[MD]

Technology will continue to make life very nice for a few.

[vision-master]

Why Technology Will Solve Peak Oil in the End.

No, it's what will kill us.

[TonyPrep]

Technology - the practical application of knowledge in a particular area

Even today, we are using technology in the practical application of knowledge in a particular area. People seem to have this idea "old technology good", "new technology bad". Or "Simple technology good, complex technology bad". This is simpleton thinking. Again, just because we are using technology in a bad way, doesn't mean the technology is bad(see hammer example).

The quote from Websters is just repeating what I wrote. I don't know where you got the good/bad bit from. My point was that technology is the application of scientific knowledge; without the application, there is no technology. So if the application is bad, the technology is bad. So much technology we see today seems purely to get people to spend more money and to make someone rich. Neither of these things is intrinsically bad, in a world with no limits, but it seems to me that much of technology has led us to our current situation.

[kublikhan]

The quote from Websters is just repeating what I wrote. I don't know where you got the good/bad bit from. My point was that technology is the application of scientific knowledge; without the application, there is no technology. So if the application is bad, the technology is bad. So much technology we see today seems purely to get people to spend more money and to make someone rich. Neither of these things is intrinsically bad, in a world with no limits, but it seems to me that much of technology has led us to our current situation.

Ok let me try an example. I invent a new high-yield, four-lobed grain called quadrotriticale. It can sustainably triple the current amount of grain harvested. My intention was not to triple the amount of food we produce. I was just trying to cut the amount of work we have to do to 1/3rd the normal amount so BigTex can finally get his 15 hour work week. Now someone else decides he wants to put in 45 hours of work a week so he can sell 3x the grain and triple his profits. He used my technology without thinking about the consequences. Not only did the ahole put me out of work by undercutting my prices, but he also flooded the market with more food. More food means people started having more children. Now we are using 3x as much water as we used to. The food production might be sustainable but the aquifers are being depleted. Is quadrotriticale bad? No, only the ahole who abused it is bad.

[TonyPrep]

The quote from Websters is just repeating what I wrote. I don't know where you got the good/bad bit from. My point was that technology is the application of scientific knowledge; without the application, there is no technology. So if the application is bad, the technology is bad. So much technology we see today seems purely to get people to spend more money and to make someone rich. Neither of these things is intrinsically bad, in a world with no limits, but it seems to me that much of technology has led us to our current situation.

Ok let me try an example. I invent a new high-yield, four-lobed grain called quadrotriticale. It can sustainably triple the current amount of grain harvested. My intention was not to triple the amount of food we produce. I was just trying to cut the amount of work we have to do to 1/3rd the normal amount so BigTex can finally get his 15 hour work week. Now someone else decides he wants to put in 45 hours of work a week so he can sell 3x the grain and triple his profits. He used my technology without thinking about the consequences. Not only did the ahole put me out of work by undercutting my prices, but he also flooded the market with more food. More food means people started having more children. Now we are using 3x as much water as we used to. The food production might be sustainable but the aquifers are being depleted. Is quadrotriticale bad? No, only the ahole who abused it is bad.

Fair enough, Kubli. You developed the technology with good intentions. Shame you didn't consider how it might be used, but I guess you can't help that. Perhaps you should have licensed the technology based on the amount of grain produced per acre, charging exorbitant amounts above the sustainable yield.

I understand your point and I agree. But what difference does it make? If most of the technology gets used to boost drawdown of natural resources and pollute the planet, then either technology is bad or society's laws aren't draconian enough to limit the damage done by inappropriate use of technology. Either way, our kids lose out because of technology. How do you separate development of technology from the use? Are you going to complain because lots of people are buying your technology from you? Well, you might, but most technology developers wouldn't blink an eye.

[kublikhan]

What difference does it make? If most of the technology gets used to boost drawdown of natural resources and pollute the planet, then either technology is bad or society's laws aren't draconian enough to limit the damage done by inappropriate use of technology. Either way, our kids lose out because of technology. How do you separate development of technology from the use? Are you going to complain because lots of people are buying your technology from you? Well, you might, but most technology developers wouldn't blink an eye.

Because then it turns into a witch hunt of who to blame. Why stop at technology? What about all of the intimate decisions people make that result in another mouth to feed? What about humanity deciding it would rather clear cut a forest and burn the lumber for energy than put up an expensive wind turbine?

