Give up AC to save future generations?
I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.
In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.
I claim that a compelling sense of stewardship must come through a comprehension of the science of morality (yet to be developed).
Give up AC to save future generations?
Give up AC to save future generations?
I don't think it's so much a case of morality than a matter of developing true compassion. Compassion, not only for people and pets, but for the environment also, without which we could never survive. It has to come from the heart to be worthwhile or it will become simply an act without meaning. As an act without meaning, any other meaning can be attached to the act which could end with a dterimental effect or just defeating its purpose.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Give up AC to save future generations?
coberst;1084317 wrote: Give up AC to save future generations?
I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.
In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.
I claim that a compelling sense of stewardship must come through a comprehension of the science of morality (yet to be developed).
Maybe by referring to that generation five times removed as our great, great great great grandchildren.
I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.
In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.
I claim that a compelling sense of stewardship must come through a comprehension of the science of morality (yet to be developed).
Maybe by referring to that generation five times removed as our great, great great great grandchildren.
Give up AC to save future generations?
Brian Sykes's research with mitochondrial DNA has us all pinned down to originating in Africa. So far, though I may be wrong, continuing research still supports the idea that Africa spawned the human race.
Despite all our interventions in Africa, they haven't changed much. So, Africa gives us a good idea of the basic creature within us.
Despite all our interventions in Africa, they haven't changed much. So, Africa gives us a good idea of the basic creature within us.
Give up AC to save future generations?
It sounds like you're suggesting that among the beings to be considered when weighing the consequences of an action, we need to include people who do not yet exist, and somehow factor their existance (which they don't have yet) into our moral calculations.
The problem with doing that beyond generations that will become alive before you die is that you have several roadblocks.
1/ You have no way to know how many generations will actually come to exist regardless of your decision. Nor can I think of a number that would universally be agreed upon as being "Enough" generations into the future without being "Too many"
2/ You have no way to know how any future generation will actually prioritize things, and thus no way to know whether they will share the same beliefs as you, leading you to factor in their lives in a way that they woudln't want you to.
I simply deny that you could make any meaningful decision by factoring in people 20 generations from now, or even 10, or really, given the speed with which technology is advancing, 5 generations. I know that almost any decision being made by my great, great, great grandfather about the "stewardship" of the earth for my potential future benefit would have been ignorant, misguided and show a complete lack of understanding of any of my current morals, standards, or of the current state of the earth.
Are you a prognosticator to tell what things are important now as well as what will be important to your five times great grandchildren? We try to repair the ozone layer now to keep the world safe for later generations, only to have some as yet totally unforseen change in the environment turn that into a horrible idea.
We protect some species that thanks to our efforts, overpopulates and becomes a genuine menace to later generations.
We can work only with the information we have now, the "facts on the ground" and -maybe- some of the more clear and readily supported extrapolations as to how things might go in the future.
We can't even predict the weather with any degree of reliability beyond 24 hours, I shudder to think how either paralyzed with inaction, or prone to poor decision making we would be if we tried to base our every decision around the effects that may or may not occur 150 years down the road.
Despite all our interventions in Africa, they haven't changed much. So, Africa gives us a good idea of the basic creature within us.I'm trying to decide if this statement is actually as horrendously inappropriate as it looks at first blush.
The problem with doing that beyond generations that will become alive before you die is that you have several roadblocks.
1/ You have no way to know how many generations will actually come to exist regardless of your decision. Nor can I think of a number that would universally be agreed upon as being "Enough" generations into the future without being "Too many"
2/ You have no way to know how any future generation will actually prioritize things, and thus no way to know whether they will share the same beliefs as you, leading you to factor in their lives in a way that they woudln't want you to.
I simply deny that you could make any meaningful decision by factoring in people 20 generations from now, or even 10, or really, given the speed with which technology is advancing, 5 generations. I know that almost any decision being made by my great, great, great grandfather about the "stewardship" of the earth for my potential future benefit would have been ignorant, misguided and show a complete lack of understanding of any of my current morals, standards, or of the current state of the earth.
Are you a prognosticator to tell what things are important now as well as what will be important to your five times great grandchildren? We try to repair the ozone layer now to keep the world safe for later generations, only to have some as yet totally unforseen change in the environment turn that into a horrible idea.
We protect some species that thanks to our efforts, overpopulates and becomes a genuine menace to later generations.
We can work only with the information we have now, the "facts on the ground" and -maybe- some of the more clear and readily supported extrapolations as to how things might go in the future.
We can't even predict the weather with any degree of reliability beyond 24 hours, I shudder to think how either paralyzed with inaction, or prone to poor decision making we would be if we tried to base our every decision around the effects that may or may not occur 150 years down the road.
Despite all our interventions in Africa, they haven't changed much. So, Africa gives us a good idea of the basic creature within us.I'm trying to decide if this statement is actually as horrendously inappropriate as it looks at first blush.
Give up AC to save future generations?
There is no need to give anything up, what there is the need for is the political will and investment into alternate sources of renewable energy.
The billions spent on exploring Mars, would be enough in its self to fund effective wind power stations.
Why isn’t it mandatory that every house that is built has solar panels? How hard could that be?
How about people and governments realizing that public transportation does not have to be profitable and privatized, that an effective transportation system is an investment in the future, and it is not a big deal if they operate at a loss as long as they encourage maximum use.
The billions spent on exploring Mars, would be enough in its self to fund effective wind power stations.
Why isn’t it mandatory that every house that is built has solar panels? How hard could that be?
How about people and governments realizing that public transportation does not have to be profitable and privatized, that an effective transportation system is an investment in the future, and it is not a big deal if they operate at a loss as long as they encourage maximum use.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
Give up AC to save future generations?
mikeinie;1085235 wrote: There is no need to give anything up, what there is the need for is the political will and investment into alternate sources of renewable energy.
The billions spent on exploring Mars, would be enough in its self to fund effective wind power stations.
Why isn’t it mandatory that every house that is built has solar panels? How hard could that be?
How about people and governments realizing that public transportation does not have to be profitable and privatized, that an effective transportation system is an investment in the future, and it is not a big deal if they operate at a loss as long as they encourage maximum use.
You make some great points here. Much money is really misspent and planning shorsighted. And we could have started mandating solar panels years ago and by now it would be mainstream. We could have already been well into alternative energy usage.
The billions spent on exploring Mars, would be enough in its self to fund effective wind power stations.
Why isn’t it mandatory that every house that is built has solar panels? How hard could that be?
How about people and governments realizing that public transportation does not have to be profitable and privatized, that an effective transportation system is an investment in the future, and it is not a big deal if they operate at a loss as long as they encourage maximum use.
You make some great points here. Much money is really misspent and planning shorsighted. And we could have started mandating solar panels years ago and by now it would be mainstream. We could have already been well into alternative energy usage.
Give up AC to save future generations?
Who is supposed to do that mandating? The individual government of every country on earth? Aside from the fact that many simply don't have the money and infrastructure to do it, several countries that do woudln't bother.
Consider the sheer number of homes in a China or an India, trying to convert them to individual solar power would take easily a decade and a huge expense. In their case it is FAR more efficient and effective to use the power source that creates the largest energy in the smallest physical area: Nuclear power.
In fact, plenty of "environmentally friendly" power sources actually cause a lot of other kinds of problem. Look at wind power. Sure, wind power runs clean and has no waste products, but when you consider that someone I know was gainfully employed for weeks going to a nearby wind farm (And a small one at that) for the sole purpose of counting and catalogueing all the things that died from smacking into the blades, there's pretty obviously an environmental impact.
Solar power makes a great augmentation, and helps cut your energy bill substantially. If you use enough of them and live in a place that gets enough direct sunlight you can even power most of the things you need in your home, but I'm not sure that even if some mandate were carry out-able (And consider the costs involved in a government just arbitrarily putting a huge business completely out of business) it would actually solve any kind of energy problems.
