Non-Renewable Energy Dependant Advanced Technological Civilization

[Beam Me Up]

RANT

One would think it sheer STUPIDITY if it weren't for the fact that for over 30 years intelligent human beings have been predicting we would end up precisely where we are: On the edge of a global war for the last remaining hydrocarbon energy reserves on the planet. No, it was NOT stupidity; it was narrow minded GREED that brought us to this point. As much as thirty years ago or longer we could have begun the process of building a renewable energy infrastructure. But of course that didn't happen. And why not? Because, short term, it wasn't profitable. But I believe even MORE importantly, energy efficient and ecologically sound renewable energy systems were not developed BECAUSE THEY INHERENTLY DECENTRALIZE THE STRUCTURES OF POWER.

Who are the architects of this non-renewable energy civilization? Who are the great barons of banking, energy and commerce? Are we going to hold them accountable for hijacking civilization and flying it headlong into the brick wall of ecological and non-renewable energy reality?

I suggest we start by arresting the boards of directors of every hydrocarbon based energy corporation on the planet and charging them with crimes against humanity and proceed from there to confiscate every asset within their domain and place them under public control.

If we allow these fascists to continue to run the world, we know PRECISELY where we are headed: Tactical nuclear war in the middle east--complete with the nuclear faux "terrorist attack" necessary to precipitate the total abdication of any pretense of power from We The People.

[Mackenzie]

1. Wars are started by government, not by corporations.

And it's cheaper to buy oil on the open market, than it is to go to war.

And government ownership of energy in Eastern Europe didn't lead to any new technological innovations.

You want new innovation? Great. Then get rid of the corporate welfare. Get rid of energy subsidies. Get rid of the military involvement in the middle east. Get rid of having the government trying to pick winners and losers.

Most great technological advancements were created through small independent laboratories and scientists working on their own. Look at Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers, for example.

In fact, the idea of using petroleum for energy was something that came about through an independent researcher in the 19th century. Prior to that, petroleum actually had negative value, as it was simply a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging for water wells.

Science and ideas and technology and information wants to be free. It wants to be decentralized. It wants to break through barriers. It wants to turn current thinking on its head. It wants to render old ideas obsolete.

And you won't get these things through any centralized government bureaucracy.

Orwell's 1984 was inaccurate in that it portrayed government technology as actually working.

A much more accurate portrayal is the movie Brazil, which showed government technology as being inefficient and incompetent. Everything was always broken and nothing ever worked.

Nationalizing the energy companies is about the worst thing that you could do if you want new technologies in energy to be developed.

Of all the technologies that we use on a daily basis that are used by everyday, average, ordinary citizens, none of them were invented in the Soviet Union.

Think about it. The U.S.S.R. had a huge number of well educated, well trained, brilliant scientists. And they had huge deposits of many valuable and important natural resources.

And yet, they did absolutely nothing to advance science and technology in ways that were useful for the average citizen. And they had shortages of almost everything.

If you put all the natural resources and energy under government ownership, it will all be reverted to military uses. More bombs. More missiles. More war. More destruction. More death.

Bush already has too much power.

Can you imagine how much worse it would be if he had all the energy resources and all the natural resources at his disposal?

Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers did what they did precisely because they didn't have anyone breathing down their backs or telling them what to do.

Think of the hypothetical 17th century person who said, "The government must invent new energy sources for people to light their homes at night, because the world's supply of candle wax and whale oil is running out."

Sounds pretty ridiculous, right?

The people of the 17th century never thought that the people of today would have electricity and light bulbs.

In a few hundreds years from today, people will use energy sources that we today cannot comprehend. And they will think it utterly ridiculous that the people of the 21st century ever worried about running out of oil.

[Beam Me Up]

2. Ghosts of the past century rear their ugly heads

> Wars are started by government, not by corporations.

And of course "government" and "corporations" are completely independent entities. The people who work for one never work for the other. And corporations never donate large sums of money to influence policy. If you believe this to be true, you and I have very different views of the world.

> And it's cheaper to buy oil on the open market, than it
> is to go to war.

Tell that to our beloved vice pResident and the stock holders of Halliburton, et. al.

> And government ownership of energy in Eastern Europe
> didn't lead to any new technological innovations.

You like Kool-Aid? IOW, what does any of that have to do with what I've said?

> You want new innovation? Great. Then get rid of the
> corporate welfare. Get rid of energy subsidies. Get rid
> of the military involvement in the middle east. Get rid
> of having the government trying to pick winners and
> losers.

And precisely what ENTITY is going to "get rid of" any of the items on your list? A corporate permeated and funded government (a "National Security State," to be precise) created these issues.