Perhaps we need some kind of future generations department in the cabinet. Their main job would be to evaluate all current and proposed laws/technology use on the impact of future generations. They would have the authority to veto any proposal. They could also act as a think tank for generational problems and propose legislation. I am not sure such legislation would be able to get passed in light of how short sighted Americans(and the rest of the world) are. I am sure they could come up with some effective propaganda to shape our simpleton minds though. Just run a blurb on fox news with the theme "What about the children?"

[TonyPrep]

Because then it turns into a witch hunt of who to blame. Why stop at technology? What about all of the intimate decisions people make that result in another mouth to feed? What about humanity deciding it would rather clear cut a forest and burn the lumber for energy than put up an expensive wind turbine?

Perhaps we need some kind of future generations department in the cabinet. Their main job would be to evaluate all current and proposed laws/technology use on the impact of future generations. They would have the authority to veto any proposal. They could also act as a think tank for generational problems and propose legislation. I am not sure such legislation would be able to get passed in light of how short sighted Americans(and the rest of the world) are. I am sure they could come up with some effective propaganda to shape our simpleton minds though. Just run a blurb on fox news with the theme "What about the children?"

So what are you saying, Kublikhan? That technology is neutral and it is the users of technology that have done us bad? So what it the difference between the developer and the user? What is the practical upshot of the confluence of the two?

[MrBean]

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That is just plain wrong, oil is not a main factor (except for rubbers). Demographic Transition is made possible with trust that you don't have to breed children to support you in your old age, but that the community will take care of you when you get ill and grow old. Plus womens liberation and patriarchal power structures crumbling.

[Homesteader]

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That is just plain wrong, oil is not a main factor (except for rubbers). Demographic Transition is made possible with trust that you don't have to breed children to support you in your old age, but that the community will take care of you when you get ill and grow old. Plus womens liberation and patriarchal power structures crumbling.

Would you post a link to support that statement?

[MrBean]

We, those of us in the USA, are the equivalent of 20 billion Chinese with regard to impact on the environment.

Wich tells you what about the best place to start die-offing?

[MrBean]

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That is just plain wrong, oil is not a main factor (except for rubbers). Demographic Transition is made possible with trust that you don't have to breed children to support you in your old age, but that the community will take care of you when you get ill and grow old. Plus womens liberation and patriarchal power structures crumbling.

Would you post a link to support that statement?

Linked to here: common sense supported by evidence of Demographic Transition in Cuba, Kerala etc. 3rd world low oil consumption places with socialist ideas about social security and gender equality put in practice.

[Homesteader]

Demographic Transition is what lowers fertility rates. Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

That is just plain wrong, oil is not a main factor (except for rubbers). Demographic Transition is made possible with trust that you don't have to breed children to support you in your old age, but that the community will take care of you when you get ill and grow old. Plus womens liberation and patriarchal power structures crumbling.

Would you post a link to support that statement?

Linked to here: common sense supported by evidence of Demographic Transition in Cuba, Kerala etc. 3rd world low oil consumption places with socialist ideas about social security and gender equality put in practice.

Got it, thanks.

[Ludi]

Here we go again with the technology has caused all our problems argument. .

That was kind of a joke. I'm not anti-technology. That would be silly.

[VMarcHart]

...there's a good case for suggesting technology is a direct contributor to the problems we face today.

Poor technology. It sure takes a beating. Somebody wrote the other day that perhaps more than technology it's human beings' ever increasing megalomaniac attitude. I liked it. Food for thought.

Would you post a link to support that statement?

I like this. If I say it, it's BS, but if I can point to a fruitcake for all I know, it becomes the Holy Bible.

[Ludi]

I like this. If I say it, it's BS, but if I can point to a fruitcake for all I know, it becomes the Holy Bible.

I thought journalists were more critical of sources of information than that....

[Homesteader]

Would you post a link to support that statement?

I like this. If I say it, it's BS, but if I can point to a fruitcake for all I know, it becomes the Holy Bible.

I have no problem with a person saying "I disagree with. . . ." However Mr. Bean said the "That is wrong". Then gave his own personal definition.


The causes for the declining birth rate in Cuba may not be for the reasons Mr. Bean gave but rather for the reasons Monte gave.

