Re: [OT] Paging Frank K. (was: ' [OT] Why Bush?')

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:41:05 GMT

Rene wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > Rene is proposing
> > we day-dream for 30.5 years with fingers crossed...
>
> Ooooohhhh!!!... Aaaaahhhhh!!!...
>
> There is much miss-understanding, here:
>
> I am not _proposing_ anything. All i was saying
> was that i am in favour of the Fusion reactor
> experiment, and that this should have already
> been done 20 years ago.

Ah, okay...I misunderstood your position...please accept the apology for
the misrepresentation of your position...I thought that this was what you
were saying...you were not...

> If i were proposing any solution, you can rest
> assured that nobody would want of it. :))

Well, yes, quite correct...people attack me tooth and claw for even
suggesting a "solution" is needed, let alone the modest proposal of
"perhaps we could slow things down and at least make a start at a solution
with what is already available to us"...which one would think is only
common sense...

So, yes, nobody wants it...when I even tried to give a description of the
potential of the problem - which by definition of it being a "problem" is
obviously going to be "bad news"...if it weren't so, it wouldn't be a
"problem" now, would it? - then I'm told this is too "dark" and could I
lighten it up a little...ummm, is the point being missed? I can't "lighten
up" the truth to make it sound happier when it _ISN'T_ happy...indeed, the
point is the only people with the power to "lighten up" and "make happy" my
"bad news" story of the problem is people who _DO SOMETHING_ towards a
"solution" so the "bad news" never comes and is converted to "good
news"...yes, the problem is dark...very dark...but if you want a Hollywood
"happy ending" to the tale then realise that we are implicitly writing this
story by our very actions at these moments...

> For now, in the real world, as it is, for the real
> energy problems we will have to face in 15 or 20
> years,

Well, I'd be reluctant to put an exact figure because many factors will
determine the exact "when" that things will happen...indeed, how can we be
too accurate when the people supplying the figures are _KNOWN_ to have lied
(and can still be seen lying, quite blatantly) about them? BUT your
"immediacy" of putting it a decade and a half to two decades (2020-2025)
where we'll be facing the problems head-on...well, these "ballpark" figures
show you aren't deluding yourself, like some, that this will all be some
"distant future" long after they are dead and so forth (though, how
reprehensible is that? It's somehow "okay" to ruin the lives of our
children for a touch of "luxury" and "convenience" today? What great
parental instincts and mature responsibility, eh?)...

> i am afraid that it is too late for thinking
> of the solution, and that the effective and working
> solutions must be considered.

Yes, exactly...I too suspect that, considering the effective and working
solutions of today tend not to offer anything useful regards automotive
transport and that oil is on the "hit list" as the first to go very soon,
the possibilities - minus that "miracle cure" falling out of the sky (could
happen...but we have to presume it won't, because, indeed, it might NOT
happen...actually, of the type of substantial "miracle" we're demanding to
appear from nowhere, it's probably safe to say it won't happen...not in
time) - of something to deal with oil in the transport area within this
"time limit"...well, indeed, minus the "miracle", we could very well be
looking at "too late" already...

As I said before, one other important issue is that our energy isn't all
the same and isn't all equally suppliable by all fuels...and, thus,
transport is the big worry with no real alternatives in what we use already
and oil is marked as the first to go...not all fuels are born equal,
unfortunately...if oil runs out / becomes unaffordable, then we can't -
unlike with a power station, where all the fuels are possibilities (though,
even there, one has to remember that power stations are _specific_ to
certain types of fuel...you can't take a coal power station and then have
it producing fission power tomorrow...even if we were to say "okay, let's
go with fission" then, to meet that, expect for more nuclear power stations
to need construction...for, indeed, the possibility of one ending up on
your doorstep) - simply attach a fission reactor to the side of a car or
drop lumps of coal into the fuel tank...

