MohanndasChutney (September 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm)

Something else they teach you in Econ: people go where the money goes. If you're in the auto industry and you don't move towards non-petroleum power, you lose. The petroleum powered industry will die because a new one will take its place, and capital, labor and consumers will move in the same direction. There will be no sudden impact on the economy because that kind of change can't take place overnight.

kamikrazi123 (September 24, 2008 at 5:39 am)

honestly, every time I see videos like these, they're all so convincing! I see no consequences for electric cars except for the potentially sudden impact in the economy. One of the elementary things I learned in Econ class is it's close ties with ecology (i.e. electric cars) Watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I am a believer lol

cleric022684 (September 21, 2008 at 12:34 am)

it is Arial Atom

TheWatcherInTheTower (September 7, 2008 at 10:13 pm)

"A happy person 2000 years ago was just as content as a happy person today." There were only 200 million people alive back then. For simplicity lets assume about the same percentage were happy then as now. With 6 billion folks around today, we are therefore 2900% happier today. You might want to check for facts regarding longevity. Some rare individuals made it to what we could consider an old age, but the majority died very young. Remember there was no antibiotics or sanitation back then.

withindarkness (September 7, 2008 at 7:42 pm)

It's like saying "gas prices are good now because they aren't as high as they were a week ago" You're still paying more than you were 3 years ago. Nutrition is also something that dropped in quality before being brought back up. Productivity is an industrial term. It means nothing in regard to happiness. Humans can not increase their capacity for joy. A happy person 2000 years ago was just as content as a happy person today.

withindarkness (September 7, 2008 at 7:32 pm)

Not "return to the good old days". Find a truly sustainable way of doing things. Maybe that means reducing technological levels. Longevity has little to do with happiness...you never know when you might die anyway. Besides, it only recently that your statement is true. Tribes today have long lives, and bodies found in Celtic and Norse burials were, on average, longer lived than us. Lifespan dropped during the dark ages, and through the industrial revolution...we have only just got it back.

TheWatcherInTheTower (September 7, 2008 at 11:57 am)

How would you like to measure happiness? Longevity? Nutrition? Productivity? All three are at the highest levels in human history. Average life expectancy, at least in the "west" has more than doubled in the last century. While it's impossible to say whether the dead are happy, at least a few of the living might be, so happiness is definitely on to up! ;-) What time in the "good old days" would you like to return to exactly?

withindarkness (September 7, 2008 at 7:36 am)

If we kept 'progressing', increasing population, building intensive farming, energy production, etc. we could eventually remove the ability of the planet to sustain us without our artifice, or at least make it a terrible place to be. Should something go wrong in a world at it's maximum, we'd be screwed. If something went wrong 200 years ago...no biggy. Now? Some problems, but we'd recover easily. We make the consequences of failure and catastrophe worse each time we "find a solution".

withindarkness (September 7, 2008 at 7:26 am)

Essentially, short term gains are thought of as good, even if in the long term they make things worse. As for scaling back...I doubt its gonna happen (see above), but it is the only truly sustainable choice. How much? As much as is necessary. I don't believe technological increase is "progress". Progress towards what? When looking at history and technology, I ask only one question: Does it make people happier? If it does not, it is useless. Are people happier now than in the past? Doubtful.

TheWatcherInTheTower (September 7, 2008 at 6:47 am)

Solar etc, as you put cannot yet deliver the baseload demands of cities. It may be able to power moderate size towns, but the bulk of the power will still be needed to be generated in some other way. Unless, as you put it we "scale back". What would you have scale back to, exactly? Apart from a global catastrophe, there will be no voluntary "scaling back". What is this so-called "Progress Trap"?