My beef with you is - this is my thread, and thus far you haven't discussed my ideas at all. — karl stone

1) I've discussed the philosophy behind your ideas because, um, this is a philosophy forum. And not an energy forum.

2) This thread doesn't belong to you. Your posts belong to you.

3) You haven't pointed out any "massive flaws" in my perspective. Instead, you've failed to address the massive flaws in your own ideas, such as how one would mortgage an asset that can never be used, or how we'd install solar panels on a stormy ocean.

I'm asking readers to face the fact that the "smart and serious" people who form the cultural elite of our society don't know what they're doing. I'm asking readers to face the fact that the "more is better" group consensus which they assume to be correct is actually dangerously out of date. I'm asking readers to adapt to the knowledge explosion world we actually live in today, instead of clinging to the old knowledge scarcity world which has long been our past.

I'm asking a lot. Too much. And you can't keep up. And after discussing this obsessively for a decade I can report to you that this is completely normal. You are in very good company in not being able to get it.

I agree with you about one thing. The "more is better" juggernaut will continue to roll on, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Well intended intelligent folks such as yourself will continue to dream the big technology dreams no matter what the logic of such dreaming is, until we hit the wall and the whole thing comes crashing down.

It's not logical to assume that we can create something as enormous and complex as a global technological civilization on the first try. Nor is it logical for me to assume I can do anything at all about what is coming by posting on forums. :smile:

There's no going back. There's no standing still. — karl stone

Yes, exactly right. But philosophically speaking, standing still is what doing.

You keep defending a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was entirely reasonable in the past era of knowledge scarcity, but is unworkable in the new era of an accelerating knowledge explosion.

You're engineer's mind is not grasping that technology and the philosophy behind it are a unified system which needs to be considered as a whole. If we're going to dramatically upgrade the technology, the philosophical component, our relationship with knowledge, has to be updated too.

"More is better" is a primitive, simplistic formula whose day has come and gone. There's no going back, there's no standing still.

Nature is telling us, update your philosophy, adapt to the new reality.

Or die.

how we'd install solar panels on a stormy ocean — Jake

What about ships running into the floating solar plants and wrecking them. Ships? What ships? Do you think there will still be shipping once we're reduced to collecting electricity on the surface of the ocean?

We need to think much bigger. The kind of cutting edge thinking we need more of is building the space elevator; electricity can be generated in space and sent down the massive cable holding the space elevator.

Once we have the space elevator in place, we will be able to build the large sun shade for the earth. We'll also be collecting asteroids and dragging them into orbit around the earth. They'll be hollowed out and will become Cities In Space where they will be able to provide for all of their needs and wants without having to rely on earth and its sketchy politics.

Next we'll build the Dyson Sphere and then we'll have all the free energy we could possibly want.

So you see, Jake, that with the right approach, global warming is really nothing to worry about.

Ha, ha! Comedians, that's how we save the world, more comedians.

I was once having this conversation on a forum of working scientists and one of the "experts" told me in all seriousness that adjusting our relationship with knowledge was impossible, so the only solution was for us to learn how to migrate across the galaxy. I like your hollowed out asteroid plan better though. :smile:

I'm asking readers to face the fact that the "more is better" group consensus which they assume to be correct is actually dangerously out of date. — Jake

Make that sixteen!

So, your alternative is what? That we have less? How is that achieved?
We dismantle capitalism - is that your plan? And exchange it for what - communism?
Well, firstly: no!
But secondly: "NO!"
And thirdly:

the "smart and serious" people who form the cultural elite of our society don't know what they're doing. — Jake

If people in government and science don't know what they're doing, how can you imagine they can centrally plan an economy to produce and distribute goods and services people need? Food, socks, toilet paper...?

In order to produce goods and services to a central plan, government must have absolute control of the people, and own all the land, and all the capital. So, you would have us give up freedom, and everything we own - create a massively powerful centralized government, for what? So people who, according to you are fundamentally inept, can tell us what to do? What to produce, how much to produce, where to send it, what those people should do, etc?

