When I read the third last paragraph which starts which "I personally think"
to the end I wonder why it was you seem to prefer an alternative
energy-source?
Otherwise, I might find the Green Parties more agreeable if they were honest
about their encouragement of technosis.
James
----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Från: "Malcolm Riddoch" <m.riddoch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Till: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Skickat: Monday, October 25, 2004 06:16
Ämne: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
>
> On Sunday, October 24, 2004, at 12:02 PM, John Foster wrote:
>
> > Unless the primary energy to create hydrogen comes from geothermal
> > energy.
> > Iceland is phasing out completely all their diesel buses. They are
> > installing hydrogen cells. The source of the energy to do this is more
> > than
> > abundan in Iceland, geothermal.
>
> Geothermal energy would be awesome, especially on the scale of Iceland
> but it is limited elsewhere. There is talk of drilling into the mantle
> and pumping artesian water to generate steam which is fine by me but
> it's an untested proposal. The energy return on energy invested with
> crop ethanols is apparently negative or possibly break even but you
> can't eat ethanol. For it to become anything other than a niche player
> in energy you'd have to convert vast tracts of agricultural land to its
> production. Likewise solar and wind are niche energy sources. The
> alternatives to oil, gas and coal apparently don't come close to the
> cheap abundance we've enjoyed with hydrocarbons.
>
> It looks like the only viable alternative to belching gigantic amounts
> of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is nuclear power, and various
> environmentalists led by Lovelock in Britain are calling for this now
> as we may be fast approaching the 'tipping point' in atmospheric CO2
> levels leading to runaway global warming. We'll have to divert large
> portions of our national wealth towards this transition and become
> extremely frugal in our use of electricity if a hydrogen economy is
> going to get started. It will also have to be an internationally
> coordinated transition as China amongst many others is looking to
> develop its vast coal reserves for electricity generation which would
> most probably result in a greenhouse disaster.
>
> You mentioned Canada's Alberta tar sands, another huge environmental
> disaster and an indication of how tight oil supply is globally when
> non-conventional tar based oil becomes profitable on such a large
> scale. Apparently Canada also supplies about 15% of US natural gas, but
> that already represents 50% of Canadian production and your gas fields
> are declining. As light sweet crude oil extraction starts declining,
> and it seems to have reached its peak this year, our monolithic global
> economy will move towards dirtier and more expensive oil found in
> smaller and smaller fields in ecologically and/or politically difficult
> regions, as well as towards more natural gas much of which is already
> in decline around the world, and the disaster of increased coal burning.
>
> I personally think peak oil can't come soon enough as we need to move
> on from the age of oil to something else as soon as possible.
> Unfortunately peak oil also means the collapse of the developed world's
> national wealth as its economies go into decline and its militaries and
> industry are given over to war in order to secure the energy they need
> to keep 'business as usual' going for as long as possible. We seem to
> be heading for a gigantic train wreck, the crash of modern industrial
> civilisation, and the world's sole super power is leading the charge
> with neoconservative extremists preaching the benefits of sustained,
> global total war.
>
> The juggernaut we call modernity seems to have a life of its own, its
> momentum is driving the US towards a suicidal war and the rest of us
> are being dragged along for the ride. For the US to just stop and turn
> their economy around to a non-war non-oil base would mean the collapse
> of the US dollar and their suburban way of life. What political leader
> is going to gain power on the promise they will bankrupt their society
> in order to lead the world by example towards a radically different and
> more frugal way of life? Geopolitics is already dragging us into open
> conflict and the energy disaster will happen anyway but it seems
> deliberately uninformed voters will vote to maintain their own
> delusional consensus reality at all costs.
>
> The empty political promise of salvation, as in Hitler's time, is
> leading us all into a nightmare of self-delusion, lies, murder and our
> own accelerated destruction on a planetary scale. For me, this energy
> problem is very much a problem concerning the essence of technology.
> There are no political leaders capable of responding to it as they are
> all subjected to the play of global power in the relations between
> nations and their constituencies. Just as Heidegger predicted, fascism,
> communism and democracy are all technologically subjugated to the same
> will to order.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
to the end I wonder why it was you seem to prefer an alternative
energy-source?