So, even if we choose to commit, say, to nuclear power then it's not some
simple "switch"...on the contrary, to meet the demand, more nuclear power
stations are constructed (knock up the risk attached)...and that things
will _STILL_ be changed by this...you can't put a fission reactor onto the
back of your car and carry on as before, filling up with Uranium rods at
the local garage...nuclear power just isn't the same kind of thing as the
oil you're currently using...

So, we're presented with something probably like having a battery in the
car and then "plugging in" the car overnight to fill up that battery...this
will change how things are...for example, when you return home from work,
you need to plug in the car so as to "recharge" it sufficiently to be full,
ready for the drive into work the next morning...if you forget, then
there's no juice in the battery and you can't go anywhere...unlike with
oil, where you just pump it into the fuel tank, with a "battery" set-up
then it takes time to recharge it...it won't have the "convenience" you're
used to...you'll probably have to "pre-plan" your journeys and put the car
onto "recharge" hours in advance...

Your kid phones home: "Mom, I missed the last bus and it's started to
rain...can you come pick me up with the car?"...you go look at the empty
battery meter: "Not for another 2 or 3 hours I can't, the battery's not
charged up enough...I've only just put it on for recharging and it'll need
2 or 3 hours to be full enough to make it over to where you are and also
have enough to get back...is there somewhere you can wait safely there, out
of the rain, until I get the car recharged?"...

So, you charge up the battery...about 2.5 hours to fill it up enough to
cope with going there and, also, of course, coming back (don't forget to
charge up for the return journey too! ;)...another half hour to drive over
to pick up your kid...you come back home...

End of story? Oh, no, it's not that simple...you put the car onto recharge
immediately when you get back...this is now early in the morning of the
next day (well, the last bus, obviously, was running rather late in the
night - after your kid got out of the cinema with her friends (which is, of
course, miles away in a neighbouring city centre while you live out in the
country) - and then you took hours recharging and then you had to drive up
and back...all in all, this has cut into your sleep...bloody kids, eh? But
you couldn't just leave her there, as tempting as the thought may have been
;)...you grab some sleep and the alarm clock goes to go into work the next
day...you're still tired but there's plenty of coffee in the office and so
long as the boss doesn't notice, eh? You go to look at the battery meter:
Only enough juice to get into work but not enough to get back (they haven't
yet installed the promised "power point" in the company car park...and, as
recharging batteries takes hours to full capacity, there is no longer any
such thing as a local garage you can just pop into to get a "quick refill"
and then zoom off...you've got to park it and "plug it in", possibly for
hours)...you phone up work: "Sorry, there was an emergency last night - my
kid got stuck miles away by missing the last bus - and it used up all the
recharging time I needed to fill up the car to get into work today...I'll
be late in this morning"...the boss grumbles - well, you just won't get
paid for the hours missed - but, luckily, this hasn't happened too often
that you'd get fired for this "one off"...but best make sure it doesn't
happen too frequently, eh?

You see, even a subtle rather minor change like the fact that "refilling"
isn't quite so "instant" as it once was in the days of oil could make a
large impact on how people go about their lifestyles...introduce
inconveniences that, well, you'll get have to get used to...

And, note, in this example, I'm presuming that there has been no _economic_
changes...that this "battery" set-up doesn't cost much different to what
oil costs now...but if it is different, then whether this is affordable
comes into it, even if all other "energy" issues were solved...

And thinking of an alternative energy proposed, if you've got a "hydrogen
cell" car then would you need to replace the complete cell when you need to
"refuel"? Again, a subtle minor change could make a large impact...when you
pop into the garage to "refuel", it's not a case of "topping up" what you
have in the cell, it's shelling out for a brand new cell and replacing the
whole thing...this leads to worries about "what is done with cells that
aren't quite empty but aren't enough to go anywhere useful?"...also, to the
fact that you have to pull out enough cash to buy a _full_ cell...the
_whole price_...not any "$5 top up" like you might have done before to just
keep a tank off "empty" for the return journey from work...got to carry the
full, say, $50 for a full replacement cell around with you...

Small things...but things that could completely change your "routine" and
the way you live your life quite drastically...simply because, yes, the
"energy" might be solved but it's been solved by a _different technology_
which works in a minor to majorly different way...

> For now there is only one: The Fission.

Doesn't help with cars and transport...and oil is the one scheduled to be
going first at your 15-20 year estimate...at least, fission can't help
directly with cars...but if it were changed to a "battery" system and then
you "recharged" from a power point at home then the power for this could be
supplied by fission...

[ Oh, irrelevent language point...in languages other than English, abstract
nouns are often prefixed by the definite article: "Das Leben", "C'est la
vie"...English tends to NOT use any article at all: "That's life"...hence,
"the Fission" sounds odd in English and it would just be "Fission" (no
article at all)...this is one of those many strange differences between
English and other languages - like no word endings, odd tenses and strange
spelling - that abstract nouns often have no article (either "a" or "the")
at all in use when you're being "generic" (and common for non-native
English speaker to often put a "the" in when it's not needed...well, it is
needed in other languages, I know, but English, as you know, is a weird
language ;)...yes, a bit confusing...as you say "what's _the_ time?"
(because you're referring to specifically _now_...an exact moment in time
:)...but "what we're lacking is time" (the "time" here is completely
abstract - all time in general, the "concept" of time, etc. - so no "the"
at all)...a very confusing language, eh? ;) ]

> And even this one is not very well
> prepared, as, given the demential usage, the exchange
> stuff does of tracks, all over Europe, in all directions,
> and all the numbers of demential planes flying in all
> directions for nope, i am afraid that the end of fossil
> oil will as well require a complete change of Civilisation.

Yes, indeed...you've got the point that I'm trying to get across...this
"problem" we will be facing is, indeed, of "civilisation changing" size and
capacity...

Short of the scientists, indeed, magicing up some "miracle" that "cures"
the problem (but, as noted in this post, just because they find a way to
produce the energy does NOT mean that it will be an exactly equivalent
way...that the different methods of producing energy may require completely
different ways of doing things...such as my "recharging the car" example
from the perspective that you can't instantly recharge a battery in a
matter of seconds when you need to fill it up with an awful lot of power to
allow driving at, say, 70mph for a number of hours...presuming we can get
battery technology into a car that is _capable_ of that kind of
capacity...as, after all, electric cars have been shunned thus far exactly
because they couldn't manage to store enough power for fast speeds and long
journeys...indeed, travelling coast to coast in America might require
driving half the day, recharging the other half and stopping very
frequently because each charge doesn't actually carry you very far...a very
"stop start" journey)...then things simply CANNOT be maintained as they
are...

And, indeed, I'm focussing on the "obvious" and the "direct" issues...but
there are "secondary issues" too...for instance, banking and finance is now
so large and complex, it would be impossible without computers and
technology...a problem actually _compounded_ by the common "centralisation"
that happens...you know, get rid of all the "local banks" (and often local
post offices too...lots of this kind of thing happening in the UK at the
moment, much to the annoyance of pensioners and disabled people and
such...indeed, one bank - Natwest - is basing its entire marketing campaign
on: "We're the only bank who's not closing local branches") and just have
one big "central bank" in the main city...hey, they save money and get more
profits because they have less employees to pay wages...I mean, the
_computers_ actually deal with all the accounts (many, many, many times
more accounts and transactions than was ever possible before computers)...

So what happens if they can't power those computers anymore? If customers
can't afford their cars to drive to the big "centralised" bank anymore?
Increasingly, _MOST_ money on this Earth is now "electronic" and not the
"paper and tin" kind...it's all stored on computers...transferred by
telephone...what happens to all that when the lights finally go out?

> At this point of view, to me, the sooner would be the
> better, as i really wish, over all, the destruction of
> this so called "Civilisation", even though i am not
> sure, at all, that the next one will not be... worse. :)

Well, yeah, this appears to be where we differ...NOT to say I'm enamored
with this civilisation but it has things worth preserving...

Also, don't confuse humanity in general for "civilisation"...for instance,
the Romans weren't far off what we're like today...just they didn't have
the technologies...any "next" civilisation won't suddenly be without greed,
without arseholes, without problems...

You can't teach an old dog new tricks...

Though, humanity _does_ improve...slowly...you know, abolishing slavery (at
least, direct individual slavery...the First World does still keep entire
nations as "slaves" or "near slaves" often...happens out of sight, enslaves
the entire country rather than individuals...makes it a less obvious type
of slavery so it mostly goes unmentioned...indeed, as it were, this is
perhaps the next "lesson" for humankind to abolish this type of slavery
too)...less racism...less discrimination...more democracy...more
Liberty...it _DOES_ move on...yes, often so excruiatingly slowly that you
wish you could give it a big boot up the bum to get things moving faster...

And if you've seen the more "romantic" versions of the past with bold
knights being very "chivalrous" and damsels in distress and everything
looking very pleasant...just remember that it _IS_ just a "romantic" notion
of the past...it wasn't without its major problems...

Indeed, I like the ex-Python Terry Jones' stuff about history (he does
documentaries, as well as being the one who got the Pythons to do the
"Jabbawocky" movie and stuff because, as well as being a comedian, he likes
his history and it's his other passion :) where he attempts to be a touch
more "realistic"...people crapping out of their windows, diseases
everywhere and that kind of thing...he's recently done a TV series over
here, in fact, where the whole point of the series is that he goes through
all the "myths" and then tells you the real historical truth...things like
showing how knights weren't actually particularly "chivalrous" but tended
to just be hired mercenary killers who were badly behaved...how "damsels in
distress" were hardly so, in fact, and tells about women who lead wars and
were engaged in distinctly non-virginal activities when not reading racey
semi-pornographic novels (indeed, it was the _Victorians_ who had this idea
that women should simply be "trophies" for husbands to show off...and the
Victorians, you see, "edited" history - especially stories of King Arthur
and knights and medieval things because that become quite a "fashion" for
them - so that it was "moral" to suit their over-moralising, reserved
selves...what is mostly known today is the "edited" version, not the real
version...after all, Bodicea lead armies against the Romans, Jean of Arc
(one of yours, there, Rene ;) doing her stuff and all that kind of thing,
as we well know (and also worth noting that in these stories, no-one seems
too shocked to see women doing these things...unusual, maybe...but not, as
you'd expect from the Victorian "women have always been repressed" version
of history they invented, that this was totally unheard of for women to
actually be strong warriors and totally in the thick of battle)...okay, not
the "women's lib" of today - women weren't "equal" to men in those days,
that is true - but the repression was in the _Victorian_ period and then
they just "edited" history to make it seem like this had always been the
way...mostly, it hand't :)...the reality of "Robin Hood"-like thieves who
actually robbed everyone and gave to no-one (though, as always, there is a
grain of truth showing through...because many of the notorious thieves of
the time were, in fact, lords and nobleman...and some of the versions of
Robin Hood feature the idea that Robin Hood was actually of "noble blood"
originally but then become a "hero of the poor"...that last bit is the
nonsense...indeed, the story probably comes about from the poor inventing a
fantasy that, one day, one of these thieves stops robbing from them and
instead takes up their cause to rob from others - the evil "sheriff" (who
were actually mostly boring "pen pushers", in fact) - to get their money
back for them...hence, the idea of robbing the "evil" sheriff - who would
have had "tax collecting" responsibility - of his unfair taxes and giving
the money back to the poor...a nice idea...hey, if a "superhero" wants to
rush off and get your taxes back for you, then few people today would
complain about that idea either, eh? They just created their own kind of
"Superman" character and stories about him to entertain themselves that
maybe it could be true ;)...and each episode deals with a different
"myth"...a very good show and I like Terry Jones' attitude of making this
whole series to compare the "myths" with the reality to "correct" the
actually inaccurate "romantic" idea that the past was all Lovely and
perfect and pleasent...and, well, if it were a bit like the "myths", it
actually sounds a little fun...unfortunately, they are "myths" and it was
nothing like that, in fact ;)...