Do you have any idea of the processes by which raw materials are turned into something simple like socks? Lets begin by plowing a field - that guy needs food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc - his wife needs food and clothing, housing, his children need clothes and shoes and toys. Oh, no toys - we're trying to save the planet! You don't need toys! We need a tractor...

And here's the thing - all you've achieved, for all the misery you've sown, at best - is buy another trip or two around the sun, with the exact same outcome in the end. Less is not an answer.

so the only solution was for us to learn how to migrate across the galaxy. — Jake

How are we going to live in space - if we cannot live sustainably here on earth? This planet is ideally suited to the kind of beings we are - or vice versa, and space is hostile in every possible regard, every breath, every drop of water, extremes of heat and cold, radiation.

How are we going to live there if we can't live here?
I know how we can live here. I know how we can get from here - to a sustainable future, in the least disruptive manner possible - and you don't want to know?
Then why graffiti my thread?

What about ships running into the floating solar plants and wrecking them. Ships? What ships? Do you think there will still be shipping once we're reduced to collecting electricity on the surface of the ocean? — Bitter Crank

The flaw in my otherwise perfect plan, Ships might run into them! Oh no! I didn't think of that! It's beyond the wit of man and the reach of technology - to prevent ships running into things!

How it could be done:

In terms of the physics of reality - solving the energy issue is the first necessary step to securing a sustainable future. Energy is fundamental because reality is entropic. Entropy is a concept from the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the effects of which can be described very simply. It is the tendency of everything in the universe to decline toward its lowest energy state, like water runs downhill, or an old building collapses to the ground over time. To keep the old place from falling down, we must spend energy. Energy is thus fundamental to everything we do. And clean energy is necessary to prevent run-away climate change.

There are two main obstacles to providing the world with bountiful clean energy:

1) an abundance of fossil fuels - still in the ground, and
2) the cost of applying the technology.

The idea that renewable sources of energy are necessarily unreliable or insufficient to the task - is not a genuine obstacle, if applied on a sufficiently large scale. But we'll come to that in due course. First, we must address the question of how to keep fossil fuels in the ground. This may seem like an insurmountable issue - but the solution I devised is very simple, and broadly consistent with the principles of our economic system. Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology.

Having overcome these two obstacles, the next question is "what technology?"

Here I would suggest taking on board the next big problem, and solving that at the same time. The next most fundamental need we have is abundant fresh water. 7/10ths of the earth's surface is covered with water, but fresh water is scarce. Only 2.5% of the world's water is fresh water, and it's unevenly distributed around the world. That's the cause of great human suffering and environmental damage. Solving these two problems together, would be a tremendous boon to humankind, and is ultimately necessary to sustainability. So how do we do it?

Bearing in mind such issues as transmission loss over long distances, I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship. The geographical area available at sea is incredibly vast, such that thousands of square kilometers of solar panels could be deployed without occupying valuable real estate close to inhabited areas - or incurring huge transmission loss over long distances away from inhabited areas, or requiring batteries.

"If we cover an area 335 kilometers by 335 kilometers with solar panels, it will provide more than 17.5 TW of power."

Desalination can be achieved via evaporation - heating sea water and collecting the steam. Steam can drive a turbine, to produce electricity - at voltages, adequate to power electrolysis. Electrolysis is the process of breaking the atomic bonds between two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in water, by passing an electric current through it. Thus, these two process work hand in hand - producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel. Ships powered by hydrogen, would collect and bring water and fuel ashore. Hydrogen - when compressed into a liquid gas, contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum by weight, but when burnt (oxidized) the hydrogen atoms recombine with an oxygen atom, giving back the energy spent wrenching them apart - and producing no pollutant more volatile than water vapour.

"Currently, the world consumes 15 TW of power from a combination of energy sources."

