"No, what we don't like is having people telling other people what to do with the point of a gun. Energy and food production improvements didn't occur because the government mandated it. "
Actually, those changes did happen, in part, because of the government.
The government does thinks like mandating fuel standards for vehicles, or pollution standards for factories, which has had large effects on the energy crises mentioned above. Or, the government made large amounts of federal research dollars available scientists (often at public facilities) to research genetics for certain types of crops to address food shortages, which addressed famine issues. That was a major way in which governments addressed another major crises discussed above.
You are seriously going to try to claim that frakking, deep oil drilling, etc. or that GM foods and such were thanks to the government? Come on. Be serious. If you can't concede even a minor point like this how do you expect to have a discussion on something where the issues are more debatable?
Private forces certainly played a large role in those things as well, but government spending and mandates were a big factor as well.
No. No they weren't. They weren't even a small factor. They weren't even a tiny factor. Demand for more food and more energy drove industry to come up with better, cheaper ways to get more of it. The government had nothing to do with it.
You can choose to complain about being forced to do things all you want, but read up on the principles of the founding fathers. They pretty much all said that once something starts to affect society as a whole, its time for the government to step in. If climate change affects us all, the government has to get involved.
No they didn't. What are you talking about? Which of the federalist papers are you referring to? The founding fathers were against the Erie canal for crying out loud let alone the idea that the government could somehow tell you how much firewood you could burn or whatever the 18th century equivalent to modern energy production would be.
We do? How? Please explain to me (the guy with the solar powered house and car) how we have this capability.
I used to have some DOE links, but I'm too lazy to find them right now, so I'll just summarize part of a discussion I was having with a fairly high up guy in this field the other day.
Essentially, renewable energy sources are to the point where they can produce energy at a cost that is almost as low as non renewable sources right now (exact details depend on the details of the market). But, the major problem is the renewable sources are a lot less consistent in what they produce - the amount of energy that they produce varies a lot more. Now, you can average the randomness out by distributing your power over the entire country. Places that are overproducing distribute the excess to places that are underproducing etc.
Ok. Well, you're high up guy you mention is wrong. I don't mean to be rude here but I get pretty tired of people who have obviously not put their money with their mouth is on these topics.
Our renewable sources of energy are: Solar. Wind. Biodiesel. None of them are even remotely practical today as a competitive alternative to fossil fuels. Eventually, I believe solar (or fusion) will win out but we're no where near that point.
BUT, you need a reasonable power grid to distribute that much power.
No, You first need "that much power" in the first place. Germany, which has sunk more into renewable energy per capita than anyone else by far is still 80% on non-renewable sources. The power just isn't there yet. Give it time and we'll get there. But right now? Not a chance.
But let's say you disagree. Ok, then what are you waiting for? Where's your 20KW solar array? If renewable energy is a practical option right now then you should have no problem doing what I've done. 100% of my power comes from renewable sources. In fact, I generate more energy from renewable sources than I consume and thus get paid by DTE every month.
In other words, don't presume to tell me what "some high up" person told you. Renewable energy isn't even close to ready yet/
Our current power grid is terrible and outdated and could never handle things. But, the government is unwilling to invest in updating infrastructure, so renewable energy sources are a nonstarter since they won't be consistent enough.
Our power grid is terrible. However, it has nothing to do with renewable. The government could make the infrastructure completely state of the art (with lasers and everything I presume) and it would do nothing for renewable energy.
But yeah, if you look at the cost per kilowatthour of large scale, state of the art renewable energy sources, its really pretty comparable to fossil fuels.
NO. IT. IS NOT. Quit saying stuff like this.
OR if you honestly believe it, go get a goddamn solar array right now and post a picture of it. If it's comparable, go do it.
Seriously, do you have any idea how obnoxious and aggravating it is to have someone who hasn't walked the walk making statements like you just made?
I don't mean to be all pissed off at you specifically (or Jafo for the matter). I don't mind debating something like AGW. But when it comes to renewable energy, you're on my turf. You're not going to find someone on many forums who knows anywhere near as much as I do on this topic and seeing what can only be regarded as striking ignorance is flabbergasting.
To use a tech equivalent, it's like someone criticizing an iPhone who has never actually used or seen one.
Well that's the thing. Government's "doing their part" sounds a lot like governments trying to find a new way to make money to redistribute.
You're paranoid. The government doing their part is stuff like "maintaining a reasonable national infrastructure" and "keeping reasonable pollution standards". This is stuff that is all easily within the expected role of the government.
You think I'm paranoid because I believe the government is interested in finding new ways to take tax money and redistribute it? Ok.
Why? The food and energy abudnance we have today has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
Except for the huge research dollars that the government put in to develop a lot of the technology to grow better crops. Granted, the private sector has largely taken over nowadays, but the government plays a huge role in the early days of those research projects. The early days of a lot of the big energy stuff was pretty government heavy too.
"Huge"? None of the food production and energy production that we enjoy today can be traced to government funding unless you bend over backwards and try to argue that Agent Orange purchases from Monsanto somehow helped in the development of genetically modified food or something.
The Soviet Union had a truly top-down approach. How are they doing these days?
Yeah, and anarchist collectives don't get much done either. I'm not saying we should do a purely top-down or bottom-up approach. I'm saying we should do both. Which makes sense since that approach has repeatedly worked in the past. Like in the crises that were mentioned above.
An ararchist collective would be an oxymoron.
If you really believe the things you write here then:
1) Go get a solar array for your house. Take some pictures and tell us how comparable it really is..
2) Explain how the government is aiding deep oil drilling and frakking.
3) Tell us when Monsanto got their R&D for genetically modified foods paid for by the government.
You were on much stronger ground when you were arguing AGW. But now you're just insisting on things that are simply, blatantly, hysterically untrue.
BTW, the Stardock forum quoting system is horrible. HORRIBLE. Ugh.