As for the billions spent exploring Mars, I think on the one hand you will find that -nothing- in the US budget gets more dollars than defense, and that is certainly an area in which FAR less money could be allocated without threatening America's stranglehold on military power. And additionally, I can think of many MANY worse things to be spending money on that research that could eventually lead to colonization of other planets because even within the bounds of the above arguments you guys have stated, it seems we aren't doing very nice things to the rock we have.
And as for things like wanting the government to subsidize mass transit: The only way increased governmentalization of services works is via an increase in taxes. By setting aside a larger percentage of one's income into taxation, the government has the means to subsidize services. The objections to a Mass Transit tax in exchange for free use of buses is the same people have in the US to oppose government subsidized health care: They don't want to pay for something unless they need to use it.
Consider the sheer number of homes in a China or an India, trying to convert them to individual solar power would take easily a decade and a huge expense. In their case it is FAR more efficient and effective to use the power source that creates the largest energy in the smallest physical area: Nuclear power.
In fact, plenty of "environmentally friendly" power sources actually cause a lot of other kinds of problem. Look at wind power. Sure, wind power runs clean and has no waste products, but when you consider that someone I know was gainfully employed for weeks going to a nearby wind farm (And a small one at that) for the sole purpose of counting and catalogueing all the things that died from smacking into the blades, there's pretty obviously an environmental impact.
Solar power makes a great augmentation, and helps cut your energy bill substantially. If you use enough of them and live in a place that gets enough direct sunlight you can even power most of the things you need in your home, but I'm not sure that even if some mandate were carry out-able (And consider the costs involved in a government just arbitrarily putting a huge business completely out of business) it would actually solve any kind of energy problems.
As for the billions spent exploring Mars, I think on the one hand you will find that -nothing- in the US budget gets more dollars than defense, and that is certainly an area in which FAR less money could be allocated without threatening America's stranglehold on military power. And additionally, I can think of many MANY worse things to be spending money on that research that could eventually lead to colonization of other planets because even within the bounds of the above arguments you guys have stated, it seems we aren't doing very nice things to the rock we have.
And as for things like wanting the government to subsidize mass transit: The only way increased governmentalization of services works is via an increase in taxes. By setting aside a larger percentage of one's income into taxation, the government has the means to subsidize services. The objections to a Mass Transit tax in exchange for free use of buses is the same people have in the US to oppose government subsidized health care: They don't want to pay for something unless they need to use it.
Give up AC to save future generations?
Devonin;1085555 wrote: Who is supposed to do that mandating? The individual government of every country on earth? Aside from the fact that many simply don't have the money and infrastructure to do it, several countries that do woudln't bother.
Consider the sheer number of homes in a China or an India, trying to convert them to individual solar power would take easily a decade and a huge expense. In their case it is FAR more efficient and effective to use the power source that creates the largest energy in the smallest physical area: Nuclear power.
In fact, plenty of "environmentally friendly" power sources actually cause a lot of other kinds of problem. Look at wind power. Sure, wind power runs clean and has no waste products, but when you consider that someone I know was gainfully employed for weeks going to a nearby wind farm (And a small one at that) for the sole purpose of counting and catalogueing all the things that died from smacking into the blades, there's pretty obviously an environmental impact.
Solar power makes a great augmentation, and helps cut your energy bill substantially. If you use enough of them and live in a place that gets enough direct sunlight you can even power most of the things you need in your home, but I'm not sure that even if some mandate were carry out-able (And consider the costs involved in a government just arbitrarily putting a huge business completely out of business) it would actually solve any kind of energy problems.
As for the billions spent exploring Mars, I think on the one hand you will find that -nothing- in the US budget gets more dollars than defense, and that is certainly an area in which FAR less money could be allocated without threatening America's stranglehold on military power. And additionally, I can think of many MANY worse things to be spending money on that research that could eventually lead to colonization of other planets because even within the bounds of the above arguments you guys have stated, it seems we aren't doing very nice things to the rock we have.