Burning hydrogen in traditional power stations would provide the base load for the energy grid - rather than, depending directly on renewable power sources, and the fresh water could be used to reclaim wasteland for agriculture and habitation - thus protecting environmental resources from over-exploitation.

Not exactly, no - but increased oil costs effect everything else produced or supplied using oil. The ubiquity of oil raises prices on almost everything - a cost of living increase that eventually, wages increase to account for. Now, the original price hike has effectively disappeared. You don't get as many apples for a dollar - but you get more dollars an hour, and work the same hours for the same apples. Effectively therefore, the value of money has changed to accommodate the price hike. — karl stone

This is not what happened in the oil shock. Your describing a fairly distributed inflation, where things cost more but you make more so it's the same thing. Oil shocks don't create a fairly distributed inflation.

In the immediate and short term, sure - a huge economic dislocation you seem to want to cause on purpose, to make renewable energy more competitive. I just don't think that a good idea. — karl stone

Internalizing the true cost of fossil fuels would make renewable energy more competitive in the market and it would create social upheaval for a time: entrenched industries that built up based on the assumption they could continue to externalize the real costs of fossil fuels would have their feelings hurt, and people who identify with the fossil guzzling lifestyle would cry like babies for a time. However, it's a mistake to believe this would be "bad"; continuing to burn fossil fuels at cost of extraction rather than the real cost also has a bad impact. The discomfort of adapting to a new economy where true fossil costs are internalized to the price is far less than the discomfort of disrupting the ecosystems down the line. For every investor or used car salesmen that takes a "hit" from the internalization of the real cost of fossil fuels, you have to pair up with people in the future who take a "hit" from a cat 5 hurricane in a higher ocean, or take a "hit" from changing weather patterns that cause drought and famine, or take a "hit" of their environment getting so hot it's basically unlivable there.

Also, internalizing the true cost is not making renewable energies artificially more competitive. Someone is paying the difference between the true cost of fossil burning and the price-cost either now or in the future, just not the person who got the direct benefit from the fossil burning. The negative externalities drag society and economy down; lowering production and efficiency elsewhere (disease, damage to natural resources, smog chasing away tourists etc.). Again, what can be debated is what exactly the true cost is: how much lung disease is due to fossil burning, how much environment damage etc. But it's basically economics 101 that allowing industries to externalize costs is simply a subsidy to that industry from the rest of society and so distorts the economy to be less efficient.

There's lot's of social problems I believe subsidy is the way to solve, such as education and health care. But for fossil burning, this is one thing where the "market mechanism" of just internalizing the true cost solves the issue. "Free-market" economists paid to defend entrenched interests get all knotted up when this is mentioned; this is why the fossil industry had to run a deny everything strategy.

No. I said renewable energy doesn't need subsidies - it needs infrastructure funding, like the rail network, the canals, or the Romans and their roads. I also propose a means we can raise the money to apply renewable energy on a massive scale, and keep fossil fuels in the ground at the same time. — karl stone

Government funding to an industry that is not on the same terms as available private funding, is a subsidy to that industry. Paying for rail lines to be built is a subsidy to the rail industry, paying for roads to be built is a subsidy for the auto-motive industry, paying for broadband lines to be built is a subsidy for the telecommunications industry, paying for canals to be built is a subsidy to the boating industry. You can say these are worthwhile subsidies to create public utilities that are good for these industries and by extension the rest of society, but they remain subsidies.

A good first recourse is the wikipedia page on subsidies which also mentions "environmental externalities" as a form of subsidy. Internalizing the true cost of fossil fuels is the anti-subsidy program that would allow the market to work efficiently.

I agree with the way you reason out the scenario you describe, but it's not what I'm proposing at all. If you'd read the OP - I'd love to get your opinion. — karl stone

Your title is "how to save the world". I already addressed the reasons the hydrogen economy is unlikely to be economic to build. Your response for the leaking of hydrogen and the atmospheric effects of this on a billions-of-tons scale was "it's just a material science issue", but if we can just hand-wave material science at the problem then batteries and solar thermal work for base-load power as well.

