[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: synth vs. the environment (Audi content only insofar
>>future. Therefore, the whole debate that you propose is only a matter of
>>time. Is it your Grandchildren, or their children that will deal with the
>> problem . . . or their children? Does it matter to you? <clipped again>
>Yes it matters. But the matter of time isn't in the next 20 years or
>probably the next 200 years. I guess I'm a bit more optimistic about things.
>I put it in the post I wrote to Huw: zero-sum and underestimating
>technological progress. We don't give ourselves enough credit to figure
At any given point in time (most of us live in the present, not in the
past or in thr future), growth *is* zero sum. The kind of economic growth
the Limbites champion takes place over generations, and not during the
finite lives of human beings.
And, can you say, "Tower of Babel" ?
> >> Gee, I though that proven reserves were actually rising.
> >What we know is there may be... I find it hard to imagine that the
> >*actual* amount could be rising.
> Umm, think about it. There's still plants and microbes getting squished
> under the crust somewhere. It's not like oil was getting made for the last
> 200 million years and it's just stopped in the last couple decades (think
> about this too: the earth is still making diamonds). Besides, we're better
Even in a hundred human generations, the underground material which
is making the transition toward petroleum will not become usable
petroleum in any quantity sufficient to affect our petro reserves.
(No, I can't back it up, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's true).
Meanwhile, then-head of Audi, Ferdinand Piech made sure the ur-Q had a
23.8 gallon gas tank so that "When the world runs out of oil, I want the
Audis to be the last automobiles to stop."
> at extracting oil than in the past. Fields that were 'depleted' are being
> pumped again. We can drill deeper (think how large the earth is: about
> 8000 miles in diameter (depends where you measure, we're not really round))
> than we used to. The first real oil well struck pay dirt at 70 feet. The
> Saudi fields struck oil at a couple-few thousand feet. Just a short while
> ago, we could only drill a mile or so deep. Now, most oil wells are
> between 3,000 - 16,500 feet deep but wells as deep as four or five miles
> are sometimes drilled. Think how much oil is sitting there, just out of
> reach now that will be in reach in the next decade. Look at deep water
> drilling too: Just a few years ago, waters of more than 1,000 feet deep
"When the world is running down, we'll make the best of what's still around"
> When I got my undergrad degree in Econ, one of the things that struck me
> the most was how everyone thinks with a "zero sum" mentality. So much so
> that I focused on that in my graduate studies. There is practically
> nothing in this world that is zero sum. And if it is zero sum, the
> quantity involved is so great that it really doesn't matter anyway. Finite
> is an unwieldy term to throw about when talking about natural resources.
Again, long-term views are good things, but my nieces and nephews need
to eat *now*, not generations in the future. Hopefully, there will be future
generations with the same needs.
As Bob Myers wrote, we're at capacity _now_ w/r/t ability to feed the world's
existing population. Much of that capacity is not sustainable, as it relies
on a technology that looked good at first- monoculture (the growing of a
single foodsource, such as a specific engineered variety of rice, as opposed
to th multiple varieties usually grown in a region).
If technology was always deployed and funded by scientists and
technologists, we might not end up choosing the short-sighted technologies
that *marketing* ends up moving us toward (Can you say ADM?), in the ever-
important need to boost quarterly profits in a never-ending addiction to
> Please do, it's an excellent read. To do it justice, you need to get the
> 1980 book and read it. Highlight everything that strikes you as odd,
> unbelievable and that you disagree with. Then pick up the 1996 copy (free
> from the web now) and read how right he was. Another excellent author to
> read is Paul Zane Pilzer. "Unlimited Wealth" and "God Wants You To Be
> Rich" should be in everyone's personal library. I used to think resources
> were limited and all that: the _theorys_ are so seemingly logical and
> comfortable to believe. But virtually all of them don't hack it empirically.
Again, here we go with short-term thinking versus long-term thinking. You
can't test theories that resolve only in the long-term with short-term empirical
Regardless of the posturing I or anybody else engages in (since most of us
here are not trained scientists), I guess this comes down to a matter of
belief, faith, and religion.
Anybody ever heard of the Phillips Curve?
-Douglas Hurst Quebbeman (firstname.lastname@example.org) [Call me "Doug"]
QuattroClub USA# 4536 Audi International # 100024
74 100LS Auto, 84 Coupe GT
77 100LS Auto, 86 5Kcstq QLCC 1.8bar
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." -Tom Waits