This morning, I posted in haste before attending the retreat mentioned here. Only when I had closed the lap top did I realize that the "intuitionism" initiated by Guthrie was identical with the "Futures" practiced by Dr. Richard Slaughter. (Scroll down.)
From any present time, it is always possible, at least as a conceptual exercise, to project at least three kinds of future timelines:
utopian;
dystopian;
"business as usual."
All three involve profound change, especially since the current global economy is dynamic and technologically innovative and may even be self-destructive, in which case "business as usual" becomes dystopian.
24 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And my view remains that a dynamic free enterprise economy, when linked to regimes wit with limited power and honoring the rule of law, is far more likely than to be beneficial than any other arrangement has proven to be.
Sean
Sean,
What do you think of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change's warning that action is urgent?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My reaction would be to be EXTREMELY skeptical of what self serving politicians and bureaucrats say! I frankly distrust many of these persons, who tend to be left wing "transnationals" with partisan axes to grind. My view remains that of the late Jerry Pournelle, we don't know enough to be sure of exactly how climate changes and we know even LESS of what, if anything, should or could be done.
Sean
Sean,
I thought that this Panel was scientists? Also that 97% of environmental scientists now think that climate change is human-caused?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I can remember when exactly the same kind of climate alarmists were warning us about the dangers of a new Ice Age! Plus, of course, the Climategate scandal, where it was revealed "climate scientists" had been faking the alleged evidence has also discredited this POV. No, my review remains that of Pournelle: of course climate changes and human activities has affected some of those changes, but we don't know enough about climate and what, if anything, can or should be done.
For that matter, I think a new Ice Age is more likely than runway global warming. See Jerry Pournelle/Larry Niven/Michael Flynn's novel FALLEN ANGELS, using that theme.
Sean
Sean,
But the IPCC are experts consulted by governments, not propagandist alarmists, and they do know what to do: reduce carbon emissions. All the evidence is not faked. 97% of environmental scientists are not lying. The IPCC thinks that drastic action has to be taken in the next 12 years whether or not an Ice Age is due further down the line.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Even if carbon dioxide is a major problem, the worst offenders are not the UK, US, or Europe in general. Rather, it's China and India--and they have made it plain they are not going to reduce their use of coal and oil. I see no good reason for US to wreck our economies when doing do will not change matters.
Further, the only REAL ways of reducing carbon dioxide pollution is to get SERIOUS about nuclear power and space satellites beaming down solar energy. Forget about wind, waves, solar panels, geothermal, etc., will never be more than marginal, at best.
Sean
Seam,
Scientific experts say that carbon dioxide IS a major problem.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then only nuclear power and space based solar power will help. And are we willing to use FORCE to stop China and India from using so much coal?
Sean
Sean,
Negotiation, example and international agreements.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And those methods will not work if the regimes in Peking and Delhi don't want to change their ways. Moreover, it will be very EASY to drag out such "negotiations" for years after years, with the deliberate intention of NOT coming to an agreement.
So, are we going to use force or not?
Sean
Sean,
Well, I don't think so - any more than force is going to be used against the US because its President denies climate change and says that environmental scientists are politically motivated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that was because many "environmentalists" were guilty of grinding partisan axes and saying wild and false things.
And the US is not the worse CD polluter in the world. China and India again comes to mind. If we are going to get serious about them, then forget it. Which does not mean I advocate giving up on nuclear energy and space based solar power. Of course such sources for energy should be energetically developed.
Sean
Sean,
But we are now quoting 97% of scientists and the IPCC, not a lobby of "environmentalists."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I stand by what I said, the real CD sinners are countries like India and China. If nothing real is going to be done about them, then forget it.
And I still advocate nuclear energy and space based solar power satellites as the only real alternatives to fossil fuels.
Sean
Sean,
Countries blaming each other is the old problem. A powerful country can give a lead and set an example.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And neither China or India will give a hoot what the U.S. does. Not UNLESS they are convinced that nuclear power and space based solar power are better means of obtaining energy.
Sean
Sean,
Then they need to be convinced by example of that. I still think that this blaming of other countries is very negative. Similarly, many people around the world have criticisms of the US.
Paul.
I must go out so blog activity will resume later.
Kaor, Paul!
You misunderstand, I am not "blaming" China or India. I'm simply a fact, that they depend HEAVILY on things like coal, and don't even use the best technology for that resource.
Far better for the US and UK to get SERIOUS about nuclear power and space based solar energy. THEN other countries like China and India might be more willing to change their ways.
Sean
Sean,
OK. Don't use the word "blame." It is certainly pointing the finger. We need to reduce carbon emissions and it is better that some countries start the reduction than that none do it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that can be most PRACTICALLY be done by countries like the UK and US getting SERIOUS about nuclear energy and space based solar power satellites. Don't waste time and money on futile, marginal, dead end "alternatives" like windmills, solar panels on house roofs, etc. They will come NOWHERE near to supplying the massive amounts of energy needed by a high tech society.
Sean
Kaor, Paul and Sean!
I was a climate change skeptic, and believed, as I still believe, that many of the people who demanded that something be done about it were looking for a good excuse to manage other people’s lives, and would have settled on something else if it weren’t global warming. However, a problem doesn’t go away just because some of the people who are agitating for action on it have unsaintly motives, or are proposing to do the wrong things in response to a real problem. I believe that the weight of evidence is now on the side that the globe really is warming; furthermore, aside from global warming, higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air definitely are lead8ng to acidification of the oceans. That isn’t a matter of computer modeling; that’s simple chemistry.
We don’t need major ecological disruption of the oceans with, for example, shellfish being unable to make proper shells because of acidification of the water and a shifted equilibrium between calcium carbonate and calcium and carbonate ions in solution. We also don’t need more energetic hurricanes and typhoons dumping larger quantities of water on the Philippines, Texas, the Carolinas, and elsewhere. We don’t want the melting of the Arctic ice cap to drastically change the thermohaline circulation, shut down the Gulf Stream, and leave England with the climate of Labrador.
Getting international cooperation on dealing with increased CO2 isn’t going to be easy, I agree. I favor taxing emissions of carbon dioxide, as opposed to letting government dictate just how people get their energy; and I oppose cap-and-trade or other proposals to give existing polluters vested rights to keep polluting. I’d like to see more nuclear power, maybe space-based solar, and clean fusion, if we can figure out how to do it. Revenues from taxing carbon dioxide emissions could be spent in part on adding iron to the sea to encourage more algae, and other projects to absorb or sequester carbon.
Still, just because there are technical and political difficulties in solving the problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try our best to overcome these difficulties.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
Actually, I agree with most of what you suggest. Where I am most skeptical is "international cooperation." I don't believe for one minute that the worst carbon dioxide sinners, such as China and India, are ever going to stop using so much brown coal any time soon. Taxing emissions on carbon dioxide might also be that the other alternatives, except again the problem posed by countries indifferent to carbon dioxide pollution rears up its ugly head. To say nothing of the pests who will seize on climate change as an excuse to meddle, interfere with, and boss around other people.
Sean
Post a Comment