pointless
Pronunciation: /ˈpointlis/
adjective
1having little or no sense, use, or purpose:
speculating like this is a pointless exercise
[with infinitive]:
it’s pointless to plan too far ahead
2(of a contest or competitor) without a point scored.
SeaGypsy wrote:The word is "POINTLESS"pointless
Pronunciation: /ˈpointlis/
adjective
1having little or no sense, use, or purpose:
speculating like this is a pointless exercise
[with infinitive]:
it’s pointless to plan too far ahead
2(of a contest or competitor) without a point scored.
(Online Oxford)
There are plenty of 'POINTS' in saving energy. The OP is not "Saving energy will not save the world". It clearly will not. But the can kicking can go on for a very long time. With a more realistic view of this finite resource early on, we might have only burned a small fraction of what we have already.
pstarr wrote:that you don't make sense, don't respond to others comments;
JohnRM wrote:Then saving energy is important, but only for adapting to a lower-energy, lower-consumption kind of society and lifestyle.
JohnRM wrote:We need to learn how to do that now, while we still have alternatives to fall back on. Otherwise, when the time comes, we will scramble about in futility trying to figure it out on the fly and become dependent upon the new land lords in post-industrial serfdom.
SeaGypsy wrote:Another word for 'pointless' is 'futile'.... Clearly a stupid and ignorant comment.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Aaron wrote:Wonderful... great... logical... with precedent. Crap
Jevons Paradox
William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) is best known as a British economist who was one of the pioneers of contemporary neoclassical economic analysis, with its subjective value theory rooted in marginal utility.
Chapter Seven of The Coal Question was entitled "Of the Economy of Fuel." Here he argued that increased efficiency in using a natural resource, such as coal, only resulted in increased demand for that resource, not a reduction in demand. This was because such improvement in efficiency led to a rising scale of production. "It is wholly a confusion of ideas," Jevons wrote,
...to suppose that the economic use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. As a rule, the new modes of economy will lead to an increase of consumption according to a principle recognized in many parallel instances…. The same principles apply, with even greater force and distinctiveness to the use of such a general agent as coal. It is the very economy of its use which leads to its extensive consumption…. Nor is it difficult to see how this paradox arises…. If the quantity of coal used in a blast-furnace, for instance, be diminished in comparison with the yield, the profits of the trade will increase, new capital will be attracted, the price of pig-iron will fall, but the demand for it increase; and eventually the greater number of furnaces will more than make up for the diminished consumption of each. And if such is not always the result within a single branch, it must be remembered that the progress of any branch of manufacture excites a new activity in most other branches and leads indirectly, if not directly, to increased inroads upon our seams of coal…. Civilization, says Baron Liebig, is the economy of power, and our power is coal. It is the very economy of the use of coal that makes our industry what it is; and the more we render it efficient and economical, the more will our industry thrive, and our works of civilization grow (140-142).
The contemporary significance of the Jevons paradox is seen with respect to the automobile in the United States. The introduction of more energy-efficient automobiles in this country in the 1970s did not curtail the demand for fuel because driving increased and the number of cars on the road soon doubled. Similarly, technological improvements in refrigeration simply led to more and larger refrigerators. The same tendencies are in effect within industry, independent of individual consumption.
What he is saying is, I think, that people will consume what is available, over time, to the limits of it's availability. So that by increasing the energy efficiency of oil use, we will actually stimulate the growth in oil consumption and accelerate depletion rates.
Alrighty then...
spot5050 wrote:A "lower energy lifestyle" means using fuel more slowly. It merely delays the inevitable.
AdTheNad wrote:spot5050 wrote:A "lower energy lifestyle" means using fuel more slowly. It merely delays the inevitable.
So you agree it's not pointless then, on a human timescale? Which is kind of a big deal to me, being human and all.
On a geologic timescale maybe it is pointless, but so is life, and I'm not about to end that.
The question didn't mention timescale, so the answer is demonstratably yes. 30 people are correct, 9 are wrong.
dolanbaker wrote:
Shaved Monkey wrote:dolanbaker wrote:
When you put this into perspective of what he makes a week compared to what he pays for a litre of fuel.
Its probably on par with about $20 or $30 a litre(about $80 odd a Gallon) at a guess
Someone might know the average Indians wage compared to the average Australian /American/ European
and do the maths re a litre/gallon of fuel.
Shows you at what price we may still be using fuel (if its available)
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests