<|Title|>

Directory

"Mike Asher"  writes:
> 
> Alastair McKinstry  wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, at current usages there is an "almost infinite" amount of Uranium
> > out there. However this is not a new situation; in 1890 the amount of oil
> > present was billions of times the annual oil usage, too.
> > 
> > The annual oil usage went up exponentially. The amount of recoverable oil
> 
> > went up too, as we developed better recovery techniques. But it only
> > went up polynomially, not exponentially.
> > As long as we have exponential growth in the usage of the material, the
> only thing that matters is that the volume is finite.
> 
> Good heavens!  If you're going to take that tack, then we better not use
> solar power; after all, the sun is only good for another couple of billion
> years.
> 
Do the math; it doesn't take billions of years, just decades (at current
rates of growth). (It'll take me about a week to get the books together,
but yes, I'll have to post the figures here.).
> > Ultimately there is a fixed input of energy to Earth from the Sun; there
> > is a fixed supply of minerals on the planet. Maximising the efficient
> > use of those resources is where our wits come in; many (in fact most)
> > civilisations have
> > failed in this regard. But we must recognise this fact.
> 
> Why must we stop with the resouces on this world?
No reason to. In fact it would be better if we could expand life beyond
Earth, IMHO. But it is not a solution to the problem. The energy involved
in getting mineral resources to Earth works out to be more than to 
engineer a different technology.
We could build some form of Solar power station in space, returning more
power to the planet, but that only increases the fixed energy return to the
planet (to, at max., the total available output of the sun). The question 
sooner or later becomes why. We can alternatively improve current energy
efficiency, and live within what we currently have, very comfortably, IMHO.
Whimsically, we can see that the speed of light is the ultimate limit to
growth; we can only expand the volume of space we occupy by t^3 (expanding
at C in three dimensions), while we consume at an exponential rate.
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
-- 
Alastair McKinstry 
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.

dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> 
> Alastair McKinstry  wrote:
> 
> >The annual oil usage went up exponentially. The amount of recoverable oil 
> >went up too, as we developed better recovery techniques. But it only 
> >went up polynomially, not exponentially.
>  
> He wrote it again and again.  He did not, however, supply any
> evidence.
> The fact is oil use has declined several times in the period.  It has
> gone sideways a great deal.  The exponential versus polynomial
> contrast is a piece of bogus scientism of the worst kind.  Sounds
> impressive, but none of it is true.
Yes, the oil usage went down, and fluctuated, largely as economic growth
did. The major drops were due to the depressions.
However, this just represented a temporary halt. The oil did not come back,
the problem did not go away.
As a Green, this drop in energy consumption is something I want. However
all capitalist methods of improving the quality of life would lead to
it going back up again. As Greens, what we are looking for is an economic
system that
	(a) Improves the conditions for people globally, but
	(b) Keeps energy usage within finite bounds, not indefinitely 
		expanding.
Yes, I should not generalize and the oil usage did not just go up. But
we have been consuming more energy resources than have been created.
> There are all kinds of countervailing pressures to growth, including
> stupidity, wish for relaxation, lack of cultural aptitude, and sheer
> satiety.  On the other hand it is obvious from any back of the
> envelope calculation that we can feed ourselves at a healthy Japanese
> level, and make the energy to live in great wealth -- even using the
> technologies we have today.
>  
Yes, I agree. We can feed ourselves, improve peoples quality of life, 
etc. Just not within a capitalist economy that requires economic growth,
and hence increasing material consumption.
> Of course the doom-sayers may prevent us from doing so, in which case
> it will be the poor who suffer, as always.
>  
Only if you insist on saying that improvements in the quality of life
come from economic growth. I believe economic improvement of the poor
can and must come from sources.
>                                       -dlj.
>  
-- 
Alastair McKinstry 
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.

ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> 
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> 
> [deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
> 
> : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
> : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
> : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
> : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
> : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
> : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
> : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
> : up as a rise in the cost of "fish", 
> Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
> and should not show up in the CPI.  If it does, it would be 
> because the BLS made a mistake.
> This issue is hardly confined to fish; the BLS takes great pains
> to ensure that the bundle of goods is the same in both years.
> The case you describe sounds very easy, compared to, say, 
> cars or medical care.  I would be incredibly surprised 
> if the BLS couldn't tell the difference between Mackerel
> filets and Lousiana Spice Mackerel.
> 
> Consider an example:
> 
>       Boring Fish        Fancy Fish
>       Price Quantity     P    Q          Fish Index
> 1995  2     20           10   1          100  
> 1996  2     20           9    10         98   = 100 * (2*20+9*1)/(2*20+10*1) 
> 1997  2     20           8    20         90.5 = 98  * (2*20+8*10)/2*20+9*10)
> 
> You seem to think that the index will rise because people are buying 
> so much more of the expensive kind of fish.  It won't.  It will
> fall because the fancy fish is getting cheaper.
I'm sorry, but since when does rising demand equate
to lower prices?!
How about
	BF		FF		FI
	p	q	p	q
1995    2	20	10	1	100
1996    2	15	11	5	170
1997    2	10	12	11	178(since1996)
					304(since 1995)			
Constant demand for the bulk goods, but
the value added to the fancy fish causes demand,
corresponding price rise, and the mean index,
counting just "fish" rises sharply with no
rise in aggregate demand of the raw commodity,
and no shortage of the raw commodity. 
In fact the price of Boring Fish could fall to 0
and there would still be an apparent rise in the 
Fish Index.

Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
....
> 
> This must mean that a lot of population models (nonlinear ones with
> temporally intermittent behaviour) will have no carrying capacity.
> 
> Right?
> 
I note:
What continually amazes me is the number of Ashers and McCarthys who 
present themselves as experts at everything having to do with the 
environment and the economy, science, medicine and technology; and 
will do those trained in a given field the honor of defining their 
terms for them, will provide experts in a field with the correct 
interpretation of pertinent data, and tell them what information is 
pertinent and what is not as well.  All this for free!

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> 
> Michael Turton includes:
> 
>      Define "efficiency" please?  Is using heavily subsidized oil
>      and water to increase yields "efficient?"  As Arnold Pacey
>      points out in _The Culture of Technology_, from the
>      yield/hectare standpoint capital-intensive farming is more
>      "efficient," but from the energy input/yield standpoint,
>      low-tech, labor intensive farming is more efficient, many
>      times more, in fact.
> 
> Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish.  What counts is
> the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
> population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
Does this labor efficiency include those working in energy creation
(oil extraction, fertilizer manufacture) or just those directly
involved in agriculture ?
> 
> -- 
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
-- 
Alastair McKinstry 
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: Jay Hanson  wrote:
: >In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
: >now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
: And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
: year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
: look pretty good for the future, don't they.
World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving 
on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
Ecologically,
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

Gee, I missed most of this thread, once or twice it made sense, can we go 
through it in review one more time?
Nah, we'll just get the same old kennel droppings.

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
> : Jay Hanson  wrote:
> 
> : >In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
> : >now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
> 
> : And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
> : year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
> : look pretty good for the future, don't they.
> 
> World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving
> on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
> 
...which means only 15% of the population has trouble getting enough
food, far less than at any other point in history, and dropping. We are
doing a lot better than I thought! 
-- 
Enrique Diaz-Alvarez            Office # (607) 255 5034	
Electrical Engineering          Home #   (607) 758 8962
112 Phillips Hall               Fax #    (607) 255 4565
Cornell University              mailto:enrique@ee.cornell.edu
Ithaca, NY 14853                http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique

Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Michael Turton wrote:
: >>Unfortunately, this is true.   Risk analysis studies rate solar
: >> power as more dangerous than coal or nuclear.
: >
: >This is hilarious!  Solar power more dangerous than
: >nuclear power.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
: My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
: Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
: more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining accidents.
This was for photovoltaic solar, right?  If so it doesn't surprise me.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: The total number of deaths from all civilian nuclear power does not
: add up to a single school-bus crash, from 1945 to the present, except
: for the foul-up at Cernobyl.  This may have killed several dozen, or
: perhaps a few hundred.  Even if we take the number as a few hundred,
: it does not approach the danger of a few hundred thousand Saturday
: afternoon repairmen clambering around on their roofs and windmills.
I would wait about 20 years before making any serious claim regarding
this number, if I were you.  We haven't seen all the cancer deaths,
yet. 
: Home solar and wind power is the most dangerous idea since the
: back-yard swimming poool, a major menace to life and limb.
I agree in principle, but where is the damage tally from the systems (in
Europe) already in place?
Further, isn't the lawn mower a still greater menace?
I like gas-cooled nuclear, myself.  As long as passive stability is
built in, and the waste is compact and solid, we are all right in the
long run.  The principal problem is with the mining.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) wrote:
: > Suit yourselves. But in a week one or more of you will be posting
: > how technological developmenst are sure to solve some immensely more
: > complicated problem.
: Few things are as hard as getting people to change habits. And it is
: important to succeed with it to get rid of "diffuse" pollution
: sources. Its a lot easier to build say 10 complex powerplants and
: train a thousand people then to get a million to change their way of
: living. :(
Agreed.  Look at what it takes to get people to separate their trash.
To me it is second nature, and I don't understand all the fuss,
especially in the US.
: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: > By the way, check out passive solar. This approach uses things like
: > properly designed overhangs, oriented walls and windows, ordinary
: > convection, etc. etc.
This, even ideally, would only work for home heating.  And it is still
no solution for people living in existing homes.  I had a friend who was
living in a 500-year old house (there is some other poster's low
ceiling!) in Oxford.  Built out of stone, that house will be there at
least another 500 years. 
Magnus Redin (redin@lysator.liu.se) answered:
: It is allways smart to use good design. Dont forget to also build it
: to last a long time.
Problem is, that doesn't always _pay_.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

Michael Turton (mturton@stsvr.showtower.com.tw) wrote:
: 	This is hilarious!  Solar power more dangerous than
: nuclear power.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!  I suggest you check out any
: book critical of risk analysis to get a more objective picture
: of the situation.  A good start might be Perrin's _Normal
: Accidents_, (Perrin served as a consultant to the commission
: on the TMI incident).  Perrin summarizes some of the conventional
: arguments against current forms of risk analysis as well as 
: adding some devastating ones of his own.
Be sure to distinguish between photovoltaic and water-heated designs,
and between industrial and household generation.  That is what this
thread is about.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

William Royea  wrote:
> Mike Asher wrote:
> > 
> > My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
> > Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
> > more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining
accidents.
> > 
> Can you please elaborate on the argument presented in this reference?
> 
You mean, why is solar power so dangerous?  Solar systems require vast
areas of collection cells, covering with lens, mirrors, and or photovoltaic
cells.   (For instance, the Calfornia plant "Solar One", used one million
square feet of mirrors, all computer-driven, covering 75 acres)   These
vast collection areas must be kept free of dust, grease, snow, leaves, and
other foreign material.
The 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US is from falls;
accidents from workers climbing onto collecting surfaces or supporting
structures will be high.  In an industrial setting, this could be lessened
somwhat by automatic mechanisms (which must themselves be cleaned and
maintained) but, in an homeowner situation, there is no recourse but that
Joe Handyman climb up and clean.  And, unlike rain gutters, this must be
done often, as a dirty collector will refuse to heat your home.   Contrast
this with US nuclear power generation, which has two thousand reactor years
of operational experience, all without a single death.   Coal generation
kills several thousand people a year, yet it is considered "safe" by the
great unwashed, while nuclear power is "dangerous".
The environmental damage from solar power comes from the vast amount of
material required to build it: aluminum, concrete, copper, steels, glass,
chromium, cadmium, etc, etc-- far more than a corresponding nuclear or coal
plant requires.  Many of the materials are dangerous and highly toxic. 
Also, huge amounts of land must be suborned to collection of light.  For
example, to power New York City, you must cover an area greater than the
size of the city itself.   What forest, I ask, shall we raze to cover with
mirrors, for the next solar power station?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends
on unreasonable people."
- George Bernard Shaw

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
: >Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish.  What counts is
: >the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
: >population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
: >Even yield/hectare is much less important than yield/man-hour.
: >American farms are typically less efficient than European in
: >yield/hectare and more efficient in yield/man-hour.
:  
: Which reminds me: if we've got a population surplus, howcome the price
: of labour is going up _everywhere_?
How do you know that? The price of labour is going up in Zaire? Genocide 
must be pretty labour-intensive then...
It is people like you who bring us Zaire. I remember posting about this 
many months ago predicting that this is EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN!
Go ahead and snicker about it in your usual style. I expect THIS from 
you...
Yuri.
--
           **    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto   **
  -- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being 
unable to sit still in a room    ||    B. Pascal

In article  Alastair McKinstry  writes:
 > 
 > jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
 > 
 > > 
 > > Michael Turton includes:
 > > 
 > >      Define "efficiency" please?  Is using heavily subsidized oil
 > >      and water to increase yields "efficient?"  As Arnold Pacey
 > >      points out in _The Culture of Technology_, from the
 > >      yield/hectare standpoint capital-intensive farming is more
 > >      "efficient," but from the energy input/yield standpoint,
 > >      low-tech, labor intensive farming is more efficient, many
 > >      times more, in fact.
 > > 
 > > Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish.  What counts is
 > > the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
 > > population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
 > 
 > Does this labor efficiency include those working in energy creation
 > (oil extraction, fertilizer manufacture) or just those directly
 > involved in agriculture ?
It includes only the people working in agriculture.  Americans spend
(if I recall correctly) 16 percent of our income on food, but this
includes restaurant meals.  In general, we spend much more on making
our eating convenient and pleasant than on the food itself.
When I go to a restaurant, I am appalled by the huge portions,
especially as I am too fat.  The reason they serve huge portions is
that the service is much more expensive than the food.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

In article <56f98q$4dfn@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
 > John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
 > : There is only one thing actually false in Ehrlich's story of the bet.
 > : Having to pay more than $500 on a $1,000 futures contract is not "a
 > : small sum" relative to the size of the contract.  The tale is fuzzy in
 > : other ways than not mentioning how much Ehrlich had to pay.  Of
 > : course, for a man who got a $350,000 prize for making repeated false
 > : predictions, $500 is a small sum.  To mention only the false
 > : prediction in _The Population Bomb_ is again fuzzing up matters.
 > 
 > It is, actually.  Futures contracts are dangerous if you don't know what
 > you're doing, because you can end up losing (and being liable for) much
 > more than the amount of the contract.  That 1000 above is probably
 > margin on something worth more like 10,000.  I don't know if the usual
 > margin is as high as 10-1, but for oil before the Gulf War, though, it
 > was usually above 5-1 and was only lowered to about 3 or 4 to 1 (8,000
 > per contract, price between 22 and 32, in the last two months of 1990)
 > because of the volatility.
 > 
 > If Erlich had been _badly_ wrong, he could have lost several times more
 > than he did.  If you bought call on Jan 91 oil at 25 dollars in Sep 90
 > (before the doubling of the margin) and it had only dropped to 23, you
 > would have lost half your contract.  That is miniscule compared to what
 > actually happened to the price.  Most people lost everything and landed
 > in debt.
Bruce Scott is confused.
No margins were involved in the bet.  
Ehrlich could not have lost more than $1,000.  If the price of the
metals had gone to zero, $1,000 is what he would have lost.  Since the
price only halved (in constant dollars), he only had to pay about
$500.  Simon was the one with the unlimited risk.  If the price of
metals had gone up by a factor of 10, he would have had to pay $9,000.
If it had gone up by 100, he would have had to pay $99,000.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

Yuri Kuchinsky includes:
     World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people
     are starving on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink
     glasses.
I'm sure that "starving" isn't the word that was used by the World
Food Organization.  If 800 million were starving, and the report was
from last year, we would expect them to be dead by now.  Would
Kuchinsky tell us what actually happened or will happen in the next
year or two?
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: Engineering solutions for making clambering on roofs
: safer exist and are in some sense trivial (eg as
: a first step lower all house roofs to minimum tolerable
: ceilings, then surround them with soft yielding surfaces
: either on permanent basis or only when someone is
: on the roof - there are a number of other obvious
: pallatives). The problem is not the engineering, the
: problem is that most of the solutions are inconvenient
: enough that both the house owner and the roof climber
: are willing to risk death rather than waste the time
: and money to make the task intrinsically much safer.
: There is some marginal demand for safety, which reflects
: the fact that relative to other tasks clambering on roofs
: is somewhat unsafe - there may even be some movement to
: increment safety, but I suspect in practise even the simplest
: methods (like moving _slowly_ or having rails with short
: double clip safety ropes) will not be bothered with.
In the long run, what about electric robots as a solution?  No, I am not
joking.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron:       http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
> 
> : My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
> : Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
> : more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining
accidents.
> 
> This was for photovoltaic solar, right?  If so it doesn't surprise me.
> 
Yes, PV cells with ancillary collection via mirrors.  Unfortunately, as
pie-in-the-sky as these types of power plants are, most other plans for
solar generation are even worse.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone 
seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
- Frederic Bastiat

ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
>Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>: Or it may be slower. Remember the US doesn't import much
>: fish from Japan, so $-Yen rates are irrelevant, you'd need
>: the import value weighted basked of currencies of countries
>: that import fish to the US. I have no idea where the
>: PP corrected value of the $ was in 1970 relative to the intervening
>: years, but I do know it changed drastically at times during that
>: interval.
The US doesn't have to buy fish from Japan in order to be affected by
the exchange rate.  All it takes is for the US to pull one fish out of
the same water and decline to sell it to Japan because the US market
is more profitable for the exchange rate to be reflected in the
American price.
                                 -dlj.
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
>Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
>U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> 
> Be sure to distinguish between photovoltaic and water-heated designs,
> and between industrial and household generation.  That is what this
> thread is about.
> 
Household generation is far more dangerous than industrial, Bruce.  Instead
of trained maintenance personnel, you've got weekend warriors climbing
about.  Instead of a few hundred plants, you have a few million homes. 
And, every design I've seen for efficient storage of heat throughout a
night has has some sort of safety hazard as well.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.  
The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into
practice what these peddlers and pen-pushers have timidly begun.... "
  - Hitler to Rauschning

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
>World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving 
>on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
Yuri,
I very much doubt that this is what the World Food Organization
(what's that?) reports -- but I am perfectly willing to believe that
800 million are close to the margin.
It would also be my guess that at the turn of the century there were
800 million hungry out of a population of a billion.
                                      -dlj.

Alastair McKinstry  wrote:
>dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>> "Jeffrey Matthews Lamb"  wrote:
>> >The idea of infinite growth seems to be a rather strange (and dangerous)
>> >assumption to me - but very, very few folks are challenging it in public -
>> >which I think stems from the absurdly abstract nature of modern economics. 
>> The idea that there can be an end to growth -- i.e. that humankind can
>> construct a world which could not be improved -- seems pretty strange
>> to me.
>>
>There is a distinction here between _quantitative_ growth, requiring
>increases in the amount of physical resources we consume, and
>_qualitative_growth_, which doesn't.
Thank you.  You noticed.
>Capitalist growth as we know it requires the former.  
Since when?  Says who?  Capital growth, wehter privately or publicly
owned, shows up at a ton of Telstar replacing 70,000 tons of copper
wire.  300 tons of 747  replace 20,000 tons of train.  Etc.
>                                  Continual improvement
>does not. As a programmer I can continue to write better software than
>previously existed, but I cannot indefinitely increase the production 
>of computers (for example). 
But you can certainly increase the amount of computing, by making the
computers half as big and twice as fast.  And when you reach the
quantum limits of your quantum computers, you can double the price by
making them more user friendly.
>            I will sooner or later run out of metals,etc.
When has _anybody_ ever run out of _any_ metal?
>but more importantly, energy to do so.
Why do you keep repeating this silly assertion?  It's been dealt with
a dozen times.
>(I can imagine switching construction to some non-metallic technology
>if necessaey, but not switching to a zero-energy process).
We have a billion++ year supply of uranium on this planet alone -- and
that's before we even start to put electric coils hanging out in the
solar wind.
                                      -dlj.

Bruce Scott TOK   wrote:
> 
> This, even ideally, would only work for home heating.  And it is still
> no solution for people living in existing homes.  I had a friend who was
> living in a 500-year old house (there is some other poster's low
> ceiling!) in Oxford.  Built out of stone, that house will be there at
> least another 500 years. 
> 
My next home will not be frame, but steel-reinforced concrete, with an
R-value of 40 or so.  Far more efficient than frame, lasts longer, quieter,
and able to withstand a direct hit by a tornado.   I'm designing it right
now.   Not trying to 'save the earth', just myself.   Selfish, I know.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother." 
- Anon.

Alastair McKinstry  wrote:
>As a Green, this drop in energy consumption is something I want. However
>all capitalist methods of improving the quality of life would lead to
>it going back up again. As Greens, what we are looking for is an economic
>system that
>	(a) Improves the conditions for people globally, but
>	(b) Keeps energy usage within finite bounds, not indefinitely 
>		expanding.
No problem.  That is demonstrably and empirically what we've got right
now.
>Yes, I should not generalize and the oil usage did not just go up.
Quite right.  You should not.
>                                                          But
>we have been consuming more energy resources than have been created.
Hogwash.  The nuclear industry has been created before our eyes in
living memory.  This is a brand new energy resource.  And just
yesterday I predicted another new and important one -- Russian
charcoal for Africa -- which is almost certain to come into existence
from a forestry which is only now being planned, in Austria.
>> There are all kinds of countervailing pressures to growth, including
>> stupidity, wish for relaxation, lack of cultural aptitude, and sheer
>> satiety.  On the other hand it is obvious from any back of the
>> envelope calculation that we can feed ourselves at a healthy Japanese
>> level, and make the energy to live in great wealth -- even using the
>> technologies we have today.
>>  
>
>Yes, I agree. We can feed ourselves, improve peoples quality of life, 
>etc. Just not within a capitalist economy that requires economic growth,
>and hence increasing material consumption.
So you say.
>> Of course the doom-sayers may prevent us from doing so, in which case
>> it will be the poor who suffer, as always.
>Only if you insist on saying that improvements in the quality of life
>come from economic growth. I believe economic improvement of the poor
>can and must come from sources.
That last is a pretty weird sentence.  Maybe you could retransmit?
On the question of whether improvement of quality of life comes from
economic growth, who doubts it?  That's a question I'd like you to
answer.  My guess is it's the people wearing Birkenstocks, the price
of which is, per pair, equal to the annual per capita income of Mali.
                                 -dlj.

yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote for all to see:
>David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
>: Jay Hanson  wrote:
>
>: >In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
>: >now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
>
>: And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
>: year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
>: look pretty good for the future, don't they.
>
>World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people are starving 
>on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink glasses.
I know I will hate myself for replying, but I feel a desire to note
that, with less than 16% of the world, this means that more than 84%
are getting sufficient food.  This is in stark contrast to previous
eras, when much larger portions of the population were continually
starving.
It is a shame Yuri cannot understand that this is progress.  The sad
note in this is that, the food is here and available, but political
upheaval makes it too frequently impossible to get the food to the
people who do need it.
Regards, Harold
----
"I got the impression that, instead of going out to shoot
birds, I should shoot the kids that shoot birds"
     - Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace
	(Acess to Energy, December 1982, Vol. 10, No 4)

John McCarthy  wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky includes:
> 
>      World Food Organization reports that over 800 million people
>      are starving on this planet right now. Get rid of your pink
>      glasses.
> 
> I'm sure that "starving" isn't the word that was used by the World
> Food Organization.  If 800 million were starving, and the report was
> from last year, we would expect them to be dead by now.
The proper word is 'malnourished'.  The worst cases are generally in
socialist countries like Ethiopia and North Korea.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"To argue with those who have renounced the use
 and authority of reason is as futile as to
 administer medicine to the dead." 
-- Thomas Paine

In article <56ecrl$b2j@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,
jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) writes:
>  wrote:
>
>>Regarding your fears about censorship.  I think as long as you and I
>>continue to work together, the likelihood is that the conservatives will
>>have little success in making too many advances along those lines.  I
>>guess the only organization that will be censored is neo-tech and its
>>affiliates.  Perhaps initiation of action, in that regard, is so far
>>advanced that it is unstoppable!!!
>
>But you've ignored what Dan has told you.  Currently, the chief proponent
>of censorship is Sen. Exon, who is a Democrat.
>
>Your characterization of good liberals and bad conservatives is, quite
>simply, wrong.
Thank you for the observation.  None of my comments are universally
applicable to all individuals of any group.  I am aware of degenerates in
some of my favorite classes.  I just believe that republicans, are more
universally condemnable when it comes to censorship and  many other
personal freedoms!!   
:)"Jack":)
John H. Fisher  -  TaxService@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa. - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!!

Alastair McKinstry  wrote for all to see:
>jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
[edited]
>>  What counts is
>> the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
>> population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
>
>Does this labor efficiency include those working in energy creation
>(oil extraction, fertilizer manufacture) or just those directly
>involved in agriculture ?
>
An excellent question!  Of course not.  We can get a good ballpark
figure for this, however, from the portion of US income the average
family spends on food, since the inputs you mentioned (fuel,
fertilizer) would be encompassed by that, I believe.  Last I looked,
this was less than 20%.  Of course, that included restaurants, where
most of the charge goes to the labor of preparation and serving.  But
that is a reasonable upper bound, don't you think?
Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions.  Trade loves 
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.  
....  Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high 
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their 
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein.  Hence it makes them 
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
	---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3, 
	ch. 21 (1840).

Hey guys - 
You all seem to be struck by the idea of some woman having an opinion on
this stuff. Rereading the posts of the last few days, I don't see that I
presented fewer statistics, studies, HARD facts as you males like to say,
etc., or more opinions than the rest of you. I do see, however, that my
gender bothers you. I am who I say I am. "Word Warrior?" "Female Nudds"?
Dear me, I could throw a few esoterically condescending labels your way,
but I thought we were offering our thoughts on sustainable agriculture.
What's the average age of this little thread, I wonder?
Bye, MEN
Betsy
> >Are you actually Shiela, better known as the Word Warrior? 
>  She had a
> >similar debating style; attack character and intelligence, 
> make
> >assertions, present no references.
> 
> I don't believe it!  There is a female Nudds in the world.  
> Heaven help us all!

Station Car Web Pages Updated
Station cars will become a mobility system including battery-powered
cars for access to mass transit and
other stations. The vehicles are parked (eventually queued) and charged
at stations.  Initially all stations are at mass transit facilities.
But a station could be at any point that requires high and regular
access such as college campuses, business parks, or in dense
residential areas, but not at a football stadium.
Our Web Info Pages have just been updated and now include a Photo
Gallery. We invite you come visit.
http://www.stncar.com
-- 
Martin J. Bernard III, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Station Car Association
Oakland, California
******************************************************************
*       Station cars will become mobility systems including      *
*    battery-powered cars for access to mass transit stations.   *
* For information about the station car concept please visit the *
*        National Station Car Association's Info Pages at        *
*                     http://www.stncar.com                      *
*             If you want to learn about the French              *
*                concept of station cars, visit                  *
*              http://www-rocq.inria.fr/praxitele                *
************************Making EVs Current************************

