Hi Frank -
[1] "Marginalization and suffering wouldn't occur over a weekend." So stated, often. It hardly bears repeating. Will slow degradation improve the outcome? Is that a concession that there will be insufficient mitigation, we're not ready, and won't be?
[2]"... the species will adapt moving-window style as it always does." Same as above, restated. Ignores the magnitude of marginalization, and the economic consequences (see below).
[3]"I maintain that Internet is relatively benign environmentally and energywise." Fair enough. There's no doubt that the per-bit cost of data transmission has dropped dramatically, especially since the advent of fibre. But that's only part of the story. Do you have a factual basis for the claim that embedded energy costs and constant upgrades for literally billions of devices - not to mention their batteries - are energy benign? Message 27035048
[4]"When leveraged properly, Internet could put a heavy dent into all of the ills you listed where energy is being used foolishly. The Internet should not be confused with the appendages that exploit it." That confusion was not offered. As we continually rediscover on this thread, technology is only rarely win-win. Yes, the Internet can be a mediator for better, and worse.
However, the Internet can't build anything. For that you need energy, money and resources. People can't survive on virtual food, travel in virtual mass transit, or plug into virtual power. The arguments on this thread are reminiscent of Rumsfeld's belief that technology would triumph in Iraq. Wrong. Technology helps. But the real need was for boots on the ground. The same lesson is being learned in Afghanistan.
Technology has limitations. When energy becomes costly so does the operation of each machine and device on the planet, from cellphones to supertankers. The cost of every product we consume is also increased, and the percentage of disposable income is decreased. Over time, consumption is drastically curtailed unless the need for cost-effective energy has been foreseen and acted upon.
Beyond the effect of energy costs on the populace are the effects on industry. Those nations that anticipated and mitigated will have an economic advantage over those that didn't.
---
It's been stated often that effects will be gradual. In fact, they've already started (many would argue they started with the first Oil Embargo in '73) and each time crude oil hits a certain cost, another recession - another crash into the wall - will ensue. Most estimates put the true current number of unemployed (either permanent or otherwise) at ~20 million.
Charts have been posted showing the large percentage increase in electric power cost. On the other list referred to by you, Frank, we both saw evidence that middle class individuals are financially stressed now, even as energy and commodity costs continue to rise.
---
Then we have suppressed reports by -
- DECC guardian.co.uk
- German Bundeswehr spiegel.de
- US Army guardian.co.uk
... not to mention numerous other independent - and credible - studies and reports, some of which have been posted here.
---
While faith and optimism deserve respect, factual assessments deserve even more. The belief that distorted market mechanisms that brought us these problems will also lead us out of the impending troubles is more faith than fact.
However such belief - faith without foundation - is the norm. The outcome is predictable.
Jim |
