It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's Wrong With technological Fixes for Environment?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I wonder Why the Eco-Socialists are Rejecting Technological Fixes to the Environment like Hydrogen Fuel-Cell, and Free Energy?

[edit on 14-12-2009 by masonicon]




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Many climate change scientists are not against technological fixes but many want to use this perceived 'crisis' to subjugate free people under a one world system of unchecked tyranny.

The economic 'fixes' are ill-conceived and would literally lead to more death and tragedy than otherwise.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
I wonder Why the Eco-Socialists are Rejecting Technological Fixes to the Environment like Hydrogen Fuel-Cell, and Free Energy?


Hi there, Animal here, one of the local eco-socialist / eco-nazis
. Actually before I reply to your question I would just like to point out that the use of terms like eco-socialist / eco-nazi is actually kind of an insult that not only hurts my feelings but also tends to produce more aggressive answers rather than open and honest debate. Some people would go so far as to call such name calling an ad homenin attack which is one of many types of logical fallacy.


I personally have not 'rejected' fuel-cells as an alternate form of energy however I was under the impression that there was quite a way to go in R and D to make the m affordable and thus a legitimate source of energy for everybody.

I have never rejected, nor will I reject 'Free Energy' but I am really not to sure what 'Free energy' is. Perhaps you would elaborate on that?


Now you did strike upon a line of inquiry that I am fond of, the comparison of Technological and Ecological Sustainability. The general gist of this issue is this:

Technological Sustainability is the approach to sustainability that focuses on the notion that

there is a technological or market solution to every ecological problem. There are no dilemmas to be avoided. . .[for example] Resource scarcity will be solved by materials substitution, or genetic engineering. Energy shortages will be solved with more efficiency improvements and, for some, by nuclear fusion.

Technological Sustainability rests on four primary beliefs:

#1 The belief touted by Herman Kahan that humans should 'everywhere be numerous, rich, and in control of the forces of nature'.

#2 Where humans are best described by the model of economic man, who knows no limits of sufficiency, satiation, or appropriateness. Economic man maximizes gains and minimizes losses according to an internal schedule of preferences that does not distinguish between right and wrong.

#3 The belief that economic growth is essential.

#4 The causes of un-sustainability are the result of inaccurate pricing and poor technology (Orr 1992 24-28).


There is then on the other end of the spectrum the notion of Ecological Sustainability. As Wendel Berry states

"We must achieve the character and acquire the skills to live much poorer than we do. We must waste less, we must do more for ourselves and each other" This however, has less to do with 'policy levers' than it does with general moral improvement in society, which may not otherwise care to find policy levers (Orr 1992 28-29).
This form of sustainability is more focused on the development of a moral ethic that guides humanity down a path of living more within the boundaries of the Earth's capacity. It is highlighted by 6 fundamental characteristics.

#1 Humans are [] limited and fallible creatures.

#2 Sustainability [] will rest on diffrent foundations that requires an active competent citizenry.

#3 Sustainability is rooted as much in past pracitces, folkways, and traditions as in the creation of new knowledge.

#4 The regard for nature as not just a set of limits but as a model for the design of housing, cities, neighborhoods, farms, technologies, and regional economics. It depends on replicating the structure and foundation of natural systems.

#5 Rethinking scale and centralization.

#6 A focus on the the reality of interrelatedness. Orr 1992 29-37)


This is of course the paraphrased argument of one individual, David Orr, but a fairly good argument in my estimation (I am sure it exactness could be debated endlessly).

I personally am of the view that it will be a mix of these ideals that rise to the challenge of sustainability.

I hope this helps a bit.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The problem is that you always have competing interests. On one side you have the politicians who care more about sensationalism and being re-elected, than they do about facts (The Goracle cohorts). On the other side, you have environmentalists who care more about animals than they do humans (I call them the "Dam Busters"). Then, somewhere inbetween, you have the Philanthropists, Entrepreneurs, Inventors, and "On-the-Fence" individuals who want to develop new solutions for what the two former groupings are promoting as their "Cause".

