391–400 of 466 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deserts are a wonderful place for resorts, assuming it is man made desert (like the Sahara) and infinite energy to desalinate and recycle water in an ecologically sound way. We just aren't to that point yet.
I was unaware that the Sahara was man-made.
Interesting to see the comment thread digging into all sorts of criticism of the article (is it 2 kWh / fridge? Or 1.1? Should the author discuss renewable earlier or more seriously?) The main point I got from the article was a helpful reminder that a large part of the world doesn't have basic things that I take for granted (not just refrigeration, but you might also include air conditioning, transportation, etc). An…
Heck, within our own nation. [uncomfortable silence]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe has the resources to produce cheap energy they just decided to not exploit it and import their energy from Russia and others.
The conflict between Russia and the west is deeply rooted on the hegemony of rampant worldwide liberalism which creates the problems I described. It's a meat grinder which consumes not only excessive energy but people's livelihoods, too. It is certainly not a world I would want my son to live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting to see the comment thread digging into all sorts of criticism of the article (is it 2 kWh / fridge? Or 1.1? Should the author discuss renewable?) Hear hear. The point is, for those of us living in developed countries, is that all wealth is energy wealth. The western way of life is totally dependent on an abundance of cheap energy. When energy runs out, or becomes significantly more expensive, it's game…
> When energy runs out, or becomes significantly more expensive, it's game over for developed countries. Western society is inefficient at a macro level, even though it may seem efficient from the financial perspective of a single company or an individual. People cover huge distances to work. Companies are moving goods, components and people from all over the world. People change jobs (losing focus) and their residen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was unaware that the Sahara was man-made.
Yep; we overfarmed the crap out of it in prehistoric times, apparently.
Modern humans themselves originated only 200 kya.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.513..401Z>
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1886/origins-of-world-a...>
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wasted resources and duplication This is 19th century zeitgeist. It failed to recognize fulfillment of human needs as an evolutionary process. "Waste and duplication" -- trial and error -- is necessary. You can't design for what you haven't discovered. Here's a picture that always humbles me, representing one infinitesimal aspect of human thriving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions#/m... > Y…
>Does it involve telling people what constitutes "quality of life?" Why does this "new" political (in fact: economic) philosophy so often devastate so many lives? No it doesn't. It involves abolishing inflation and unemployment, inequality and endless runaway debt growth while simultaneously increasing wages, lowering the cost of living, discouraging corruption and rewarding long term thinking and human effort. >Even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. I was going to make the same post. I'm a huge fan of all of the mod-cons, but for most of human history people lived with pre-industrial-revolution levels of tech. And we still had rich and poor. Poverty is when you don't have a good place in society, lack of respect by your fellows, and no security for your physical safety or property.
I think this misses the point of the article. Yes, the world has had, and will always have, rich and poor. But to raise the poor up, what you fundamentally need is more energy . I think this article also does a good job in emphasizing country-level poverty is what's really important to think about. That is, in the US, since we already have the infrastructure of a rich country, even poor people can afford safe food an…
Or to direct the energy differently, e.g. shift some of it from rich users to poor ones.
> in the US … even poor people can afford safe food and refrigeration
Poor people are living homeless in tents and cars. They can not afford safe refrigeration and many do not have good access to safe food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe has the resources to produce cheap energy they just decided to not exploit it and import their energy from Russia and others.
Exactly, it's not like the energy supply decreased overnight due to natural scarcity. Peak oil might be a reality, but it's not the cause of current problems in the EU. Also, per capita energy consumption in the EU is 1/2 compared to the US due to more efficient commuting and buildings (still far from optimal though).
This is not a good take. Look at Iraq or Venezuela. No lack of energy, but plenty of poverty nonetheless.
Which is where economics goes wrong. The working units are incorrect.
You'll note that economics likes to use currency as its working denomination, when the actual underlying denominations are kWh and the labour hour.
Nearly all the failures of macroeconomics can be laid at the belief that there is a one-to-one correlation between moving money around and doing stuff. There isn't and that's the problem.
The issue is similar to electrical engineers assuming that true power and apparent power are always the same.