"While I'll accept your statement about the larder, similarly you shouldn't assume scientific advancements. That, to me, is like saying "I won't do anything to help with any problems, because they'll be sorted out in the future"
I don't think the editors are saying that we should not try to solve problems. I think they may be disagreeing with you about the means to solve problems.
The best way to solve energy shortages is to generate new knowledge about how to safely produce energy. That is not saying "I won't do anything to help with any problems". Looking for resources creates new knowledge and so creates more resources.
The worst way to solve the problem of energy shortages is to claim that there are only finite resources. That limits us to a finite amount of production in the world economy that then diminishes over time as resources are "used up". Everyone is forced to "conserve"; but it is knowledge that is scarce, not resources. We need to look for knowledge, not the alleged finitude of resources.
If your graphs are correct, then individuals will generate power utilizing wind. If the growth of knowledge then makes nuclear power more affordable, producers will switch to generating power utilizing nuclear reactors.
The point is there is no need to tell people that there is a finite amount of wind or a finite amount of appropriate uranium. There is no need to stop nuclear power generation if it is too expensive, because of an alleged lack of uranium. If safe nuclear production is too expensive, those producing it will simply not be able to sell it (because their product will cost more!)
Perhaps you are saying that the rate of growth of knowledge about how to efficiently harvest safe energy from the wind is going to be faster than the rate of growth of knowledge about harvesting safe energy from nuclear power. But then you are not saying that we should not use nuclear energy because of a finite amount of uranium, which I think was your point.
Moreover, as long as governments insist on a reasonable degree of safety in producing energy, the market will determine which energy resource is currently cheapest, and I have no doubt that we will utilize that resource.
But we do need to stop frightening people about an alleged lack of energy resources.
You are welcome to post comments with or without logging in.
Logging in does not get you any more content but it does give you lists of content
you haven't seen yet.
We will not give out your email address.
If you want others to be able to contact you privately, include your email address in your signature.
Knowlege and Energy Abundance
"While I'll accept your statement about the larder, similarly you shouldn't assume scientific advancements. That, to me, is like saying "I won't do anything to help with any problems, because they'll be sorted out in the future"
I don't think the editors are saying that we should not try to solve problems. I think they may be disagreeing with you about the means to solve problems.
The best way to solve energy shortages is to generate new knowledge about how to safely produce energy. That is not saying "I won't do anything to help with any problems". Looking for resources creates new knowledge and so creates more resources.
The worst way to solve the problem of energy shortages is to claim that there are only finite resources. That limits us to a finite amount of production in the world economy that then diminishes over time as resources are "used up". Everyone is forced to "conserve"; but it is knowledge that is scarce, not resources. We need to look for knowledge, not the alleged finitude of resources.
If your graphs are correct, then individuals will generate power utilizing wind. If the growth of knowledge then makes nuclear power more affordable, producers will switch to generating power utilizing nuclear reactors.
The point is there is no need to tell people that there is a finite amount of wind or a finite amount of appropriate uranium. There is no need to stop nuclear power generation if it is too expensive, because of an alleged lack of uranium. If safe nuclear production is too expensive, those producing it will simply not be able to sell it (because their product will cost more!)
Perhaps you are saying that the rate of growth of knowledge about how to efficiently harvest safe energy from the wind is going to be faster than the rate of growth of knowledge about harvesting safe energy from nuclear power. But then you are not saying that we should not use nuclear energy because of a finite amount of uranium, which I think was your point.
Moreover, as long as governments insist on a reasonable degree of safety in producing energy, the market will determine which energy resource is currently cheapest, and I have no doubt that we will utilize that resource.
But we do need to stop frightening people about an alleged lack of energy resources.