Since this is a philosophy forum I think it's much more relevant the subject of whether the general approach is workable or the best. The problem of the general approach of the government paying for huge energy infrastructure is that it still is a subsidy (weather you want to call it subsidy or not) to energy industry as a whole and so pushes out energy-saving technology and business models that would otherwise be competitive if the true cost of energy was reflected in the price (be it renewables or fossil). If hydrogen is the best energy storage media for base-load and ships, then the market would figure that out, if it's batteries then it's batteries, if it's more just using less energy to get the same results (negotiating by voip or vacationing by train instead of flying for instance) then it's that.

I don't see how it's off-topic to discuss whether your approach is optimal, even if technically feasible. If you're concern is only technical feasibility regardless of it being economic or good policy, then I'm sure a physics forum will accommodate that discussion.

So, your alternative is what? That we have less? How is that achieved? — karl stone

SIMPLISTIC PARADIGM: Our children should have as much knowledge and power as possible, as soon as possible! More and more and more power, faster, faster, faster! More is better!!

INTELLIGENT PARADIGM: Let's make some carefully reasoned decisions about what knowledge and power is appropriate for our children at this stage of their development. This will inevitably involve saying no to some knowledge and power, while saying yes to others.

I'm using children in this example to illustrate how absurd our current "more is better" relationship with knowledge is. If we replace the word "children" with the word "adult" nothing changes, the simplistic paradigm remains absurd.

Our culture is making an unwarranted leap from the fact that adults are more capable than children, to the ridiculous assumption that therefore adults can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate.

So my durable friend, my alternative is to replace the outdated simplistic paradigm of the past with an updated intelligent paradigm that is appropriate for an era characterized by an accelerating knowledge explosion. That is, as we update our technology we also update the philosophy behind the technology.

Less is not an answer. — karl stone

You're the one arguing for a less sophisticated outdated philosophy from the past. You keep talking about evolution, while yourself failing to adapt to the new environment created by the success of science. You're in good company though, most of the culture is marching blindly right along with you, racing proudly towards the cliff.

Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology. — karl stone

How do we mortgage an asset which can never be used, and thus has no value? Have you considered that maybe we're not discussing the ideas in your opening post because they make little sense, and we don't wish to continually shove that in your face?

Bearing in mind such issues as transmission loss over long distances, I would suggest that solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, could produce electricity - used to power desalination and electrolysis, producing fresh water and hydrogen fuel at sea, collected by ship. — karl stone

How do we sustain vast solar panel arrays on the ocean, given that oceans routinely experience storms, and sometimes those storms are very powerful?

In the immediate and short term, sure - a huge economic dislocation you seem to want to cause on purpose, to make renewable energy more competitive. I just don't think that a good idea. — karl stone

botheius:

You would take the pain upfront if you would tax fossil fuels to decrease demand, and/or to force technological change. It could be done that way, if the will existed - but to the loss of current fossil fuel interests, the consumer, industry and so forth. If however, it might be possible to mortgage fossil fuel assets to the world, there may be - at some later date a debt to be paid, but it would be paid by a society that had a sustainable energy basis - in addition to all efforts allied to this one vast, and absolutely necessary endeavour. How that might be done - politically and legally, such that sustainable energy infrastructure is funded by the same means fossil fuels are kept in the ground is nothing upon which I might even venture a guess. I merely venture an idea in the hope it might appeal to enough of the relevant interests of which I know nothing. This may seem like an abdication from the authority of my ideas, but far from it. Rather if follows from a recognition that it's not my stuff. We cannot but be who we are, and act in our own considered interests. It's my humble submission that this is in everyone's interests.

Karl, you are obsessed with hydrogen! Take the simplest possible approach.