Station Car Web Pages Updated
Station cars will become a mobility system including battery-powered
cars for access to mass transit and other stations. The vehicles are
parked (eventually queued) and charged at stations.  Initially all
stations are at mass transit facilities. But a station could be at any
point that requires high and regular access such as college campuses,
business parks, or in dense residential areas, but not at a football
stadium.
Our Web Info Pages have just been updated and now include a Photo
Gallery. We invite you come visit.
http://www.stncar.com
-- 
Martin J. Bernard III, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Station Car Association
Oakland, California
******************************************************************
*       Station cars will become mobility systems including      *
*    battery-powered cars for access to mass transit stations.   *
* For information about the station car concept please visit the *
*        National Station Car Association's Info Pages at        *
*                     http://www.stncar.com                      *
*             If you want to learn about the French              *
*                concept of station cars, visit                  *
*              http://www-rocq.inria.fr/praxitele                *
************************Making EVs Current************************

In article <56fhn4$das@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
_]David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
_]: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
_]:  
_]: Which reminds me: if we've got a population surplus, howcome the price
_]: of labour is going up _everywhere_?
_]
_]How do you know that? The price of labour is going up in Zaire? Genocide 
_]must be pretty labour-intensive then...
_]
_]It is people like you who bring us Zaire. I remember posting about this 
_]many months ago predicting that this is EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN!
_]
_]Go ahead and snicker about it in your usual style. I expect THIS from 
_]you...
_]
 O.K. This guy McCarthy and the like are responsible for the mess in Zaire ?
He must be "Worse than Hitler" (Tm) or Mike harris even ! If we get rid of him and
all the other people "like him", would that prevent further incidents of this nature ? 
 I've always assumed someone must be personally responsible for the convergence of
Over-population, environmental devastation and Stone-age tribalism in Africa.
Its people like McCarthy ! Thanks for clearing this up Yuri !

l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote for all to see:
>Hey guys - 
>You all seem to be struck by the idea of some woman having an opinion on
>this stuff. 
You think so?  I did not note where your sex was at issue.  If I
implied that, I did not see it, and would appreciate you pointing out
anything I said that did imply that.
>Rereading the posts of the last few days, I don't see that I
>presented fewer statistics, studies, HARD facts as you males like to say,
>etc., or more opinions than the rest of you. 
Actually, you presented no hard facts or statistics at all, that
appeared on my server, anyway.  You presented your opinions.  I did
present some hard facts, and a citation as well, see those I mentioned
from the publications "World Crop Production", USDA/FAS, WCP 5-87,
May, 1987 or "World Agricultural Production", WAP-1-91, Jan 1991.
>I do see, however, that my
>gender bothers you. I am who I say I am. 
Your gender does not bother me.  I did not even comment on it.  I did
comment that your style was quite similar to Shiela the "Word
Warrior".  I stand by that observation.
>"Word Warrior?" "Female Nudds"?
>Dear me, I could throw a few esoterically condescending labels your way,
>but I thought we were offering our thoughts on sustainable agriculture.
I presume that was someone else's comment about Scott Nudds.  I use
his name as a convenient technique to judge how much fact I can expect
to be displayed in a thread (the more Nudds, the less fact, in my
opinion).  You have not achieved that status yet.
>What's the average age of this little thread, I wonder?
Average age?  It looks to be about 4 or five messages deep on my
display.  Is that what you mean?
Regards, Harold
------
"By September 1979, all important life in the sea was extinct. 
Large areas of coastline had to be evacuated...  A pretty grim 
scenario. Unfortunately were a long way into it already...based 
on projections of trends already appearing..."
   - Paul Ehrilich, Environmental Handbook, 1970, pp 174

> > I'm sure that "starving" isn't the word that was used by the World
> > Food Organization.  If 800 million were starving, and the report was
> > from last year, we would expect them to be dead by now.
> 
> The proper word is 'malnourished'.  The worst cases are generally in
> socialist countries like Ethiopia and North Korea.
  I must object to the misuse of the word "socialist."  Countries run by
  demagogues -- tyrants -- for their own purposes are the opposite of "socialist."
  Centrally-controlled economies, of which the USSR was the prime example,
  are doomed to failure even under a "socialist" banner -- they should be 
  called "stupid," not "socialist."   They must resort to police control of the
  populace because they are NOT socialist.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210    
or:    www.netcom.com/~masonc (maybe)
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > 
: > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > 
: > [deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
: > 
: > : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
: > : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
: > : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
: > : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
: > : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
: > : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
: > : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
: > : up as a rise in the cost of "fish", 
: > Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
: > and should not show up in the CPI.  If it does, it would be 
: > because the BLS made a mistake.
[ deletions ]
: How about
: 	BF		FF		FI
: 	p	q	p	q
: 1995    2	20	10	1	100
: 1996    2	15	11	5	170 <- WRONG: 102 is correct.
: 1997    2	10	12	11	178(since1996)
: 					304(since 1995)			
You really should understand the basics before you make esoteric
criticisms.  A price index holds the bundle of goods constant over
time.  This is the whole point.  Because you don't understand this,
your calculations are wrong.
I've corrected your 1996 value.  You've calculated a 70% increase in
_expenditures_ on fish, but this is not the same as an increase in
price.  The increase in expenditures mostly occurred because quantity
increased.  The _price_ only rose 2%.
: Constant demand for the bulk goods, but
: the value added to the fancy fish causes demand,
: corresponding price rise, and the mean index,
: counting just "fish" rises sharply with no
: rise in aggregate demand of the raw commodity,
: and no shortage of the raw commodity. 
: In fact the price of Boring Fish could fall to 0
: and there would still be an apparent rise in the 
: Fish Index.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

On 14 Nov 1996 02:02:45 GMT, "Mike Asher"  wrote:
>>>Unfortunately, this is true.   Risk analysis studies rate solar
>>> power as more dangerous than coal or nuclear.
>>
>>This is hilarious!  Solar power more dangerous than
>>nuclear power.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
>
>My source is "Energy Risk Assessment" Herbert Inhaber, 1983,  Gordon &
>Breach.  Solar power is rated far more dangerous than nuclear, and even
>more so than coal, with its deaths from lung disease and mining accidents.
OK, what exactly makes solar so dangerous?  Standing in front of a
collection mirror while staring at the Sun?  You might as well say
that lollipops are more hazardous than cigarettes.  (BTW, many people 
who scoff at environmentalism are smokers; they are willing to gamble
their very lives on a habit).
It would interesting to see Herbert Inhaber's quote in its full
context.  He's a big proponent of nuclear energy as a cure-all, but 
I can't believe he'd be so stupid as to actually say what you claim,
unless it was taken in a very narrow context.  Out-of-context quotes
are the norm with anti-enviros, of course.  Their grow-forever agenda
usually supersedes reality.
- A.J.

Bo Curry (curry@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
: Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
: : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
: : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
: : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
: : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
: : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
: : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
: : up as a rise in the cost of "fish", or not?
: 
: Much of what you say is true, and your analysis of the
: caveats involved in using price information to measure
: resource scarcity are well taken.
No, almost none of what he said is true.  Most of his criticisms
rest on fundemental misunderstandings of what a price index is.
: Why, then, are the Simonites so cavalier about using
: price *decreases* as evidence for resource abundance?
: You can't have it both ways, and the same caveats
: apply in both cases.
Perhaps because Simon paid attention in econ 1 when they 
were discussing price indexes?
: In fact, of course, price variations are a very *poor*
: measure of abundance or sustainability. The physical
: data are far more reliable. That is, the best way to
: measure the abundance of fish is to count the fish.
So, how many fish are there?  What do you mean by fish?
If there are more Menhaden and less Cod than last year,
do we have more or less fish? 
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> 
> ...in the context of the discussion at hand, the resources
> in question are those of energy, in various forms; either directly
> (in the form of Solar energy, wind, hydro) or indirectly (stored energy in
>  the form of wood, oil, coal, nuclear..).
> 
> Of these, we have created no new forms.
> 
Not yet.  However, knowledge of how to control nuclear fusion or
matter-antimatter annihilation would render all of the above
irrelevant.  
> ...We can improve the recovery of oil from the ground,
> we can discover more of the latent amount of oil in the ground; we
> can invent new ways of recovering energy from previously useless
> minerals, such as Uranium.
> 
> But the amount of these in the Earth is fixed.
> 
But the amount of today-fuels and minerals in the asteroids, moon, and
planets is, for all practical purposes, infinite.  All we need is the
technology to recover them.  
Or a different technology which obsoletes them altogether.   
-- Steve
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
 "The problem of the economists is that despite years of 
  effort to predict economic change, they remain nearly 
  oblivious to the vital processes of innovation and new 
  company formation that constitute economic development."
  --George Gilder
 "Nothing is more conducive to progress than the widespread 
  belief that it can occur."
  --Charles Van Doren
*-----------------------------------------------------------*

Hey! I wrote none of this!  You won't find me talking about exchange rates,
except involuntarily.
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) wrote:
: >Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: >: Or it may be slower. Remember the US doesn't import much
: >: fish from Japan, so $-Yen rates are irrelevant, you'd need
: >: the import value weighted basked of currencies of countries
: >: that import fish to the US. I have no idea where the
: >: PP corrected value of the $ was in 1970 relative to the intervening
: >: years, but I do know it changed drastically at times during that
: >: interval.
: The US doesn't have to buy fish from Japan in order to be affected by
: the exchange rate.  All it takes is for the US to pull one fish out of
: the same water and decline to sell it to Japan because the US market
: is more profitable for the exchange rate to be reflected in the
: American price.
:  
:                                  -dlj.
:  
: >
: >--
: >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
: >Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
: >Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
: >U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_