Why it is no laughing matter

[GeorgiaDon 340]

brenthutch

Economic development has a suppressive effect on population growth, and the use of carbon based fuels has a positive impact on economic development. You do the math.

There is no question that economic development generally leads to reduced birth rates; this is referred to as the "demographic transition" and it leads to the demographic-economic paradox". I often point to this when people challenge my work on diseases such as malaria, and claim that if kids didn't die of malaria then they would just die later of starvation. Diseases such as malaria inhibit economic development, so it is likely that reducing the burden of such diseases would allow economic development leading to reduced birth rates (eventually).

Carbon based fuels have driven much economic development to this point in time largely because they are at their root highly accessible technologies that could be easily accessed by virtually anybody, and so were discovered very early. Wood fires were used hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is a trivial step from burning wood to burning coal. Oil and gas require more technological sophistication to access, but are conceptually just logical extensions of coal. It is hardly surprising that the simplest, most readily available fuel source would be the first to be developed. That does not mean that we have to stick with that technology forever.

I don't understand what math you are talking about. If economic development leads to reduced population growth, and population growth is a major driver of economic growth, then it would seem that economic development is antagonistic to economic growth (this is the demographic-economic paradox). To a point consumption of technology can compensate for reduced population growth and allow continued economic growth. However there is nothing about carbon based technology that makes it intrinsically "better" than other sources for this purpose. Also eventually people will not be able to consume enough to sustain economic growth in the face of falling birth rates. Some areas are already faced with this. For example, in most of Europe population growth would be negative if it were not for immigration, and it's hard to see how individual Europeans could consume more without resorting to being deliberately wasteful (use a car one time and throw it away, for example).

No matter how I do the math, and no matter what energy source I assume for the future, I cannot see how to sustain economic growth infinitely. Eventually we will have to arrive at a point where we produce enough goods (food, technology, whatever) to meet the demands of a population that is either static or shrinking. Well either that or the human population grows big enough that it can't be sustainably fed, or disease/war kills off much of the population.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[The111 0]

billvon

>Have you been drinking?

Nope. Funny that you can't understand your own logic.

Not funny to me. He extols capitalism in most posts, but in this post pokes fun at capitalists if they follow the wrong fashion rules (i.e. drink and drive the wrong things). And if you attempt to drill further into that logic, he either (a) changes the subject (b) ignores you or (c) makes a joke. He refuses to explore his own logic, so it's no suprise he doesn't understand it.

Business as usual.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

The111

***>Have you been drinking?

Nope. Funny that you can't understand your own logic.

Not funny to me. He extols capitalism in most posts, but in this post pokes fun at capitalists if they follow the wrong fashion rules (i.e. drink and drive the wrong things). And if you attempt to drill further into that logic, he either (a) changes the subject (b) ignores you or (c) makes a joke. He refuses to explore his own logic, so it's no suprise he doesn't understand it.

Business as usual.

I did not make fun of capitalist; I am a scotch swilling, Mercedes driving three house owning capitalist. I was poking fun at the Tesla as a planet saver

[jakee 1,257]

brenthutch

I did not make fun of capitalist; I am a scotch swilling, Mercedes driving three house owning capitalist. I was poking fun at the Tesla as a planet saver

So you are a bourgoisie booze quaffer who enjoys tax subsidised toys.

So was it the choice of beverage or the choice of toy that you objected to for the other fella's?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 384]

jakee

***I did not make fun of capitalist; I am a scotch swilling, Mercedes driving three house owning capitalist. I was poking fun at the Tesla as a planet saver

So you are a bourgoisie booze quaffer who enjoys tax subsidised toys.

So was it the choice of beverage or the choice of toy that you objected to for the other fella's?

I must have missed the box on my 10-40 where Uncle Sam helped pay for my Accord coupe or my ML350

[The111 0]

brenthutch

I must have missed the box on my 10-40 where Uncle Sam helped pay for my Accord coupe or my ML350

Nope, but you did ignore my question about whether or not you take advantage of any tax exemptions, i.e. anything that Uncle Sam helps you pay for. Unless you can answer no to that question, then you fit all 3 criteria you were poking fun at. Drinking, driving, and saving money on taxes. The horror.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

I was not making fun of beverage choice, or tax deductions, I made fun of the tesla as a planet saver. Read the whole thread for context.

[The111 0]

brenthutch

I was not making fun of beverage choice, or tax deductions, I made fun of the tesla as a planet saver. Read the whole thread for context.

The context set by the posters you were responding to:
- Teslas indeed will not save the planet alone
- that said, Teslas are good for the planet
- Teslas are also innovative, and accomplishing something previously thought impossible

Instead of responding to any of these points, you initiated a context switch by discussing drink and taxes. And when asked to further explain yourself, suggested your words were taken out of context. Indeed, because they were spoken out of context. Feel free to return to the original context at any time.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

Please demonstrate how Teslas are "Good for the planet"

[The111 0]

brenthutch

Please demonstrate how Teslas are "Good for the planet"

Please tell me which running automobile you'd rather sit in a closed garage with for an hour:
1) a Tesla (or any electric car)
2) a Ford truck (or any gasoline burning car)

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

How about a polar bear?