Your plan is too complicated, too rococo, too many parts, processes, and potential problems. Back up:

There is sun enough and land which is now, and will remain in the future unproductive. These locations are often near or are the same places that a lot of people live. Put the square kms of solar panels there, and supply the needs for energy at hand. For instance, California (39 million people) has desert land near their large population centers. Texas (28 million) has both sunshine and consistently windy highlands.

Minnesota (population 5.7 million) has a reasonable amount of sun, plenty of roofs, and a steady supply of wind. With wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear we could dispense with fossil fuel (Provided, of course, there was parallel rational use and conservation). Some states like New York and New Jersey (population 30 million) are ill favored for wind, but have solar, hydro, and nuclear. Cities are inherently more efficient than low-density suburban, exurban, and rural. Europe (including UK) have all these resources as well.

Take the simplest possible approach. It may not be as intriguing as hydrogen, but it is faster, cheaper, better.

One of the necessities of the future, whether we like it or not, will be the expenditure of more animal power -- particularly our own esteemed bipedal animal power. We use a lot of energy to avoid expending our own energy and time. The auto is a good example. Even in sprawling suburbs, much of what one needs to travel to obtain (food, clothing, medicine...) is easily reachable by bicycle--especially if we converted to bike/mass transit/and a limited number of cars-on-demand. I'm 72 and can still easily travel a radius of 5 miles on a bike, and can make trips of 12 miles, one way, if it isn't too cold (like below 20º F (-7 C) and its not snowing or raining a lot. (Granted, at some point in the not too distant future the radii are going to shrink).

It isn't just the energy it takes to run cars, appliances, gadgets, and so on; it includes the energy to make the objects in the first place, and build and maintain the factories that produce the stuff. Just take a clothes dryer: hanging clothes to dry outside still works very well. Yes, more work but it uses much less energy. A lot of our clothes can be washed by hand because (at this point) we don't get so dirty that a washing machine is necessary. Yes, more work and more time, but the future doesn't mean dirt. (Well, maybe a little more dirt.) People spend a lot of time and energy traveling to gyms so they can maintain fitness. Well... just do the laundry by hand, mow the totally unnecessary lawn with a push mower, and bicycle or walk to the store and you won't need to go to the gym.

Right: this is pretty extreme. But environmental change is going to push and drag us, kicking and screaming, into this sort of regime. People used to live without extensive energy saving appliances ALL THE TIME and they didn't think they were in hell. Might as well get used to it.

:up: :up: :up:

Let's make some carefully reasoned decisions about what knowledge and power is appropriate for our children at this stage of their development. This will inevitably involve saying no to some knowledge and power, while saying yes to others. — Jake

So what sort of method could be used to regulate power & knowledge?

Nazis love a good book burning but they tend to be unpopular in general.

Nazis love a good book burning but they tend to be unpopular in general. — praxis

Praxis, surely you see that there are more choices here than between nothing and Nazi book burning?

Societies have generally proscribed some knowledge till children reach a certain age, or limit knowledge to a certain class of people, or the inner clique. In very simple or very dense societies (hunter gatherers, small village dwellers, crowded and disorganized urban environments, and so on) children have been able to acquire all sorts of information as soon as they were able. The victorian gutter snipe knew a lot of stuff that maybe wasn't age-appropriate, but inquiring young minds want to know. The hunter-gatherer child likely learned how his society worked from an early age.

If I were going to proscribe something these days it would be gadgets with screens: Television, game consoles, tablets, phones... None of these things are evil, but they are seductive, and adults and children alike are sucked into the corporate schemes for monitoring access to eyeballs. Adults and children alike ought to spend more time interacting with other people face to face and gathering information from stable sources. (Facebook is not a good place to obtain reliable information on nutrition, weight loss, exercise, politics, and so on BECAUSE it's a highly unstable source -- information flows into FaceFuck, freshwater spring and sewer outlet both, without any vetting or control. A newspaper website even if the newspaper is second rate is better because the information offered there has been vetted by a stable source.

