There are two new articles of interest in the latest New Scientist. One is a
short article about the use of home power gas turbines and the very rapid
development of fuel cell technology and use in the next 2-50 years. The other
(which I just saw the title of, had to do with using oil and natural gas and
coal and 'sequestering' the carbon-not a new idea to the energy mavens, but
In a message dated 11/16/2000 2:36:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > As someone who spent a number of years as an energy analyst,
> > developing energy conservation technologies, you don't know what you
> > are talking about. Every trend in resource cost is downward, and
> > availability is upward. Stopy buying the Green lies.
> For heavens sake. How is this supposed to convince somebody who's
> actually worried about energy depletion? You might actually *change
> someone's mind* if you explained yourself! :p
> [Hint: Most Greens think that energy prices today don't tell you
> anything; that reflecting on prices and price trends today is like
> jumping off a building and saying "I'm not going to stop suddenly!
> I'm going faster and faster!" Answering this (wrong, but initially
> plausible) intuition might actually do some GOOD.]
> > Oh, you really are a mess, aren't you? Resources do not get
> > 'destroyed'. They just get reallocated.
> Truuue, but just saying so isn't enough. Oil *looks* like it gets
> destroyed when it's used. How will your comment change someone's mind
> about that intuition?
> > Every technological advancement allows the amount of resources
> > needed to produce every dollar of economic activity to decrease all
> > the time. Where do you think all the wealth of our economy comes
> > from? It didn't just come from us trading iron and corn back and
> > forth and paying a wage. Technology increases productivity, which
> > decreases the amount of resources you need to live an ever higher
> > standard of living. Get off the Malthusian BS, he was disproven long
> > ago.
> So instead of actually naming a technology or two, you just assert that
> technology will continue to increase our productivity. Do you see why
> this doesn't help?
> > > Yes, but they were working from an ascending paradigm. Extropianism is
> > > Gnosticism reversed, the exact same stand within a descending paradigm.
> > No, its an ascending paradigm based on factual data. I quite
> > understand how you are so confused.
> Who's THAT supposed to convince? Just *claiming* that your beliefs
> are based on facts is no argument!
> Now, maybe you don't have time to give a reasonably complete list of
> facts or supporting arguments or whatever. But, if so, you didn't
> actually have time to provide a good argument. And a bad argument is
> much worse than no argument at all.
> -unless you love someone-
> -nothing else makes any sense-
> e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:22 MDT