This morning, I was sitting on my patio, enjoying back copies of "Popular Science" magazine, which I haven't had much chance to read lately due to my schedule of grad school and work travel. So, this was an issue from January, I think (forgive me if this is "old news") containing the "best inventions" of 2007. I found myself flipping through the "green invention" section and saw the following things:

• A toilet that uses water from sink/shower drains to flush
• An AC unit that conserves energy by freezing water overnight
• A biodegradable plastic
• A new, lower energy LED setup
• Something about a more energy efficient train (no time to read this last one - I had to run)

Something occurred to me, as I was looking at these things. All of them, except perhaps the plastic, are both good in terms of conservation and attractive to consumers because they would save money (reducing water usage by 30% for example). I thought that perhaps the best way to fix man-made tampering with the Earth is more tampering and better technology. Not that this is theoretically the best way, but when the variably of practicality is introduced, I think it becomes the best.

I thought about a lot of "conservationists" and the sometimes Luddite quality of that movement (not all of them, by any stretch, but some). That is, you hear things like "Well, Native Americans wiped their asses with leaves and lived in mud houses and they did just fine, so we're horrible for using technology". This seems to have a vague reactionary and spiritual component to it which reminds me of (in a comparison that will doubtless make both shriek) reactionary "conservatives" railing on about the evils of condoms, dresses above the knees, and other sinful trappings of modern society. That is, both groups have a reverential outlook on a past that they seem to think is a lot more rosy than it probably actually was.

So, is there any merit to the idea of going back to living like Native Americans (or insert other "live off the land" types here)? Is this desirable or even possible? Is there any point to "conservation" of a world that is dynamic by definition? Is the idea that I'm espousing - "technology got us into this mess, so more technology will get us out" viable, or arrogant and hedonistic?

All opinions welcome.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

My take on it may be slightly different - unless we start using our technology to minimize/eliminate the impacts of our technology, we'll end up being forced to live like the Native Americans did, whether result of war or depletion of resources.

There was an article in a recent Outside about the fuels being generated by algae, and others by biomass (waste). These seem to make a hell of a lot more sense to invest in than digging more holes in the ground to more rapidly extract a resource that we know will run out eventually.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Saving 30% water usage sounds impressive, but you have to look at the percentage of the population that are in a position to save 30%, versus the percentage of the worlds population that has no source of clean water now.

If everyone in America switched to hybrid cars, we'd save a lot of gasoline, but would we save enough to fuel all the cars that people in China and India want to put on the road in the next few decades?

There was always more resources to tap, and there still are unexploited resources, but the population is greater and the amount of untapped resources is smaller. We have escaped the Malthusian limits in the past, but there are limits and we will reach them.

The first oil well hit oil at 69 1/2 feet, and it was within a few miles of where the products could be marketed, today we need to drill thousands of feet deep to strike oil, in remote hostile environments. The cost of exploiting these resources keeps increasing, and the good cheap resources are being used up at an increasing rate.
We are hitting other limits, even if we had unlimited oil, we don't have enough atmosphere to burn it all.

We are entering a century where shortages of commodities will be the dominant theme.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

But, speaking at an abstract level, don't such advances in technology offer promise of returning to the scenario you describe - cheap resources easily at our disposal?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I don't think it's an either or, good Doctor. I think if we coupled new, clean technology with conservation, i.e. living more simply and using less, we could manage quite well.

Sure, make your carbon capture thingy, but while you're at it, you can emit less carbon too!

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Why is saving 30% of your water usage impressive? You do realize that when you flush your toilet, it ends up raining on somebody else later on... If we were using up water like we are oil, then the ocean levels would be lowering.

I think you know this and suspect you think it's impressive because you think Americans have it too good compared to the rest of the world.



Why the eff do we have to conserve oil for India and China? I thought we had to conserve oil to save the world from unstoppable global warming? This comment of yours tells me that you think the world won't over heat if the same amount of CO2 is spewed more equitably on a world wide per-capita basis vs Americans spewing 25% of the CO2 with only 5% of the worlds population.

I knew years ago that the motive behind the UN's global warming movement was not really to stop GW but to do the following:
1) Reduce America's economy so that it's not so disproportionally large compared to the rest of the world nations.
2) Transfer wealth from the US to developing nations.
3) Reduce the cost of oil for developing nations by reducing the amount the US uses.

Why? Because the UN is an organization that backs socialism and they view the US as the big rich white angelo saxon Protestant and most of the rest of the world as minorities.

The more socialist we become, the more shortages we are seeing and will see in the future. Nothing works better than the free market (with reasonable regulations) to produce and supply goods.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

First of all, what mess are we in?

Second, I've noticed too that liberals (not all, but many) want us to go backwards both in tech use and standard of living. In fact, I heard several times in the last few months about how the Amish type people are very good at using little resources, etc. I suspect the reason many want us to go backwards is due to how they see it as unfair that Americans standard of living is so good compared to most of the rest of the world.

Ironically, when the day comes that we do go back to wiping our asses with leaves, intellectuals like some people who admire FDR will blame capitalism while the reason will fall squarely on environmentalists and socialists. Of course, that is if nobody does nothing about it...