And as for things like wanting the government to subsidize mass transit: The only way increased governmentalization of services works is via an increase in taxes. By setting aside a larger percentage of one's income into taxation, the government has the means to subsidize services. The objections to a Mass Transit tax in exchange for free use of buses is the same people have in the US to oppose government subsidized health care: They don't want to pay for something unless they need to use it.
Nuclear power isn't the answer to our energy needs. It is only a band-aid. It is the most deleterious form of power production, however much it has been refined. It will always be a dangerous form of power and dependent on strict maintenance to ensure we don't end up with a repeat of Chernobyl, let alone the strain on natural resources.
All forms of power are valid - wind power, wave power, solar power, etc. All need to be used if we are to move forward and all have a place.
The real problem lies with our governments. They want to make sure they have utter control of everything. By doing so, the costs of providing energy escalate. These are people who are very insecure.
To be an electrician, I have to be able to provide a certificate to show that I am an electrician. Does a Prime Minister have to provide a certificate to show he is fit to be a Prime Minister?
All the power that we need is there without resorting to nuclear power as the only source. Nuclear power should only be a back up source when all else fails.
Who enjoys commuting? I don't.
I enjoy driving, but I hate driving the same old route to work every day. I would use public transport if it was reliable, cheaper and didn't take twice the time.
As for preventing birds from being chopped up by wind turbines, it doesn't take much to work out how to stop that. But of course, that's an extra cost and who's going to pay for it? I would pay for it since I already pay for everything my damned government wants to spend my taxes on.
The problem is not about what power but with who legitimises those who make the decisions.
Consider the sheer number of homes in a China or an India, trying to convert them to individual solar power would take easily a decade and a huge expense. In their case it is FAR more efficient and effective to use the power source that creates the largest energy in the smallest physical area: Nuclear power.
In fact, plenty of "environmentally friendly" power sources actually cause a lot of other kinds of problem. Look at wind power. Sure, wind power runs clean and has no waste products, but when you consider that someone I know was gainfully employed for weeks going to a nearby wind farm (And a small one at that) for the sole purpose of counting and catalogueing all the things that died from smacking into the blades, there's pretty obviously an environmental impact.
Solar power makes a great augmentation, and helps cut your energy bill substantially. If you use enough of them and live in a place that gets enough direct sunlight you can even power most of the things you need in your home, but I'm not sure that even if some mandate were carry out-able (And consider the costs involved in a government just arbitrarily putting a huge business completely out of business) it would actually solve any kind of energy problems.
As for the billions spent exploring Mars, I think on the one hand you will find that -nothing- in the US budget gets more dollars than defense, and that is certainly an area in which FAR less money could be allocated without threatening America's stranglehold on military power. And additionally, I can think of many MANY worse things to be spending money on that research that could eventually lead to colonization of other planets because even within the bounds of the above arguments you guys have stated, it seems we aren't doing very nice things to the rock we have.
And as for things like wanting the government to subsidize mass transit: The only way increased governmentalization of services works is via an increase in taxes. By setting aside a larger percentage of one's income into taxation, the government has the means to subsidize services. The objections to a Mass Transit tax in exchange for free use of buses is the same people have in the US to oppose government subsidized health care: They don't want to pay for something unless they need to use it.
Nuclear power isn't the answer to our energy needs. It is only a band-aid. It is the most deleterious form of power production, however much it has been refined. It will always be a dangerous form of power and dependent on strict maintenance to ensure we don't end up with a repeat of Chernobyl, let alone the strain on natural resources.
All forms of power are valid - wind power, wave power, solar power, etc. All need to be used if we are to move forward and all have a place.
The real problem lies with our governments. They want to make sure they have utter control of everything. By doing so, the costs of providing energy escalate. These are people who are very insecure.
To be an electrician, I have to be able to provide a certificate to show that I am an electrician. Does a Prime Minister have to provide a certificate to show he is fit to be a Prime Minister?
All the power that we need is there without resorting to nuclear power as the only source. Nuclear power should only be a back up source when all else fails.
Who enjoys commuting? I don't.
I enjoy driving, but I hate driving the same old route to work every day. I would use public transport if it was reliable, cheaper and didn't take twice the time.