Otherwise, I might find the Green Parties more agreeable if they were honest
about their encouragement of technosis.
James
----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Från: "Malcolm Riddoch" <m.riddoch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Till: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Skickat: Monday, October 25, 2004 06:16
Ämne: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
>
> On Sunday, October 24, 2004, at 12:02 PM, John Foster wrote:
>
> > Unless the primary energy to create hydrogen comes from geothermal
> > energy.
> > Iceland is phasing out completely all their diesel buses. They are
> > installing hydrogen cells. The source of the energy to do this is more
> > than
> > abundan in Iceland, geothermal.
>
> Geothermal energy would be awesome, especially on the scale of Iceland
> but it is limited elsewhere. There is talk of drilling into the mantle
> and pumping artesian water to generate steam which is fine by me but
> it's an untested proposal. The energy return on energy invested with
> crop ethanols is apparently negative or possibly break even but you
> can't eat ethanol. For it to become anything other than a niche player
> in energy you'd have to convert vast tracts of agricultural land to its
> production. Likewise solar and wind are niche energy sources. The
> alternatives to oil, gas and coal apparently don't come close to the
> cheap abundance we've enjoyed with hydrocarbons.
>
> It looks like the only viable alternative to belching gigantic amounts
> of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is nuclear power, and various
> environmentalists led by Lovelock in Britain are calling for this now
> as we may be fast approaching the 'tipping point' in atmospheric CO2
> levels leading to runaway global warming. We'll have to divert large
> portions of our national wealth towards this transition and become
> extremely frugal in our use of electricity if a hydrogen economy is
> going to get started. It will also have to be an internationally
> coordinated transition as China amongst many others is looking to
> develop its vast coal reserves for electricity generation which would
> most probably result in a greenhouse disaster.
>
> You mentioned Canada's Alberta tar sands, another huge environmental
> disaster and an indication of how tight oil supply is globally when
> non-conventional tar based oil becomes profitable on such a large
> scale. Apparently Canada also supplies about 15% of US natural gas, but
> that already represents 50% of Canadian production and your gas fields
> are declining. As light sweet crude oil extraction starts declining,
> and it seems to have reached its peak this year, our monolithic global
> economy will move towards dirtier and more expensive oil found in
> smaller and smaller fields in ecologically and/or politically difficult
> regions, as well as towards more natural gas much of which is already
> in decline around the world, and the disaster of increased coal burning.
>
> I personally think peak oil can't come soon enough as we need to move
> on from the age of oil to something else as soon as possible.
> Unfortunately peak oil also means the collapse of the developed world's
> national wealth as its economies go into decline and its militaries and
> industry are given over to war in order to secure the energy they need
> to keep 'business as usual' going for as long as possible. We seem to
> be heading for a gigantic train wreck, the crash of modern industrial
> civilisation, and the world's sole super power is leading the charge
> with neoconservative extremists preaching the benefits of sustained,
> global total war.
>
> The juggernaut we call modernity seems to have a life of its own, its
> momentum is driving the US towards a suicidal war and the rest of us
> are being dragged along for the ride. For the US to just stop and turn
> their economy around to a non-war non-oil base would mean the collapse
> of the US dollar and their suburban way of life. What political leader
> is going to gain power on the promise they will bankrupt their society
> in order to lead the world by example towards a radically different and
> more frugal way of life? Geopolitics is already dragging us into open
> conflict and the energy disaster will happen anyway but it seems
> deliberately uninformed voters will vote to maintain their own
> delusional consensus reality at all costs.
>
> The empty political promise of salvation, as in Hitler's time, is
> leading us all into a nightmare of self-delusion, lies, murder and our
> own accelerated destruction on a planetary scale. For me, this energy
> problem is very much a problem concerning the essence of technology.
> There are no political leaders capable of responding to it as they are
> all subjected to the play of global power in the relations between
> nations and their constituencies. Just as Heidegger predicted, fascism,
> communism and democracy are all technologically subjugated to the same
> will to order.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---