Matthew Russotto wrote:
>In article <XeYcd.493496$8_6.260255@attbi_s04>,
>Jack Dingler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>What's the replacement? What is this new source of energy? How soon can
>>we implement it? I think you assume that all problems have solutions.
>>It's been proven more than once in science and mathematics, that this is
>>a false assumption.
>>
>>
>
>So your claim remains that there is no solution and we're all going to
>die prematurely. OK. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I assume
>this is true? What practical results does it lead to? What actions
>does it recommend? None -- therefore it's a foolish assumption to make.
>
How is any death deemed to be premature?
Are you saying we should ignore all problems that might lead to bad
results? And if faced with an issue that could cause a disaster, then
it's foolish to assume it's real? Unless your words have a secret coded
meaning, I think this is the argument you are making. That when faced
with tough, sometimes unsolvable problems, the best course is to ignore
them as they don't really exist.
I think then, following your argument, only an idiot would discuss the
fall of Rome, because there is no solution that we can implement to
prevent the fall. Clearly this is in the bad news category of events we
should pretend don't happen.
>>I personally, have no idea what could possibly replace oil in energy
>>concentration and convenience. Civilization has been exploiting ever
>>more concentrated and convenient forms of energy since man first started
>>burning wood. What's the next step?
>>
>>
>
>If I knew, I'd be making a fortune developing it.
>
>
So would anyone else. Yet no one is.
>>I think to believe the sort of argument that you are proposing, assumes
>>that science is still somewhat in it's infancy, that our knowledge of
>>geology, energy, materials etc..., is till relatively unformed. It
>>requires I believe that level of understanding that existed over a
>>century ago, when man was still making basic discoveries about the
>>makeup of the Earth. I think that time is long past. If there were a
>>
>>
>
>"The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity
>and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement
>must end." -- Patent Office Commissioner Henry Ellsworth (1943)
>
>"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will
>be done; there is nothing new under the sun" -- Ecclesiastes 1:9 (antiquity)
>
Our technological advancement has been ever driven to do more with ever
increasing quantities of energy. You vote as argued above is to stay the
course, and to ignore problems with this direction, as our wills will
prevail without a change of direction or effort.
I think it's foolish to ignore problems just because they are
unpleasant. But my upbringing was of one, were the attitude was to hope
for the best and prepare for the worst. Consistently your argument has
been to dream of the best and plan for the best, while pretending that
bad things don't ever happen.
For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore
failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to
avoid the worst case, but looking at a Toro Trimmer I have, provides me
with understanding. Unlike the similar Craftsman model it replaced, this
one has a half moon grommet where the line feeds through. The Craftsman
model has a full circular grommet. As a result the Toro model, after
only a couple of hours of use, saw the line eating away the plastic
housing, then the line was quickly cut by the metal edges of the
grommet. It appears to be designed to fail. Likely with the notion that
with moderate use, you'll go buy another Toro trimmer to replace it. In
other words, it's designed to be disposable. And that I think
demonstrated the mindset of engineers like yourself. High failure rates
in products is actually a feature and a design implementation and not
something to be avoided.
So why not consider that civilizations are throw away items to? After
all, it looks like the US is being cashed out with jobs and industries
making a flight to Asia where fuel is cheaper and more abundant. Perhaps
that is the answer? Perhaps industry already recognizes the futility in
investing in the US and it's now time to toss it in the bin, for the
next new thing? Certainly, your attitude dovetails with this philosophy
in a round about fashion.
Jack Dingler