So, sure, this civilisation ain't the greatest...but none of them have ever
been or ever will be perfect (not possible...humans just don't work that
way ;)...it may be hard to fathom at times but, really, this _IS_ the best
it's ever been...democracy, equality, Liberty, technology, facilities,
etc....nothing even close to this anywhere else in time...

And when systems / civilisations collapse, then the pattern is often that
things descend to anarchy at first...but before you think this sounds
good...this tends to be replaced by "warlords" and "feudalism"...people
just killing each other to get "power"...and then those in power become an
"aristocracy" and make everyone else "serfs" (that is, slaves...you're
"owned" by the Lord, working for him...think "Maffia" and "protection
rackets"...a less civilised version of that because rather than this
"Maffia" being illegal and hiding from the police, they _are_ the "law", in
so far as there is a law ;)...that's why losing democracy is pretty serious
because getting it back is typically NOT easy and often requires lots of
wars and death to achieve, as the "warlords" don't just "give up" and hand
it over or anything...

And I'm of the opinion that this is the furthest things could go...you
know, that these times will be looked back on in the future like we look
back on bloody wars and violence and lawlessness and no hygiene and
diseases everywhere as being really rather "primitive"...and I don't just
mean technologically but politically and such too...indeed, as I was
suggesting before with the notion that things are heading in a certain
direction: Anarchy (none) -> autocracy (one) -> democracy (many)...and that
this seems to be working towards, well, "peer to peer" (decentralised,
local, "unions" of small states, etc.) than "client / server" (Kings,
hierarchies, centralisation, etc.)...a "collapse" could put things in a
"Dark Age" where it takes a long time for things to get back to where this
"evolution" left off...indeed, Wannabee's reference of what I was saying
about the possibility of civilisation collapse / change he called
"dark"...this is, in fact, an highly appropriate word because it is a bit
like the "Dark Ages"...where the Romans - with their "technology" and
"cities" and stuff - left and then things went back to rural, simple
existences that took around a _thousand years_ before things truly picked
back up to (roughly speaking) Roman levels and then beyond it...part of the
reason why things went that way was because the Roman "collapse" was really
rather sudden...they just pulled out of places like Britain...jumped on
boats and left...and without the "continuity" from one to the other, it
just kind of "stopped" there and then...requiring it all to be
"re-discovered", so to speak, once more...well, if we hit anything that's a
touch too "sudden" - as I suggest that we're "unprepared" for fossil fuels
just stopping and everything just falls apart within weeks and months
because no-one prepared for it or made "contingency plans" - then that is
exactly the kind of thing that creates "Dark Ages"...in truth, what I'm
suggesting with preparation and moving at least as much as is possible to
alternatives is that it stops it being "sudden"...keeps at least some
"continuity" and then, from this base, things can be restored (but, this
time, we use more sense to realise that it has to be _SUSTAINABLE_ this
time round)...even if it turns out to be "too late" (but I still think this
isn't necessarily so...a _proper_ committment and the human race has done
many "big things" very quickly before...if there was a sudden change that
everyone said "okay, yeah...time to stop messing around...let's do
something" then, with everyone working on it, even a big change could be
done quickly...the spanner in the works here is, of course, that, if we
took this newsgroup as a sample, then, well, none of us qualify, do we? So,
if we need to "get serious" then it needs to be rather soon ;), there is
still a purpose in "softening the impact"...

Beth :)