Won't people get brainwashed and brain rotted no matter where they go? Not necessarily. People who can read at all can read diverse materials which present contrasting as well as overlapping information (and not just opinion). Libraries are valuable resources because books' information change overnight, depending on some lunatic-in-chief in Washington, D.C. tweeting bullshit.

I use screens a lot to access what I consider stable, vetted, reliable resources, and books. Lots of books. You may not like the New York Times or the Washington post, the Guardian or Libération, that's fine. Locate newspapers that you like better (maybe not the National Enquirer, even though their slogan is "inquiring minds want to know".)

Praxis, surely you see that there are more choices here than between nothing and Nazi book burning? — Bitter Crank

Of course. It's just the idea of regulating power and information sounds so, well, absurd. For one thing, the regulator would be the super elite, possessing all the power and information. Power tends to corrupt, you may have heard.

But I'm interested in @Jake's plan. I assume he's thought this all out.

My belief is that we need to change our cultural values, specifically less towards the materialistic and more towards the aesthetic and meaningful.

Of course. It's just the idea of regulating power and information sounds so, well, absurd. — praxis

It sounds absurd, until we understand what the alternative is. Do you want your next door neighbor to be able to buy a kit on Amazon which allows him to create new life forms which he then releases in to the environment to see what will happen? If not, then we have to somehow regulate power and information, right?

For one thing, the regulator would be the super elite, possessing all the power and information. — praxis

Elected governments already restrict our access to some power and information, and we typically don't object. Please note that I'm not arguing that shifting away from the outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge will be easy. I'm just arguing it's necessary, like it or not.

But I'm interested in Jake's plan. I assume he's thought this all out. — praxis

If you are interested, you won't wait for me to think it through for you. If you are interested, you'll start thinking it through yourself, and perhaps will share what insights you develop with us in one of these threads.

Please note that I'm not arguing that shifting away from the outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge will be easy. I'm just arguing it's necessary, like it or not. — Jake

No, you haven't presented an argument for why it's necessary. You need to outline what kinds of information would be regulated and the method of regulation, then explain why this would achieve the intended goal.

Are you suggesting restricting scientific research? policing particular kinds of ideas? or constraining information flow (such as the internet)?

It could be that your idea is counterproductive to the goal of making the world safer and more sustainable.

No, you haven't presented an argument for why it's necessary. — praxis

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion

Various thoughts on the subject...

The powerful leaders of the world and the corporations that support them, are but the current guard of a very long (and dubious) tradition of turning the living earth into commodities. And turning the earth into human fodder to produce as many people as possible. Food and commodities are of course necessities for survival. But on the “top levels” survival means continuing to be in absolute power, not mere subsistence. Long ago when there were few humans and lots of untouched land, this conquistador mentality may possibly have had more short term benefits than drawbacks. But now the materialistic conquest of the earth is hitting the wall. The increasing difficulty of finding petroleum, climate change, and overcrowding are just the top of a long list of seemingly intractable problems.

We have to think differently. We must act differently. We can live differently. Soon there will be no other choice, so why not start now? But where to start?

This is not an anti-technology sermon, nor a call to go back to the nomadic hunter-gatherer life. I wouldn’t begin to know how or why to do that. But life is cyclical, and the tallest tree is rooted deep in the rocks and soil. Technology is of course astounding. It is the accumulation of knowledge and skills that started even before there were humans. A bird building a nest has art and skill. (No? Try building one then... and without using your hands!) I wouldn’t go so far to say that technology is completely neutral though, because some things are made to kill as many as possible. Science seems to have become the servant of power. Thankfully, there are some scientists who will do unfunded research and publish unpopular findings. It is critical to focus on the thinking and beliefs behind and beyond the tech and science. We have always been “going forward”. The nature and particulars of how we do so can vary greatly, however.