As for preventing birds from being chopped up by wind turbines, it doesn't take much to work out how to stop that. But of course, that's an extra cost and who's going to pay for it? I would pay for it since I already pay for everything my damned government wants to spend my taxes on.
The problem is not about what power but with who legitimises those who make the decisions.
Give up AC to save future generations?
posted by coberst
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
So are compassion and caring for others, selfishness and greed are destructive and hold the seeds of destruction for those who believe that is all there is.
posted by coberst
How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Self fulfilling prophecy. Because you do not think it possible you don't bother trying in reality most normal people do care about what happens to their children and their children's children. It's the most natural thing in the world. Why else do you think environmental movements gain such widespread support. Governments follow the people when it comes to change in the way we do things. There is tendency to believe ordinary people are incapable of complex thought, especially amongst the intellectual elite over impressed by their own perspicacity
posted by coberst
Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.
Who cares? Americans are not the whole world and if they can't grasp the need to change the way we use our resources and how we treat our environment they will be left behind,
Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.
So are compassion and caring for others, selfishness and greed are destructive and hold the seeds of destruction for those who believe that is all there is.
posted by coberst
How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.
Self fulfilling prophecy. Because you do not think it possible you don't bother trying in reality most normal people do care about what happens to their children and their children's children. It's the most natural thing in the world. Why else do you think environmental movements gain such widespread support. Governments follow the people when it comes to change in the way we do things. There is tendency to believe ordinary people are incapable of complex thought, especially amongst the intellectual elite over impressed by their own perspicacity
posted by coberst
Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.
Who cares? Americans are not the whole world and if they can't grasp the need to change the way we use our resources and how we treat our environment they will be left behind,
Give up AC to save future generations?
It will always be a dangerous form of power and dependent on strict maintenance to ensure we don't end up with a repeat of Chernobyl,You're making the old mistake of thinking of nuclear power as dangerous for those reasons. You're not afraid of dangers inherant in the process, you're afraid of the consequences of incompetance among those working with nuclear power. I think you'll find the degree of understanding and information about nuclear power now dramatically outstrips the beginner's knowledge that led to Chyrnobel and Three Mile Island. The technicians are far better educated, far better trained, and carry a far better grasp of understanding how to build, maintain and manage nuclear power generation.
Pretty much the only negative aspect to nuclear power is the fact that we haven't yet found anything useful to do with the waste products. However, if there were to be a more direct motion towards nuclear power, how long do you think it would take some think tank working for a multinational to come up with a use for it?
They want to make sure they have utter control of everything. By doing so, the costs of providing energy escalate. Look what happened in the United States with privatizing energy generation. Rolling blackouts, shortages. The government controlling power generation isn't about "wanting control" it's about "wanting power generation to actually function"
Does a Prime Minister have to provide a certificate to show he is fit to be a Prime Minister?Seriously? You seriously want to suggest that freely elected democratic leaders can fail to be good at their job and have that be anybody's fault except the people who freely democratically elected them? They've shown you their credentials, it's called "An election campaign" and you've made your decision based on the credentials presented. If you suffer from Buyers Remorse after the fact, whose fault is that?
Pretty much the only negative aspect to nuclear power is the fact that we haven't yet found anything useful to do with the waste products. However, if there were to be a more direct motion towards nuclear power, how long do you think it would take some think tank working for a multinational to come up with a use for it?
They want to make sure they have utter control of everything. By doing so, the costs of providing energy escalate. Look what happened in the United States with privatizing energy generation. Rolling blackouts, shortages. The government controlling power generation isn't about "wanting control" it's about "wanting power generation to actually function"
Does a Prime Minister have to provide a certificate to show he is fit to be a Prime Minister?Seriously? You seriously want to suggest that freely elected democratic leaders can fail to be good at their job and have that be anybody's fault except the people who freely democratically elected them? They've shown you their credentials, it's called "An election campaign" and you've made your decision based on the credentials presented. If you suffer from Buyers Remorse after the fact, whose fault is that?