>
> Most great technological advancements were created
> through small independent laboratories and scientists
> working on their own. Look at Thomas Edison and the
> Wright Brothers, for example.
>
> In fact, the idea of using petroleum for energy was
> something that came about through an independent
> researcher in the 19th century. Prior to that, petroleum
> actually had negative value, as it was simply a nuisance
> that got in the way of people who were digging for water
> wells.
>
> Science and ideas and technology and information wants
> to be free. It wants to be decentralized. It wants to
> break through barriers. It wants to turn current
> thinking on its head. It wants to render old ideas
> obsolete.

Well, finally something upon which we agree.

> And you won't get these things through any centralized
> government bureaucracy.

Who said anything about a "centralized government bureaucracy"?

> Orwell's 1984 was inaccurate in that it portrayed
> government technology as actually working.
>
> A much more accurate portrayal is the movie Brazil,
> which showed government technology as being inefficient
> and incompetent. Everything was always broken and
> nothing ever worked.

Depends upon which level of the structures of power you are looking at. Do bureaucracies work effectively? Yes and no, often not. However, I would ask you by comparison for example how well you think covert operations work?

> Nationalizing the energy companies is about the worst
> thing that you could do if you want new technologies in
> energy to be developed.

No, the worst thing we could do is allow representatives of corporations to develop energy polices that are so top secret even Congress can't have access to them.

> Of all the technologies that we use on a daily basis
> that are used by everyday, average, ordinary citizens,
> none of them were invented in the Soviet Union.
>
> Think about it. The U.S.S.R. had a huge number of well
> educated, well trained, brilliant scientists. And they
> had huge deposits of many valuable and important natural
> resources.
>
> And yet, they did absolutely nothing to advance science
> and technology in ways that were useful for the average
> citizen. And they had shortages of almost everything.

A few paragraphs above you said, "Science and ideas and technology and information wants to be free. It wants to be decentralized. It wants to break through barriers. It wants to turn current thinking on its head. It wants to render old ideas obsolete." So why now dredge up us/them socialist bugaboos from the cold-war? What is needed is a total revolution in the way we think about and understand energy exchanges in a closed system. This includes not only commerce but our understanding of who and what we are as human beings. What are we here for? What kind of world do we want? What is preventing us from creating that world for ourselves? How shall we govern ourselves--and by what principals?

> If you put all the natural resources and energy under
> government ownership, it will all be reverted to
> military uses. More bombs. More missiles. More war. More
> destruction. More death.
> Bush already has too much power.

So long as corporations are predominantly in control of government, yes, most likely that is true. So long as war is profitable for SOME, yes, that is most likely true. So long as "wealth" is defined as localized economic power, yes, again, that is most likely true.

> Can you imagine how much worse it would be if he had all
> the energy resources and all the natural resources at
> his disposal?

Yes, actually I can imagine that. I also believe we are much closer to that now than you apparently do.

> Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers did what they did
> precisely because they didn't have anyone breathing down
> their backs or telling them what to do.
>
> Think of the hypothetical 17th century person who said,
> "The government must invent new energy sources for
> people to light their homes at night, because the
> world's supply of candle wax and whale oil is running
> out."
>
> Sounds pretty ridiculous, right?

Uh, well, DUH! Whale oil and bees wax ARE RENEWABLE RESOURCES; only paraffin, a relatively recent invention, is made from hydrocarbon fuel.

> The people of the 17th century never thought that the
> people of today would have electricity and light bulbs.
>
> In a few hundreds years from today, people will use
> energy sources that we today cannot comprehend. And they
> will think it utterly ridiculous that the people of the
> 21st century ever worried about running out of oil. 

Well, you might want to ask some physicists about that. Of course some new revelation that would look as much like "magic" to us as electricity would to those of the Seventeenth century -- such as zero point energy -- may yet show up. However, even if it does, we're going to have to ask how much hydrocarbon energy will be necessary to develop this hypothetical "new energy source"? How much hydrocarbon energy will be necessary to build the infrastructure necessary for its distribution and for whatever retooling of society necessary to utilize it for productive work. Will this new source of energy generate DOW/duPONT base chemicals for the production of everything from plastics to fertilizers out of thin air? In other words, we have to ask ourselves, how much hydrocarbon energy do we have left and how shall we best utilize it to move forward toward a more sustainable energy future. Who, besides Halliburton et. al. is a position to meaningfully ask this question? We see what answer they have and where they are headed. It isn't pretty, is it?

Thank you for your reply.

[Taxloss]

3. "Government is the shadow cast by business on society"

- Noam Chomsky

War is expensive for government, which is to say taxpayers. For business, it is a bonanza. Those billions sunk into Iraq aren't just thrown in a whole, they are being paid to Halliburton, Lockheed, Bechtel, and so on. Halliburton provides everything down to the troop catering. Business loves war because they don't have to pay for it.