Here is a statement and a link that could be interpreted to support Monte's contention:

"By 1993, as Cuban production and imports plummeted, the daily intake of the average Cuban citizen had descended to 1863 kilocalories, including 46 grams of protein and 26 grams of fat, all figures well below FAO recommended minimums for a healthy diet."

link: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0104koont.htm

on peakoil thread started by Mr. Bean: http://www.peakoil.com/post706618.html#706618

I don't think it is to much to ask for someone to back up a wild-ass claim that flies in the face of commonly accepted terminology to back it up with a link.

People can have all the wild-ass opinions they want as long as they make it clear it is their opinion.

Now this is my opinion: 99 people out of 100 who have at least a passing knowledge of BDT and think about it for five or 10 minutes are going to understand a couple of points:

1. Increasing birthrate and survival rates coupled with declining birthrates only came about due to modern medicine, sanitation and food production. All of which are dependent on cheap fossil fuels.

2. It is commonly accepted that education of women is the most effective way to both lower the number of births and putting off the birth of children until later in life among women of reproductive age. The reason this is effective is couples move to the city, enter a /growing industrialcash society by getting jobs.

3. When the world no longer has cheap fossil fuels to fuel the growth of a industrial society and jobs are no longer available for these barely educated masses what is the most likely outcome?

My opinion is they will go back to their old ways until resource exhaustion reduces their health and therefore their rate of conception. Births will be lowered and survival rate will lower and death rate will increase.

I don't see them gathering around the wood cooking fire and studying for their accounting certificate.

Just the opinion of some fruitcake on the internet.

[VMarcHart]

Just the opinion of some fruitcake on the internet.

Home, no sarcasm here, you know how to put a smile on my face. Thanks! BTW, I don't think you're a fruitcake. You got your marbles working just fine.

The causes for the declining birth rate in Cuba may not be for the reasons Mr. Bean gave but rather for the reasons Monte gave.

Too much thinking into it. For all we know, there are 3-4 salsa dancers icons who decided not to have children, and as anywhere in the world, they influenced the masses. If anything, good for them!

"By 1993, as Cuban production and imports plummeted, the daily intake of the average Cuban citizen had descended to 1863 kilocalories, including 46 grams of protein and 26 grams of fat, all figures well below FAO recommended minimums for a healthy diet."

How come the US can't be this lucky?

[MrBean]

I have no problem with a person saying "I disagree with. . . ." However Mr. Bean said the "That is wrong". Then gave his own personal definition.

Not a personal definition, just common sense understanding about importance of social change:

Some versions of the DTM assume that population changes are induced by industrial changes and increased wealth, without taking into account the role of social change in determining birth rates, e.g, the education of women. In fact the developers of the DTM were aware of the importance of social change, but some were content to analyse the statistics of the transition rather than develop a comprehensive explanation for it. In recent decades more work has been done on developing the social mechanisms behind it.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

The causes for the declining birth rate in Cuba may not be for the reasons Mr. Bean gave but rather for the reasons Monte gave.

Here is a statement and a link that could be interpreted to support Monte's contention:

"By 1993, as Cuban production and imports plummeted, the daily intake of the average Cuban citizen had descended to 1863 kilocalories, including 46 grams of protein and 26 grams of fat, all figures well below FAO recommended minimums for a healthy diet."

link: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0104koont.htm

There is no evidence of special period having any noticable effect on fertility rate or death rate, total fertility rate had dropped from 4 in 1970 to 1.8 already in 1990; since 2000 it tfr has been 1.6.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cub ... stics.html

Nice and smooth DT curve, arriving at peak plateau:

[kublikhan]

Here we go again with the technology has caused all our problems argument. .

That was kind of a joke. I'm not anti-technology. That would be silly.

My Bad Sometimes I miss humor on these boards

[kublikhan]

So what are you saying, Kublikhan? That technology is neutral and it is the users of technology that have done us bad? So what it the difference between the developer and the user? What is the practical upshot of the confluence of the two?

I'm saying the advancement of human knowledge and the application of that knowledge is not in itself bad. But in humanity's shortsightedness, we choose the easier path, or the path that is more convenient. Instead of designing and using better trains, we choose the automobile. Instead of designing closed systems with no toxic chemicals produced, we choose instead to simply dispose of the toxins in the environment.