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

I'm inclined to think that "going back" wouldn't be a viable strategy, even if it were a desirable one. Global competition guarantees that any one party which devotes itself to self-sacrificial conservation will be overwhelmed by the parties which do not.
So I can agree that going forward is the only way out. However, there's probably something to be said for going forward more intelligently.

I don't really buy Goober's Malthusian limits based on population. In response to the specter of "infinite population" I offer "infinite technology."
Not that every potential technological path will lead us to a survivable future, but it certainly seems presumptuous to think that none of them can.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Does using less resources really have to result in lowering your standard of living? I don't understand that. I think we can be a lot smarter with the way we use resources with very little impact to our standard of living (might even save us a lot of money). The free market can help us get there, but committed leadership (from business and government) can make the transition so much easier.

I like the theme of this thread, though. I do believe we are capable of better resource use and ingenuity (development, optimization and use of current and future technology) will be a important instrument in the toolbox to get us there. Big brains got us in control of this world, we might as well put them to use to help maintain our place here.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
--Sun Tzu

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Which "liberals" are these?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Just to throw in my two cents about what was mentioned earlier. I am a Native American, living largely a subsistence lifestyle. I have no desire to give up most of the technology available today. The idea of hunting without a rifle or shotgun, a boat without a motor, motor vehicles in general, communications technology minus cell phones cable TV and the internet are all something humanity would be hard pressed to do without.

I dont disagree with to a point. The fact that there was oil hit at 70 means little in the overall scheme of things. I can bring you to several places that I know of personally up here where crude oil naturally sits on the tundra is small quantities. The reason it is often done in hostile remote enviroments is that is where the most oil is, and it can be done with less impact on the surrounding area. Land rights are much cheaper in remote areas than in say a suburban area.
Now we could go and set up a well or two in the areas where there is surface crude I described earlier. The problem is that it is not economical to establish the needed infastructure, labor and red tape involved.
Its like trying to scoop water from a brook when the lake is right there.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

Completely agree.

The only short term problem is, coming up with that clean power technology is going to create waste and pollution. In my opinion, we need to do this short term damage, in order to reap the long term benefits. I wish everyone had solar electric cells on their roof, solar water heaters, and a community windmill for power generation.

Electric scooters or GEM type vehicles for short trips would be insanely nice. Having a lane on the Hiway reserved for these types of vehicles would make them much more attractive. I just don't wanna have to give up my Porsche for fun weekend trips, or Tahoe for transporting things. And yes, I actually use my SUV for actions it was designed for. But, I would gladly use a GEM for grocery getting and trips to the mall/hardware store.

We need a better insulating material, and it would be nice to replace wooden construction materials with something else. The only problem with that is the waste material produced in the manufacturing process, and we would still be using some type of natural resource, depleting it at a faster rate.

I think the algea based fuel is good, but if we pull too much algea from the oceans, fish stocks will plummet.

In all, conservation and utilizing less is a great way to go. It may sound gross, but growing up, the toilet was only allowed to be flushed twice a day.
We brushed our teeth with baking soda, and used our glass of water at breakfast to do it with. We walked to the grocery store three miles away, did a lot of hunting and fishing for meat, and had our own vegetable garden. We allowed the tree limbs to shade the house, and wore more clothes and used less heat during the winter. In summer, we wore minimum clothing, opened up the house to any breezes, and dealt with the Texas heat, using the A/C only on exceptionally hot days.

I have a new opinion of you from this post. Nicely put.

Yes, I think that's true, but I'm talking more abstractly about the attitude. That is, there seems to be a sizable contingent of the environmentalist movement that has the attitude that technological advance necessarily means further alteration of the environment and is therefore bad. That is, we should endeavor to preserve/revert and if some technology comes along that happens to help, then so much the better. I'm saying the opposite - we should seek new technologies to improve our situation and that conservation is just gravy.

The reality of the situation is that all of the hybrid cars and twisty light bulbs in the world aren't going to put a dent in the impact of an emerging China and India on the environment. In addition, a lot of the conservation measures proposed come to the detriment (great or mild) of various economies. Rightly or wrongly, the market isn't likely to bear that very well. That is, any politician, however noble his intentions, is going to have a tough sell when trying to convince people to pay more or live with less for the abstract good of the world.

A focus on technological improvements would mitigate the need for sacrifice to better our surroundings.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Not at all, its a very human thing to use tools, and even native Americans used tools as they were introduced. Humans should use all the tools that are available to them to further their development and livelihood. The trick is of course a balancing act with the resources we extract from this earth and the consequences of some of those technologies. So, no I don't think technology got us into this, what got us in this mess was the mismanagement of technology and the lack of forethought in the creation of such technology as say say plastic. By that same reasoning, I don't believe technology alone will be enough to fix things.

So, yes I guess its the whole guns don't kill people, people kill people argument. Being that technology isn't good or bad. Besides, I don't think its possible to revert to past methods of living, not with six billion people anyway (going on seven billion!). Still, Conservation is a fairly new concept as far as the human race is concerned and we still don't grasp it as a species which is perhaps the biggest challenge. Anyway, my point is that I do think its possible to live in harmony with mother nature without loosing the modern world. Its just going to take a lot of sacrifice, the changing of minds, and how we live our lives (Don't hold your breath, humans after all are a selfish species).