[FoRK] Great graphs and facts: Energy

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Sat Mar 26 10:34:30 PDT 2011

On 3/26/11 7:38 AM, Gary Stock wrote:
> On 3/25/11 7:58 PM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>> Darn thread has a long half-life! ;-)
> And provides evidence of a heretofore undescribed material of enormous density.

A nicely ambiguous statement, that is.

>> http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm
>> So, where are the corrections to those facts?
> How would corrections of facts lead to the requisite acknowledgement that human nature is the primary problem?

It is the primary problem to be engineered around, yes.  We can engineer around it, as we've shown many times in the past.  One 
general way of engineering around it is to change the problem and the specific combination of solutions, which has already been 
largely done.

There are always risk / reward tradeoff points where things become A) feasible, B) better, C) desirable, D) acceptable, E) the 
obvious choice, F) inevitable, G) inescapable, and H) immanent.  People that study it seem to be at D-E with the general public 
split over B.0 and C.5, although the right visionaries could push us quickly along.  Here, mostly-irrational fear seems to be the 
main thing holding us back.  New designs however are likely to allay that fear, so it hasn't been such a bad thing up until recently.

I'll also repeat my suspicion: We, at some esoteric long-thinking and "Foundation"al level, don't really want to stop paying the 
third world for oil too quickly.  It is charity/development-flow-to-backward-cultures-disguised-as-fair-trade.  Without that trade, 
and similar trading like it, the gap between first and third world would be so massive that the effects might not be as 
constructive.  The world's cultures have already come a long, long way, with a good chunk still to go.  If it's not a conscious 
effort or it is just oil companies protecting their revenue stream, it still is working out that way.

> GS 


More information about the FoRK mailing list