“The ever-rising gods”

At one time long, long ago, it is said that humans lived with a sense that the gods were all around them. Call it perhaps pantheism, animist, or immanence. Whatever the name for it, we were in touch with the spirits, despite the simple life, painful dentistry, and occasional battles. Then eventually, the gods merged into One, perhaps like how the tributaries of a river seem to merge into one source. This One was not here, perhaps because the One was too good or too big to be just here in a place so common. So the One was thought to be “up there” somewhere, looking down at us. Some thought the One was indifferent, some thought caring. And as the One kept rising farther and farther up in our minds, perhaps inevitably some doubted the existence or the relevance of the One. Even those committed to the belief had little left to do except quibble about the minutiae concerning the characteristics and preferences of the One.

This is not intended be anti-religion, or even anti-monotheism. The point of this story is that with the gods elsewhere, the earth/world was stripped of its sacred significance. It slowly came to be viewed as “stuff” and “things” beneath us in the grand hierarchy. In general, this is the mindset bred into us now. This is us. It is ancient tradition and today’s news, all rolled into one. Quite a dilemma.

What are the solutions? I don’t particularly know, as the situation is so vast, and has such deep roots. How does one repair a moving vehicle? How does one change direction on a downhill sled ride? How do you diffuse a bomb? If one works quickly, can a parachute be knitted by a falling person in time to be of use? The specifics vary with how the question is posed, and with how the situation is framed.

But the very general answer is to do whatever is necessary and inevitable with extreme care, effort, and concentration. It is figuring out what to keep, and what to change. What is working, and what is broken. Our task is both as simple and complicated as that. When will people agree on anything? When the time is right there can be unity of purpose. Not total agreement or homogeneity of thought, but a type of cooperation is necessary. And necessity gives birth to all manner of invention, all of which starts within our minds.

In so many ways this is true. It's true because we are, after all, only very bright primates. We have drives which push our behavior in ways that our higher thought capacities can see are ill advised, but the drives remain in place -- they are deeply woven into our beings. Our drives were tolerable when there were fewer of us -- maybe 7 billion fewer. When we were a few hunter gatherers we could not get into too much trouble.

Then we settled down; we developed agriculture, built cities, organized governments, harnessed the energies of slaves and beasts to produce large surpluses of wealth (which accumulated in few hands), and began our more recent history. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States by James C. Scott takes the view that a human urge to control led to the early states, and their exploitation of the people under their control. Scott has a deep libertarian streak, I suspect. I haven't finished the book, but I think he is going to name the State the Serpent in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not at all convinced, but there is certainly unhappy business at the very beginning of our more recent (last 10,000 years) history. — Bitter Crank

:up: Interesting, thanks. Have the book by James Scott you mentioned on hold at the library. Hadn’t heard of it before.

First, there is some prospect of managing science and technology, we're already doing that. The question I'm raising is, can we successfully manage unlimited science and technology? If not, then it seems reasonable to at least question whether a development such as, say, unlimited free clean energy would on balance be helpful to human flourishing.

Next, you keep saying "the reality science describes" without referencing the imperfect reality of the human condition. I wouldn't harp on this except that it seems to me to be not a failure of your personal perspective so much as a logic flaw which almost defines modern civilization. Yes, if human beings were all rational as you define it then we could handle far more power, that's true. The problem is, we're not that rational, never have been, and there's no realistic prospect of us all joining the science religion and becoming Mr. Spock logic machines. — Jake

:up: Interesting. Thanks for sharing that, as well as your other posts. Would be inclined to agree. I think it was perhaps Oscar Wilde who said “I wonder who it was defined man as a rational animal. It was the most premature definition ever given. Man is many things, but he is not rational.” :wink:

No, you haven't presented an argument for why it's necessary [to change our "outdated 'more is better' relationship with knowledge"].
— praxis

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion — Jake

Skimming that topic I noticed that ChatteringMonkey put a good deal of effort into helping you out and made the following point that you seemed to have agreed with.

