[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
-
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
-
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
-
Date: 5 Nov 1996 12:27:53 GMT
-
Article: 15666 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Newsgroups: talk.environment, sci.environment, sci.energy, sci.econ, sci.agriculture, alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Organization: Netcom
-
References: <542t7d$iep@rainbow.rmii.com> <32665F05.112@ilhawaii.net> <JMC.96Nov3174408@Steam.stanford.edu>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu talk.environment:75254 sci.environment:110194 sci.energy:56920 sci.econ:59601 sci.agriculture:15280 alt.sustainable.agriculture:15666
In <JMC.96Nov3174408@Steam.stanford.edu> jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John
McCarthy) writes:
>
>In article <32811072.4002365@news.midtown.net> alnev@midtown.net
(A.J.) writes:
> > Why not try the work-smarter approach of putting at least half our
> > effort into *reducing demand* instead of always looking toward
> > increasing the supply of everything?
That is only *working smarter*, insofar as excessive demand is
generated by inefficient work methods. Something
different, however, is implied here:
> > The assumption that we can
> > support 15 billion people is the wrong attitude to begin with.
The suggestion, then, is not *working smarter* but
*living less*, in fewer numbers. No, thank you.
You go first.
>There is enough available surface for solar energy to serve as our
>main source.
At current energy consumption levels, enough for
trillions of people, let alone 15 billion.
Of course these levels need to be increased;
but even so, surface area is not a limiting factor.
And if it were - what's wrong with
capturing sunlight off-planet?
>The present problem is that fossil fuel energy is very
>much cheaper now. Nuclear energy is also cheaper and will remain so.
Yes, but aren't we fortunate to have such "problems"?
Follow-Ups: