That's why im glad it is governments that are leading the funding for Fussion as opposed to big business. Energy companies would much rather we didn't get there! The way i see it is with Fussion cracked we will be in a position where for anyone in the world to be going without food/water/electricity will be a travesty. As it stands there are plenty of excuses and reasons why more isn't done to bring the overall standard of living up - but with unlimited energy to solve those problems all of a sudden it is a very realistic proposition. It may take time from when it is first done to get to a point where enough pressure is put on governments etc.. But considering the nature of breakthrough it would be, for me it seems the natural progression that ti will lead to a massive step up for the entire human race.
Yes, wind farms are by no means the be-all and end-all. The technology in this field is being refined, but it still won't stop the movement towards shale gas, tar sands and the runaway coal usage in poorer, developing countries (China is one of the best in the world for renewables but has also commissioned hundreds of coal plants). Fusion is very much worth investing time and money on, but we also have to be incredibly careful with our decisions in the meantime - something we're not really doing (and has been compounded by the fallout - excuse the pun - of the Fukushima reactor disaster).
With all due respect to you afcftw, I think your idea's about Capitalism being a naturalistic order of 'the best rise to the top' and the weak/unintelligent 'fall to the bottom' is very naive and a little bit arrogant. You're obviously an intelligent and inquisitive thinker and reading your posts you demonstrate a sound grasp of critical thinking, so it's with some surprise that you take such a uniformed view about a political system that is very much a construct of a ruling elite that is concerned with protecting its power base and means of control - i.e. through corporate control of all the systems of society. It has nothing at all to do with natural order and everything to do with contrived and controlled systems that ensure that the those with power, maintain and pass on their power. Arsenal87's recount of his dim friend who is now mega wealthy is a classic example of the fact that the rich and powerful do not always get there by merit, but instead by lineage, connections and privileged opportunity that is not afforded to all. In a nutshell it is not an equal system and it has created world where the richest 1% own 99% of the world's resources. In anybody's book there is no way that they have earned or deserved that position through being 'better' Thinking about the Environment, I think it's fairly clear that the pathological consumption for energy, burning fossil fuels, depleting fish stocks, land stripped of nutrients, acid rain, melting Ice shelfs, insatiable desire to consume more and more disposable products, polluting the water table with heavy metals from the ever burgeoning dumping into landfill, and increasing chaotic changing weather patterns is a fairly stark example of the consequence of unchecked decision making based on financial gain, rather than environmental responsibility. As for Nuclear fission / Fusion. I'm fascinated and horrified by Nuclear technology. At it's point of use, a clean energy. But it's byproduct is death to all living things. The Holy grail of physics is Cold Fusion, but we're still some way off from achieving that and our insatiable desire to consume more and more energy is driving us into dangerous territories, without proper scrutiny for the consequences. Just this week George Osborne has been lauding and approving licence for Fracking, an technology that was suspended in Lancashire for causing Earthquakes in Blackpool, but is championed as the UK's saviour for energy independence. Why? Because Capitalism had led us into the energy grip of imports from Russia and war means that the main gas pipe supplying Europe runs alongside the straight of Iran, the next target for the US in the 'war on terror'. Just as an aside, and for anybody interested in energy. Have you read the theories and experiments of Nicola Tesla ? There is much in there that could provide solutions for our energy crisis, but it doesn't fit the Capitalist model, so we need to make a stark choice about what 'survival of the fittest' really means
LOL Piskie nice "informed" view there to counteract his uninformed view, couldn't make this up... I really thought you were being sarcastic there for a bit. Would you mind defining Capitalism, "the political system", for me?
Folks I hate to break it to you, but we're not going to stop using oil and gas consumption until they're no longer available, or the demand exceeds what's available. For how many decades have people gone about alternative energies? Yes, we see a little more alternative energy being used now, 'green' energy, but with rising energy demand, especially in places like India and China, the need for oil is going to even be higher, and the green alternatives as of now, isn't enough, and won't be enough for a very very long. The U.S. itself which harps on about the need of alternative energy, is set to become one of the highest oil producing countries, what's that tell you? Oil as an energy resource ain't going anywhere. Also, if nuclear fusion is everything people say it is, it will NEVER HAPPEN, because cheap clean energy for EVERYBODY is not in the governments interest, or powerful corporate companies who have a huge influence in government. Secondly, we don't need cheap clean energy for everybody to eradicate things like poverty today, to let everyone have clean water or shelter, with our current resources, we could eliminate poverty and help everyone on the planet by the end of the week if we really wanted to. In fact if you look at how much governments are spending on nuclear fusion research, compared to other things, it's like a few peanuts being handed out.
With pleasure. Capitalism is a system, based on accumulating capital or resources by private ownership for the means of generating profit for said owners. It's primary function is to create wealth for it's owners, private enterprises that exist to generate wealth. The reach of Capitalism dictates every means of production and every service, thus it informs the decision making of Governments, who act to perpetuate its ideals because they are controlled by its influence. We elect Governments for the sake of representing the 'best interests' of the populous, but in fact we elect a body that is in the grip of people concerned with generating profit for themselves as a primary concern. THIS, is why it is political.
This is an example of Capitalism at work, private profit taking precedence over the need to provide for everybody.
Not just that, there are people who fear overpopulation will lead to our extinction, if everybody is well off, not rich, but if everyone has the ability for basic goods and services, they think that will deplete humanity. Why do you think nothings done to get rid of poverty? Hundreds of millions of more people with access with basic goods and services, is not a good thing for them, so it's better off they die, thereby not overburdening an already over-populated planet.
So Capitalism justifies that the less well of deserve to die because they are a burden on the resources of the rich ?
They are putting 150 turbines off the coast of where i live,what a waste of money.We've got billions of tons of coal underground and we're building ****ing windfarms
We're going in the wrong direction really. The only sensible and viable options for us are Nuclear power or Hydrogen. Nuclear power because it's clean without being a veggie's wet dream, Hydrogen because it's the most common element in the universe, and therefore unlikely to ever run out. As we don't get earthquakes and things, we won't have a fukushima type situation if we use more nuclear energy.
There is a theory that naturally occurring electricity in the ionsphere can be harnessed and transmitted wirelessly to any suitable antenna. A controllable source of free energy. In fact these experiments were successfully conducted a hundred years ago - and incidently funded by J.P Morgan, but that's another story . . .
Over the recent years I've seen way more members of Government perpetuating populist ideals like yours, trying to make everything about "class warfare" and whatnot, than those of Capitalism. Capitalism is that overall efficient vehicle that pretty much everyone knows is the only "working" economic model in town, but everyone has to hide any positive opinions of it because of conceptions about it that idiots similar to the ones behind "occupy Wallstreet" hold. (oh, and make no mistake, politicians love electorates who begin to favor populist candidates that can increasingly centralize their power "for the good of the people") We elect Governments for things "to improve", without sacrificing too many of our freedoms and other things we hold dear. A good principled politician will pursue the means to improve the standards of living, increase growth of the economy, and improve other indicators that improve the prosperity of the people and the country, without taking the easy way out and just do what immediately seems "right" for the people. Think back a few decades ago, who'd have thought that some countries would reach 75% net tax rates for the upper brackets, and the issue of "fair taxes for the rich" would still be at the forefront of almost every economic issue. When exactly will the taxes be fair, 65%? 65.7%? 76.8%? Or is it just one of those those things that will always be popular with "the populous" the outcome of which has been shown time and again to be either irrelevant or negative, but takes an enormous time out of the public discourse. Left leaning candidates see in it a very simplistic platform to get the people behind them and jump in it with both feet. What I'm most puzzled by though is that you see potential in a decentralized system (Capitalism, at its core) combined with some particular political environments to create circumstances in which a small elite can have more power than they should, and thus as an alternative you want a more centralized economic system to ensure that the power isn't concentrated in a small ruling elite... WHAT?
There is very little real involvement of private enterprises in the research of nuclear fusion, mostly due to the impracticality. So I'd be very eager to see an explanation of the nonsense statement above. (mind you it's a very catchy leftie soundbite)
Capitalism doesn't justify anything. Stop attributing concepts to it like it is some grand ideology when it is no such thing.
No, I'm saying you don't have to simply be a capitalist to want others to die, lest they overburden the worlds resources. China isn't capitalist yet they've put in a 1 child policy, because of overpopulation. It's nothing to do with simply burdening the rich, but burdening everyone, and using all the resources on the planet that there's nothing left for anybody, that's what those type of people think. If we had cheap clean energy for everybody, that would end most poverty etc, and if we didn't have poverty, everyone would be well off and be ready to access good and services, which would deplete the earth for humans, as there's a limited amount of resources, for an unlimited amount of growing population that's consuming that, and that eventually leads to extinction.
I tend to subscribe to Winston Churchill's view that "Capitalism is the worst system in the world, apart from everything else." All attempts at an alternative have turned into humanitarian disasters, brutal regimes and dictatorships. The path to utopia is across a sea of blood and you never get to the other side.
With respect, that's not what I'm saying at all I'm commenting on the undeniable impact of the pervasive economic system on people and the planet we live on. I'm positing that pragmatically it doesn't meet the needs of the majority, because it is controlled by and for the interests of the few. It doesn't really matter if power is centralised or devolved locally. The point is that it needs to meet the needs of the people it purports to serve.
It is the pervasive model for most of the world, so its application and the consequences deserves to be scrutinised as to whether it works to meet the needs of the world's population.