[The111 0]

brenthutch

How about a polar bear?

I see you're choosing a joke and a context switch again rather than answer a question on the topic you started.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[turtlespeed 212]

The111

***Please demonstrate how Teslas are "Good for the planet"

Please tell me which running automobile you'd rather sit in a closed garage with for an hour:
1) a Tesla (or any electric car)
2) a Ford truck (or any gasoline burning car)

I noticed you didn't demonstrate how Teslas are "Good for the planet".

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[The111 0]

turtlespeed

I noticed you didn't demonstrate how Teslas are "Good for the planet".

It's impossible to demonstrate anything to someone who refuses to engage in an honest dialog.

If a child asked me to demonstrate addition, I might begin by holding up one apple and asking him "how many apples are in this hand?" If he responds "poop butt" then the demonstration really can't continue.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

In all seriousness, my point was to illustrate the futility of "saving-the-planet" with Teslas and such. The measures required to keep the planets CO2 levels below 400 ppm are so draconian that they are completely impossible, (See my Bloom County reference), and thus mock-worthy.

[The111 0]

brenthutch

In all seriousness, my point was to illustrate the futility of "saving-the-planet" with Teslas and such. The measures required to keep the planets CO2 levels below 400 ppm are so draconian that they are completely impossible, (See my Bloom County reference), and thus mock-worthy.

So attempting to defeat what you see as unbeatable odds is mock-worthy? Lets ignore for a moment whether or not they are truly unbeatable, but look only at the mocking attitude.

Imagine a red-blooded American soldier grossly outnumbered by enemy combatants, and low on ammunition. He has two choices. Die quietly, or go down shooting. If he went down shooting, would you call him a hero, or would you call him mock-worthy?

You seem to be equating "not good" with "not good enough." It's true Teslas alone won't save the planet. We all agree on that. This does not mean they "aren't good." When a 95-year old man drinks water, it's still good for him. Very good. Even if he falls over dead the next day. Asking me to prove that electric cars are good is like asking me to prove the water is good.

The biggest difference is that it is not clear here that the enemy outnumbers us. It's not clear that we're 95 years old, or low on ammo. And in that situation it's even more obtuse and rude to mock those who attempt to do good.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[brenthutch 384]

In their misguided attempt to do good, they actually do damage by diverting resources from something worthwhile. It is a concept called "opportunity cost".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

[The111 0]

brenthutch

In their misguided attempt to do good, they actually do damage by diverting resources from something worthwhile. It is a concept called "opportunity cost".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Yeah, a guy like Elon Musk really has no idea about how to spend his money wisely. Thank goodness for capitalism, otherwise he might have to use his resources as somebody else saw fit.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[normiss 622]

I see what you did their.


111 is entirely correct.
But then this is SC, and this discussion.

[masterblaster72 0]

The111

It's impossible to demonstrate anything to someone who refuses to engage in an honest dialog.

If a child asked me to demonstrate addition, I might begin by holding up one apple and asking him "how many apples are in this hand?" If he responds "poop butt" then the demonstration really can't continue.

Welcome to Speaker's Corner. Sorry to tell you, but if you're looking for honest and civilized dialog you've come to the wrong place. This place has largely become a den of trolls, stuck in a vicious cycle of those who enjoy feeding them while the trolls keep on coming back for more.

That said, hope you stick around -- good to see some sense in here every now and then.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[jakee 1,257]

brenthutch

******I did not make fun of capitalist; I am a scotch swilling, Mercedes driving three house owning capitalist. I was poking fun at the Tesla as a planet saver

So you are a bourgoisie booze quaffer who enjoys tax subsidised toys.

So was it the choice of beverage or the choice of toy that you objected to for the other fella's?

I must have missed the box on my 10-40 where Uncle Sam helped pay for my Accord coupe or my ML350

They helped build it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 384]

How?

[normiss 622]

Here's one way

[billvon 2,406]

>I must have missed the box on my 10-40 where Uncle Sam helped pay for my
>Accord coupe or my ML350.

It's right under the box on your 10-40 that lists "amount of your taxes sent to Tesla owners."

Can't find either box? No worries. You can find your government subsidies in the billions that the government spends on subsidizing oil and gas companies so you can fuel your cars, the billions it spends on maintaining the roads so you can drive your cars, and the billions it spends on mitigating the environmental damage from the gas you burn.

But by all means keep complaining about the other guy's subsidies. (As long as yours are protected, of course.) Remember, you are the victim here.

[brenthutch 384]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/federal-tax-credits-for-plug-in-hybrids-electric-cars-what-you-need-to-know/2014/08/20/0ae02718-2886-11e4-8b10-7db129976abb_story.html