Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

> If all the "impossible" technologies necessary to stop climate change existed today then I don't think anyone would say we should go back to the old fossil fuel days.

The argument isn't about whether or not fossil fuels should be used in the presence of hypothetical cheaper energy harvesting devices in the future, but whether or not fossil fuels should be used now, while they are cheap, abundant and available to everyone. I have recommended a book above: The moral case for fossil fuels.

It may not be obvious what I'm talking about if you live in a well developed nation with adequate sunlight and you can easily accumulate some capital and install PV panels on your rooftop (and you're OK ignoring the devastating environmental impact of PV). The moral case for fossil fuels is about the underdeveloped nations whose economies are held back by low carbon agendas.

The most developed nations are doing quite well (perhaps not well enough for some) on clean energy, but poorer nations are nowhere near at the same level. They are decades behind on technology and general standards of living. The argument for fossil fuels is that we should attempt to accelerate these economies as quickly as possible to bring them up to global standards, and one of the primary tools for enabling this is the availability of cheap and abundant energy. Fossil fuels provide this, even if they're not "clean."

Developed nations have cleaner air, cleaner water, much lower birth rates, fewer pollutants and better environmental protection programmes. We can't expect poorer nations to abide by the same standards of the developed world when they do not enjoy the same standards of living. The longer the delay in bringing them up to standard, the more environmental damage will be done in the long term.

I am all for cheap and abundant clean energy and the idea of phasing out fossil fuels, but holding back progress for alarming unrealistic predictions is not the way to go about it. Focus should be on innovation and not subsidy.

But it is still questionable whether or not an increased CO2 atmosphere is an inherently bad thing. In greenhouses, a doubling of CO2 can lead to more than a doubling of plant mass growth. This is an experiment you can reproduce at home, unlike most climate "science". If more focus were placed on greening the earth, reforesting instead of destroying entire ecosystems to grow soy, palm and canola, I might not be so sceptical of the real aims of these climate scientists and their mouthpieces. The aversion to nuclear energy, which is very clean, is the most tell-tale sign that many "environmentalists" are nothing of the kind.

You highlight the word economic as if it is some kind of right-wing conspiracy.

Economics affects us all. It is nothing to do with rich or privileged versus poor. It is to do with the accumulation of wealth versus the consumption (dissaving) of wealth. By economic damage, I am referring to the destruction of wealth, which does not bring any net benefit to a society even if it is "redistributed."

Economic growth, aka, creation of wealth means improved standards of living. Creating wealth is the only way which man improves their standard of living. Without any wealth, your time is consumed entirely on basic survival - you must hunt, gather or scavenge for food just to exist. You can only have any leisure time to invest in other pursuits if you have fed yourself. The way to ensure that you can feed yourself and engage in other pursuits is to accumulate wealth - that is, have some means of feeding yourself without using all of your time for survival. It is no good merely feeding yourself though - if you want healthcare and other luxuries, you need to create excess wealth.

Creation of wealth is not a zero-sum game, which is the fallacy most ancaps seem to hold. By creating wealth, you can improve not only your own standard of living, but also that of your neighbours, and not merely through charity. There are no losers in wealth creation - there are only some that don't do as well as others (which isn't something that needs fixing, because it is not the problem).

> a deep fear of equality and perceived threats to their privileged position in society. Hence, going down with the ship (a good economy & status quo) seem more rational than changing course.

It's more that we don't like seeing the wealth our ancestors worked hard to accumulate being pissed down the drain by people who do nothing but consume, rather than create wealth, and when it is not their wealth to consume in the first place.

By "changing course," you seem to be implying that their exists another course in which more wealth is consumed than created, which obviously has a dire end result: there will be no wealth left, and we will all be back to scavenging for basic survival. You are damn right that continuing economic growth is more rational than such regression.

BTW, I am a big fan of altruism as a means for lifting those who are less fortunate. In order to be altruistic, you must yourself have some capital to expend, or time to volunteer for helpful causes. Only people will such wealth can help their neighbour. If everyone's wealth is in decline, who do you think is going to help the poorest?

Giving more money to the state is not really altruism, but is avoidance of having to be altruistic of ones own volition. You must remember that a large portion of that money you give to the State is used on weapons of war, expansion of a police state which comes with increased abuses of power, and so forth. Are you really sure you want to be giving more of your money to the State?

Fair point. A few, but perhaps not enough.

Where are these jobs at? I have a pulse and can do most of the white boarding tests and have been “upskilling” on these things simply because that’s what interviewing is about these days. I’d like to think that it has not been a waste of time learning how to implement a dual pivot quicksort but it sure feels like it.

So did Pol Pot...