Thank you AK for your observations.
This really does help explain how things fit together.
“Welfare” in the context that you presented means “common welfare” and represents the “common man” or woman (as opposed to the elite). The elite figured out (via Limits to Growth) that the world’s abundance cannot support the common welfare of the citizen inhabitant and thus Team Elite™ cannot share a shrinking pie with normals (deplorables, the Cratchits, or “regular” folk or what have you).
Those of us who have had contact with billionaires understand that they believe themselves to be a superior group of people, almost in a religious sense. Fortunately they and we don’t have to worry about a French Revolution type of strife because Team Elite ™ has things under control with the internet of things/facebook/google/G5/smart phones etc.
It is important that we respect their superiority based on superior gaming of the system, purchase of elite entry into universities such as Harvard/Yale for their often lazy or degenerate children, and etc… We must continue to let them monitor us. We should just relax and enjoy Team Elite’s ™ goodies such as “free” cell phone apps. and the new Santa Claus culture of free sh*t tied to surveillance: (can you sing?
“He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows when you are bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!”
Interesting times ahead.
I agree with you that (at least in one aspect) these are word games.
I really do respect your focus on higher efficiency. But taking less energy to do something does not remove the need for energy, but allows more value for less energy used. You still expend energy. This is the game, which words are being affixed to.
I see this in the solar electric space wherein advances in technology (going from single crystal manufactured cells to polycrystalline, ever thinner cuts of the crystals, thinner cells etc.) are decreasing energy inputs all the time to allow higher intrinsic EROIs. Still, to get a result relevant to generating “more GDP!!” (which we assume means a happy life…), we need to expend some serious energy. Bitcoin is extremely energy intensive, and the internet is as well. Phenomenal energy is used to run the servers that pass on and copy messages around the planet. Dave Fairtex is an expert in this area and I wonder what he thinks. All I know is that my computer uses about 50-100 watts and is on all the time, while my modem and wifi seem to chew up about 5-10 watts apiece and are always on, and I have to make an effort of small muscle power to engage the above for an email message that assumingly replaces a paper letter. Not to mention the high energy used in the Utah servers of the NSA (or the Chinese equivalent in China) to ensure that we are being good. Based on the energy output of the human body being around 200 watts, and only a small portion of that being used to write a letter, I think that a good case can be made for the argument that emailing a message is more energy intense than writing a stupid letter. I don’t have time for this but very few people really understand how much energy is used in modern appliances. Just because flipping a switch is easy, and the thing does not run around in circles in response, does not mean that it uses less energy than doing something physically yourself and even engaging a postman to spend 30 seconds on each end and a transportation system with efficiencies that we have not even begun to evaluate…
You raise an interesting point which is not addressed well by others, in my opinion, and that is: how much energy can we save by modifying behavior, and which particular behaviors should we focus on for what Kunstler refers to as “the long emergency.” I am focusing on cooking energy and am surprised by how much burning a few twigs (3kw in a rocket stove) can save over battery power for single person cooking.
Best wishes. I hope that you or another can make a table of recommended behavioral changes to improve the GDP/energy ratio (or other goodness ratio) for our lives.
Has Chris turned into a pawn for disinformation. First thing that makes my ears perk up where is the source of funds for an organization? Club of Rome, David Rockefeller is one of the sources, that’s right, one of the most evil men on the face of the earth. Dennis is unknowing or knowning pawn of this organization.
Here is a exert from First Global Revolution.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
I love the first line, A new enemy to unite us. A new enemy, what would that be, climate change, or whatever term they would like to give it. New, means created to do what, unite us. Who’s us, everyone that wants to save the world from being uninhabitable due to human’s impact of excess carbon, created by us. Solution, decrease carbon created by humans that is destroying the earth.
Carbon tax is the answer correct? Where does this tax go, it’s traded on the CBOT, to do what? Promote businesses that use less carbon and penalize those that use more. All you have to do is convice everyone that carbon gas is the enemy right? Easy enough when 6 companies control 90% of the news.
I can’t believe Chris has fallen for this carbon scam. The earth is in trouble and looking for the ultra rich that cause most of the problems to solve it is preposterous. The World Bank and UN are just pawns of the ultra rich and they are assisting the global corporations in help rape and pillage resources around the world.
Totally disgusted by both Dennis and Chris, why can’t anyone else see this?
We can’t see it because we don’t have your stunning intellect, capacity for logic, and amazing ability to elucidate thoughts so clearly in writing. Well done!
Now, if you wish to argue the carbon thingy, there’s a forum for that. Someone else can link you for certain.
…for these links!
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years…It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ~ David Rockefeller
Not my words, just his. The world is changing to a world government, governance whether we debate about it or not. I have a belief of not trusting those who in the past has shown themselves to be devious, thats all.