The point being here, that it's not their attitude towards knowledge that is driving their research policies.
— ChatteringMonkey

Another good point. Yes, it's their relationship with power, which is what drives our relationship with knowledge. We usually don't pursue knowledge just for itself, but for the power it contains. I like this way of looking at it, as you're helping us dig deeper in to the phenomena. It might be useful to rephrase the question as our "more is better" relationship with power. — Jake

People do not have a 'more is better' attitude towards knowledge. If this were true then education would be highly valued and we would all be lifelong learners. People have a limited amount of time and energy and the fact that we tend to spend a relatively small amount of our time and energy acquiring knowledge itself disproves your claim.

Our baseline motivator, to put it as simply as possible, is to pass on our genes. 'More is better' when it helps us accomplish this base goal. More resources (of various kinds, including knowledge) is generally better in helping us pass on our genes. Resources fulfill our various desires which are all ultimately about gene promotion, and more is usually better.

'More is better' isn't always the best strategy for passing on genes or fulfilling out desires, however, and that's why cooperating for mutual benefit (sharing resources sustainably) with others tends to feel meaningful.

Western culture is too materialistic, valuing resources of all kinds, including knowledge, over aesthetics and meaning. Limiting scientific research isn't going to change our materialistic values.

Do you want your next door neighbor to be able to create new life forms in his garage workshop?

If we reached a point where bioengineering was child's play, with that tech we might have already made ourselves invulnerable to biological threats, or destroyed ourselves with it.

Your theory is that eventually science will lead to such an abundance of dangerous technologies that practically anyone could easily ruin the world?

Is that a yes or a no?

My beef with you is - this is my thread, and thus far you haven't discussed my ideas at all.
— karl stone
— Jake

1) I've discussed the philosophy behind your ideas because, um, this is a philosophy forum. And not an energy forum. — Jake

No Jake. You have either failed or not even tried to get to grips with my ideas. You're just dumping your nonsense on my thread. Start your own thread entitled "Why the world cannot be saved!" Oh, you did - and once everyone heard you say the same thing six times, it died - and now you want to kill my thread too.

My argument is difficult to understand. It suggests a mistake made 400 years ago, in our relationship to science, has had lasting consequences. It requires bearing in mind a distinction between science as truth, and science merely as a basis for technology. Understanding what I'm saying actually requires doing philosophy - that is, holding a set of premises in mind to compare to the current situation to suggest an alternate rationale and course of action. But you haven't understood, or even remembered those premises. Indeed, it's difficult to believe you even read them.

When you understand that argument, you will understand that the current technological basis of civilization is a misapplication of technology. It's technology applied as directed by pre-scientific religious, political and economic ideologies, that, whatever else they are - are not an accurate description of reality as it really is.

Understanding all that is necessary to understanding why technology should be applied as directed by science; a principle we can prove by considering the very nature of life - and how it is built from the atom up by evolution, to be correct to the cause and effect nature of its environment, or was rendered extinct.

To dismiss my argument again and again as some simplistic 'more is better' approach is insulting, and merely sets me up as a strawman for your own arguments. Can I ask you again, please - to discuss my arguments on my thread, or go open your own thread where you can discuss anything you like.

Welcome. I found this observation of yours interesting and wanted to comment.

Of course. It's just the idea of regulating power and information sounds so, well, absurd. For one thing, the regulator would be the super elite, possessing all the power and information. Power tends to corrupt, you may have heard. — praxis

If I may just point out that 'how to save the world' is not a question. It's a proposal. I'd like to try and focus discussion on that proposal.

In regard to your comment, consider how the web of knowledge science describes makes it almost impossible to lie. A false fact is like a jigsaw puzzle piece that doesn't fit with all the surrounding pieces. My argument suggests, technology should be regulated in relation to science as truth. Thus, it would be virtually impossible to produce scientifically sound reasons to justify corrupt ends.