The terawatt challenge (R. Smalley)

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Fire.

The wheel.


[/ QUOTE ]
you seriously mean to tell me that those two where created by the market in the sense that you are talking about? Many capitalist around when they were discovered?

And if you seriously mean that (which I doubt) then can you please tell me in what way those required breakthroughs in primary science? Or in what way at all the parallell is valid?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And do you have any succes stories when the free market has solved gigantic problems, of the type that need primary reaserch? You have a lot of ideological rethoric, but are a bit thin on actual examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire.

The wheel.

Can any government top those?

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO

[ QUOTE ]
He seems to overestimate the trouble that we will have adjusting to different energy market conditions. Humans are more adaptable than most people give them credit for.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Pesticides are made from oil;
2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years after oil peaks;
3. Farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil;
4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or coal;
5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs. It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.

In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and all high-tech devices.

How do you figure that this "adaptation" will not involve war, widespread poverty, famine, innumerable deaths, etc.?

There's no question as to whether or not the wealthy, powerful, and least expendable will survive when oil becomes scarce. The question is; what will happen to the rest of us when there's simply not enough energy to sustain everyone?

He's is correct when he predicts "the 21rst century is going to be very unpleasant".

It is my belief that we have been extremely "lucky" up until now, and that we are promised nothing. This fairytale society that we have come to know and love is just an illusion, and will soon come crashing to the ground. [/doomsday rant]

But that's OK. We live, we die. It matters not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do not (which you seems to belive) think that we need government planners to state the goals and the means, I think we need government funds for reasearch in the energy field.
When and if the tech. we need is developed in the various universities and whatnot these techs can be brought to the market by companys and engineers trying to make a profit out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is not what most people are talking about when they call for an "apollo program" for energy research. They want a command and control approach to research AND development, and often they are also talking about full control of the whole energy economy including price controls and rationing and other interventions.

It is a far cry from simply calling for more raw funds for pure research.

So, while I oppose increasing research, that's still not nearly as bad as the usual nonsense proposed by peak oilers.

[ QUOTE ]
I am well aware that in some areas here I am being naive, but that doesn't stop me from beliving that if we leave the problem entirely to the market we will be in for a very rough ride.


[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said for relying on government. If we give the problem to venal stupid bureaucrats with no accountability, we're just asking for pain.

And I still don't see how government is equipped to solve any of these very real problems better than the market. You mentioned that the govt can take a longer view but I find that surprising considering how myopic our government usually is, being composed of people on 2 , 4, and 6, years terms and in positions wholly dependent on the current whim of the public. Frankly, I would even argue that our govt has a more short-term view than the market (as a general rule).

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the one key concept that you seem to continually overlook when engaged in your "free market" rhetoric, is that if you don't take care of the little guy, you'll have no one left to do all your dirty work, and you'll eventually wind up with the jizz-mop in your hands.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the one key concept that you seem to continually overlook when engaged in your "free market" rhetoric, is that if you don't take care of the little guy, you'll have no one left to do all your dirty work, and you'll eventually wind up with the jizz-mop in your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never mind that the best thing that has ever happened to the "little guy" is a free market economy...

natedogg

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fire.

The wheel.


[/ QUOTE ]
you seriously mean to tell me that those two where created by the market in the sense that you are talking about? Many capitalist around when they were discovered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, yes. What we call the free market is not a discrete entity. It is the absence of oppressive manipulation. These tools were developed by men looking to better their lot, without some authority ordering them to do so.

Just about everything that makes life better than it was 50,000 years ago is due to individual effort, not government directed research. What has governmet gotten us? The "apollo program" itself is a testament to what government looks for in research - the space program was just PR front for development of intercontinental ballistic missles. The internet was developed as a communications system designed to withstand nuclear attack. Basically, everything we get from the government has origins in warfare, and the market has to twist these "innovations" back into peaceful uses that people actually want.

The market gives us agriculture, air conditioning, frapaccinos. Governments gives us nuclear weapons, gas chambers, gulags.

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

Government will always be better at accomplishing very large tasks than "the free market" because it is the largest operator in said "free market."

[MMMMMM]

Hi fimbulwinter,

Please refrain from blatantly insulting other posters, or from name-calling. It adds nothing to your argument, and is contrary to the spirit of the Rules and Guidelines for posting.

This of course applies to all users, not just to you. Thanks.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Government will always be better at accomplishing very large tasks than "the free market" because it is the largest operator in said "free market."

[/ QUOTE ]

The only large tasks that the government undertakes are those that nobody in the real world actually cares about (i.e. nobody is willing to pay for them).

[Il_Mostro]

ok, can you now please answer the real questions that I posted
[ QUOTE ]
And if you seriously mean that (which I doubt) then can you please tell me in what way those required breakthroughs in primary science? Or in what way at all the parallell is valid?

[/ QUOTE ]
In what way is the fact that some dude discovered that if you bang two rocks together you can make fire to the solving of the, arguably, biggest problem humanity has ever faced?