Comments on: Hard Questions and Sustainable Solutions

By: Doug Sayler

Doug Sayler — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:54:56 +0000

The initial paragraph leads me to this:
Assuming that being rutting pigs is a requirement to edification or fulfillment in life, at least to the effect of some sort of substantial institution, a capacity to compartmentalize consumerism (based on wellness) and otherwise legitimize it (by hammering aggrandizement-based banking ploys) is a requirement for sustainability. This suggests a shift in focus on recreation & wellness as one economic prime mover, away from cosmopolitan preferences of entertainment and “culture.”
We do have the capability to automate the commuter roadways, thereby ensuring freedom of association and a high degree of lawful free enterprise. Travel transactions should be authenticated biometrically; a function which the courts should use to cloak travellers in privacy. This is in contrast to the traditional approach of considering railways and urbanization as somehow compatible with Libertarian ideals. Rail is already extremely energy efficient at effecting wholesale trade, for that is what rails are: a piping network.
Corporations know how to grow food organically and sustainably, and they ain’t doin’ it. As for those who could reasonably commit to such a career, they are generally disenfranchised by the sanctioned increasing cost of living that defines consumerism and corporate capitalism.
By engineering products from the molecular level, and producing them with molecular control, instead of bulk methods which gurantee a certain level of waste, negative “unintended consequences” can be quantized and regulated by external controls, up-front, instead of after-the-fact, when public health and other commons have already been further depleted. This allows for legitimate political decisions, instead of degenerate leadership based in “buy-in” and pay-offs.

The “…all-hydrogen solution” paragraph elicits this:
Nature provides staggering amounts of immediately recoverable highest-grade energy (electricity) with the only obstacle being consistency of supply. Ultracapacitors fix this problem neatly, as do supercapacitors, although the cost structure is fundamentally differnet for each of these and supercaps seem to have chemical considerations which limit its applications.

On “population control,”
“Control our population” is a logical identity with “create a negligable basic cost of living”. This leads immediately to feminist empowerment.
I would add that we need to relieve ourselves of our expeditionary military and have a job corps which conscripts youth to build such products as modular (manufactured) housing and portable “total” energy solutions so they are compelled to buy these, and continue to be punished for buying into urbanization/militarism.

“Virtually no business in existence meets that standard” of avoiding reductionist economics. (Money = the capacity to force one’s will on others, including the unsuspecting)
YES!!! The french physiocrats found this out at the business end of a pitchfork –wielded by Lockian Liberals (capitals intentional.) Very old stuff. Spending our way to success doesn’t work. Efficiency doesn’t sell, sex does, and force can be sexy!

“we certainly don’t like anybody telling us we can’t have more kids.
Huh?!? Women LIKE wrecking their health??? (what am i MISSING here?!!???)

About “living in caves and working by candlelight”…
How many Americans have a say in ending up with their career in an end-state recognizable as that which they planned when starting out as adults –and (the Musical Question) is this in direct inverse proportionality to the popularity of rock-inspired pop music??? How abusive an economy is enough for people (and their hairdo’s)???

As for faith, rationality, and motivation:
Advanced, capital-intensive methods can be a powerful salve for the ego. Maybe Americans are way too good at competing with each other, and need to excel at competing against their preconceptions of what resources actually enhance individual strength and independence. No such subtlety can follow timidity toward the problem, but the first step is a Time-Out on all material aggrandizement. Now, you can castigate me for my transhumanism, but what purpose to life might you get everyone to agree upon? The improvement of our own genomes and physical (including the brain) robustness is what we should be keeping an eye on. Humanity’s average life span, outside of perpetual hospital treatment, is sharply decreasing.

In short — we need systems integration innovations. The internet is far more relevant than a media platform. (airplanes on biodiesel? let the jumbo jets and big cities die! use the FAA’s “highway in the sky” — adopt efficiency, not more tacky doodads. Be Bold. Or die.)

By: A. Farmer

A. Farmer — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:47:09 +0000

We need a much better word than sustainable…how about compassionately enduring?

Also, what is not taken into account is how much energy was used to make the new cars? How much valuable resource depletion? Where is the money going to come from to pay for road maintenence when no one is able to afford gas? What is the ‘next’ play to get people who cannot afford cars going to be? And how will we keep our ‘clunker’s’ going when we have little to spend on repairs and new cares require expensive diagnostics and a PHD to work on.

Keep up the good thoughts Mr. Get REal…

A. Farmer

By: Siri Dhyan Singh

Siri Dhyan Singh — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:02:33 +0000

I believe that human beings will need to evolve to a greater level of compassion before sustainability will be achieved. We can think of three major stages of moral development illuminating this: Egocentric, Ethnocentric and Worldcentric. The first is concerned with itself, the 2nd its tribe, and the 3rd with all of us. Everyone starts at stage 1 while questions of world sustainability can’t even really be entertained until stage 3. A critical mass of evolved human consciousness is what’s holding this back, so I wouldn’t say human nature exactly more like a traffic jam in our unfoldment!

Take a look at spiral dynamics and integral theory for more thinking along these lines.

Kind Regards,

-Siri Dhyan

By: Carl Youngblood

Carl Youngblood — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:40:50 +0000

Good article. One aspect I take issue with is the whole population overload theme. Most developed economies are not currently reproducing at replacement rates. Developing economies are transitioning towards this state as well. Long-term trends indicate a population peak of about 9 billion around 2050, barring disruptive technologies which could alter these trends. What is needed, in my opinion, is for educated, charitable and thoughtful people to have more children and provide them with the means and inspiration to improve their world, not leave the reproducing to those who will only make things worse.

By: jrep

jrep — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:47:41 +0000

I don’t think human history is entirely devoid of sustainability examples, though the magnitude of the present unacknowledged crisis utterly dwarfs anything since the “dinosaur-killer” asteroid. For example, there are numerous localized examples of reforestation and sustainable harvest (though I know of no sustainable “old-growth” class reforestation). Collectively, we have some long-view reflexes; some hope that they can be activated seems still possible.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:50 +0000

You might want to consider that this is a very US perspective — when you’re talking about a global issue, it might be good to consider other cultural perspectives as well. In many parts of the world societies are used to working together toward a common goal. The US is almost unique in the amount of power it places in the hands of individual people, combined with the degree to which people are encouraged to act primarily in their own best interest. The environment is a “common good” problem and as such fundamentally a social problem, clearly not a technical problem. That this is so may come as a surprise in the US, but certainly not elsewhere.

By: Blair Rogers

Blair Rogers — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:54:52 +0000

Hi Chris

Interesting thoughts. Changing human paradigm – extremely hard unless compelled.

As for RenTech – That 1.5 million gallon news was not for the planes as such – but just for the ground service truck fleet.

Airline travel is doomed long term.

Changing human expectations is where plenty of work needs to be done.

@BMR789