continuing to increase their population" is not part of my argument.

Seriously, what's so bad about letting development stagnate?

This has been explained to you in detail.

I only asked once? Twice if you count the time nobody replied to me.

It has also been explained to you that development leads directly to consuming less per unit produced.

No. Wrong kind of "consume". I am not talking about consuming less resources per product manufactured, I am talking about consuming less products.

Your question was taken at face value, and you received articulate answers, at great length.

That was in reference to the first time I asked it, and Scotty was like "I can't think of a way to answer that isn't condescending".

All you have managed to do in reply is desperately backpedal from the position you yourself defined:.

¹Stagnation, the cessation of growth.

That's not a position, it's a definition in a footnote. That's why it's formatted as such. If you wanted to tell me "you've got the definition of stagnation wrong" that would've been ok (and would've simplified this discussion considerably), but you didn't. The definition of stagnation is also ancillary to my actual argument

Consume less, and don't reproduce so much. If reduced consumption causes factories to close and people to lose their jobs, there is still enough food/water/shelter/clothing/medicine to hypothetically support everyone, if only it can be distributed sanely.

Most economic growth over the past century has been in the form of increased output per unit input: increased efficiency. You asked why it would be a bad idea for that to stop.

I asked why it was a bad idea for development (specifically going on in "developing countries") to "stagnate", with a footnote saying "this is the definition of stagnate that I am using".

stuff

Yes, you can improve efficiency, but that is the domain of specialized engineers. That is what was being discussed before I entered the discussion with an alternative idea which is easier for individuals to participate in: consuming less products. Running out of resources is a concern, but I'm not sure why you're bringing that up, unless you're treating "this planet not turning into Venus II" as a resource?




Summary:
All that "stagnation" business was ancillary; we have the technology and the infrastructure to take care of everyone's survival needs, economics be damned.
When I say "consume less" I mean "you, individual, consume less products", not "some hypothetical engineer who is not even a part of this conversation, devise a way to make more product per resource consumed".

[General Battuta]

Yes, you can improve efficiency, but that is the domain of specialized engineers. That is what was being discussed before I entered the discussion with an alternative idea which is easier for individuals to participate in: consuming less products. Running out of resources is a concern, but I'm not sure why you're bringing that up, unless you're treating "this planet not turning into Venus II" as a resource?

Incorrect. You have now missed this fundamental point at least twice. Improving output per unit input is the fundamental driver of development across the entire twentieth century - more than 80% of growth. It is not the domain of 'specialized engineers', it is the focus of nearly all labor in all sectors.

So you are conceding your argument: you would not like to lock development across the world at stagnation levels.

[Grizzly]

Curiously, the biggest drop in CO2 emissions for the past 30 years were not due to the depression but due to the gas fracking revolution,

Can I get a citation on that?

[Aardwolf]

How many times do I have to tell you THAT WAS NEVER MY ARGUMENT TO BEGIN WITH ?

HERE is my argument.

Consume less, and don't reproduce so much. If reduced consumption causes factories to close and people to lose their jobs, there is still enough food/water/shelter/clothing/medicine to hypothetically support everyone, if only it can be distributed sanely.

This is the third time I've explicitly stated what my argument is, and with labels to that effect. None of the other stuff is my argument.

This is the second thread where we've had a problem because you insist on telling me what my position is. INCORRECTLY. Back off.



Apologies to the other people in the thread who have to read the bold caps.

[General Battuta]

You can't say something and then deny you said it - the record is right there and we've all addressed it.

Let me walk you through your own argument and help you understand it. It's a shame this is necessary.

If everyone consumed less, emissions would decrease.

Impoverished... so like if a bunch of industrial jobs dried up... bleh. Maybe they'd be better off with a total economic collapse. You don't need money to get food, water, and shelter¹... maybe you need money for decent medical care, but... bleh.

BLEH


¹Talking about living off the land, not 4-finger discount

Maybe people would be better off after total economic collapse. Return to subsistence-based Malthusian economy.

I feel ignored/unappreciated

Seriously, what's so bad about letting development stagnate?

What's so bad about letting development stagnate?

But people had food, medicine, and shelter before those jobs existed, and the population increase that has occurred during the current period of rapid development is not large enough to rule out returning to the means they used beforehand.

Productivity was adequate to provide humane standard of living in the Malthusian subsistence economy. Returning to subsistence economy is a viable option.

The white man knows how to make everything, but he does not know how to distribute it.

s/white man/capitalism

If your premises have led you to an absurd conclusion, e.g. that Aardwolf is a colossal dick (see quote above), you should probably reëxamine those premises, e.g. stagnation¹ must always lead to poverty, famine, etc..

¹Stagnation, the cessation of growth. The world economy cannot expand indefinitely.

Existing productivity is adequate to supply everyone with a humane standard of living. Development should cease and productivity should be maintained at current levels. Resources should be redistributed. The world economy cannot expand indefinitely (I'll break from summary here to point out that this is wrong in the historical scope, and it betrays your basic error.)

Once you've had a chance to review and absorb your argument, let me know if you need me to walk you through any parts more closely.

Remember: the fact that you do not understand the ramifications or blind spots of an argument does not allow you to disown those ramifications. They're present even if you haven't thought of them. Claiming that something 'is not your argument' because you hadn't realized it was a consequence of your argument to begin with is an attempt to dodge correction.

[General Battuta]

I suppose I forgot to make it explicit that you were suggesting that citizens of the developing world would be better off after total economic collapse.

Lowering emissions is almost impossible at this point. While some efficiency may drive lower emissions in the developed world, the developing world is skyrocketing their own emissions, and due to their lower efficiency and higher population numbers, soon their emissions will dwarf anything the developed world emits (let alone "cuts"). To ask them to stop emitting would mean leaving them impoverished, good luck with that.

If everyone consumed less, emissions would decrease.

Impoverished... so like if a bunch of industrial jobs dried up... bleh. Maybe they'd be better off with a total economic collapse. You don't need money to get food, water, and shelter¹... maybe you need money for decent medical care, but... bleh.

BLEH


¹Talking about living off the land, not 4-finger discount

Please, though, tell us how you were never arguing that the solution to increasing emissions in the developing world was the termination of development in the third world and economic collapse.