The inventive ones are for the most part simply taking advantage of the bandwagon movement, and they are more-or-less the "Effect" brought about by the "Cause" of the Politicians and Environmentalists. Whereas the Inventors might be for the improving of Dam technology for energy creation, the Environmentalists will cry foul over fish rookeries. When Inventors prescribe Nuclear power as a solution to take us off of our Foreign Oil Independence, the Environmentalists complain of "Dangers" and "Waste". The Politicians will take up either cause, depending upon who construes more of their district, and who has the louder voice which affects their election.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
The problem is that you always have competing interests. On one side you have the politicians who care more about sensationalism and being re-elected, than they do about facts (The Goracle cohorts). On the other side, you have environmentalists who care more about animals than they do humans (I call them the "Dam Busters"). Then, somewhere inbetween, you have the Philanthropists, Entrepreneurs, Inventors, and "On-the-Fence" individuals who want to develop new solutions for what the two former groupings are promoting as their "Cause".

The inventive ones are for the most part simply taking advantage of the bandwagon movement, and they are more-or-less the "Effect" brought about by the "Cause" of the Politicians and Environmentalists. Whereas the Inventors might be for the improving of Dam technology for energy creation, the Environmentalists will cry foul over fish rookeries. When Inventors prescribe Nuclear power as a solution to take us off of our Foreign Oil Independence, the Environmentalists complain of "Dangers" and "Waste". The Politicians will take up either cause, depending upon who construes more of their district, and who has the louder voice which affects their election.

How about Cold Fusion, Zero point Energy, and Water Fuel Cell?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Well guys... how about "Realistic ready to go" solutions that we have right now.

Algae Oil
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Garbage Plasma
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And why the Cap & Trade Money Scam will get in the way of alternative energies.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Technological Fixes will never work for global warming.

The greens don't want fixes they only want control.

Solar and wind will never make enough hydrogen and electricity to power cars for even a small % of the population.

Solar panels will never be cheap enough for everyone to power there homes with unless the government sets up factories and gives them away.

Right now it cost the Chinese about $5 to make solar panels that are selling for $100 in the US.
Why do we pay so much its because the market will pay because everyone worldwide wants solar panels, nothing more. demand over supply.
and the price will never go down until supply goes way up and with the new panels coming on the market the cost to make panels will go down and the cost will not decrease,
The more laws that make people want solar panels the higher the cost for panels.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

How about Cold Fusion, Zero point Energy, and Water Fuel Cell?



Those are all great ideas, and they seem to definitely have the capabilities which we need in establishing massive power sources, and efficient ones at that. However, Nuclear is currently the BEST option, and with Fusion energy right around the corner, we need to push more R&D into that field. Fusion is the power of the Stars, and if we can truly harness it on an efficient, commercial level, then we will advance forth as a technological civilization at an astounding rate. Nuclear is what can completely get us off of Foreign Oil. Look at France, where 80% of their energy is Nuclear.

Then, obviously while we fund the R&D into that, we can also look at ideas such as Cold Fusion, Zero Point, etc. We can look at these ideas while we already save our rears from our Petrol "masters". We simply need to break that link to our foreign dependence before anything else.

My main reason for energy innovation has to do with the Geopolitical nature of society as we know it. We need our independence back more than anything else, and it might be a long, hard process, but it can be done.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   


What's Wrong With technological Fixes for Environment?

I wonder Why the Eco-Socialists are Rejecting Technological Fixes to the Environment like Hydrogen Fuel-Cell, and Free Energy?



I found it hard to answer this question because of how you define the group that are rejecting these technologies...

Eco-Socialists ??

Who are these??

Amongst the people who believe in MMCC there are many different people with different ideas and thoughts on the issue.

Some like the idea of technological fixes... some don’t...

Personally, as someone who believes in MMCC, I believe that the answer lies somewhere in between.

It’s obvious that we can’t go back to the dark ages so we will need some technological solutions such as Wind/Solar power... But i also see the need to cut back on what has become a completely materialistic overindulged way of living.

I think some people don’t like the way that companies are trying to monopolise the whole climate issue and turn it into a green industry with solutions that keep them rich and us in their pockets.

See a thread I started here if you want to know more about what I feel is the best solution for this issue...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join