• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ignoring climate change will yield 'untold suffering,' panel of 14,000 scientists warns

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That's because population control is ultimately a red herring. It is not the number of people who are the defining factor in climate change, but the lifestyle of a fraction of these people, which is what created our civilization's global rat tail of polluting, CO2 producing industries, resource extraction operations, and energy and transportation systems.

Humanity's environmental impact would be, arguably, a lot more manageable if the populations of its major developed industrial powers simply vanished off the face of Earth.

That's not likely to happen anytime soon, and in fact, much of the developing world wants these industries, too - along with the benefits and products of those industries (such as cars, air conditioning, electronics, appliances, etc.).

Sure, it's easy to say that we should just eliminate industry and go back to how we were living 1000 years ago. That would ensure a global reduction in population without a doubt, as food production would drop to a fraction of what it is now, along with a hobbled distribution and transportation system. But who's going to go along with that?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science manipulated cooling by thesis inside machine as a reaction.

Uses water unnaturally.

Nature copying your control the AI effect accumulated radiation also as it's heavens God stone gases combust as stone unsealed released equals answer.

Radiation removed heavens stones cold gases also.

Why you see UFO removing water to artificially cool.causes outside of machine control.

Seeing creation owned all laws of held cooled form.

Basic science.

We need water to live. Another basic advice.

Sin holes removes gods origins in science theorising to equals the nothing they factored.

Common basic sense. A human does not theory creations presence.

Zero space womb pressure owns creation. Planet earth God.

Water began in space pressure not inside of stone but above stone.

Basic common human sense advice.

God stone was sealed by water.

So don't change water H2O.

Hydrogen and oxygen status.

The UFO is seen sucking up earths water and removing it.

Ice was created in. Pressurized earth atmosphere. Melting is one issue of notified overheating. Pressure status ignored.

Sin holes....God mass removed so was water in sin well gone evaporated.

Time shifting to remove mass into a reaction in earths mass time shifts it's bodies also into total zero non presence.

Sciences pre known pre lived human experience.

Science pretending it created form shifts it back to its origin status.

Water was formed above ground in space.

Science destroying what God had created.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
That's not likely to happen anytime soon, and in fact, much of the developing world wants these industries, too - along with the benefits and products of those industries (such as cars, air conditioning, electronics, appliances, etc.).

Sure, it's easy to say that we should just eliminate industry and go back to how we were living 1000 years ago. That would ensure a global reduction in population without a doubt, as food production would drop to a fraction of what it is now, along with a hobbled distribution and transportation system. But who's going to go along with that?
Horses and hobbling?

Gluttony and over production was already notified lived with an imbalanced sharing of food to nations unable to produce food.

Invention was invented for trade gluttony for the elite. It was not invented for food distribution.

Machinery needs power. So theists said let's use the earth's productive energies like wind..solar...water hydro...steam etc.

But those types of inventions don't allow for amassed greed in trade. Lifestyles.

So why lie in the elite community about a small group of humans claiming elitism is more important than existing. Because you do.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
That's not likely to happen anytime soon, and in fact, much of the developing world wants these industries, too - along with the benefits and products of those industries (such as cars, air conditioning, electronics, appliances, etc.).
Most of the developing world doesn't have these benefits yet, and it is the provision of these benefits that encourages the massive consumption of nonrenewable resources, and causes the rampant pollution and climate change that we're currently dealing with, not the population numbers of the developing world.

Sure, it's easy to say that we should just eliminate industry and go back to how we were living 1000 years ago. That would ensure a global reduction in population without a doubt, as food production would drop to a fraction of what it is now, along with a hobbled distribution and transportation system. But who's going to go along with that?
About as many people as are going to go along with "population control" for the post-industrial West. For some reason, these demographic schemes only ever seem to concern themselves with the masses of poor people from developing countries who are not in any way part of the problem, and never with the comparatively smaller number of Westerners who are.

Don't you think that, in the face of very real global climate catastrophe, we should abandon this relentless urge to blame the world's poor for probems that the privileged have caused?
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't you think that, in the face of very real global climate catastrophe, we should abandon this relentless urge to blame the world's poor for probems that the privileged have caused?

Who's blaming the poor? A lower population would help them most of all. It's the wealthy classes who have benefited from high population growth, not the poor. An increased population means a bigger and cheaper supply of labor, as well as more customers.

I'm not blaming the poor. Quite the contrary, I think the world's poor should have the same level of wealth and access to consumer goods that we have in the West. Ideally, the entire world could be elevated to first world status, where all people would be equal and have an equal standard of living.

I don't see anything wrong with the people in the developing world wanting the same comforts, conveniences, and luxuries that we in the West have come to enjoy, nor do I believe they should be denied these things because of Western myopia and foolishness. That would be worse than blaming them; it would be punishing them for things that capitalists have caused. I don't think that's fair at all. Do you?

All I'm saying is that, in supplying the entire world with the same products and luxuries that we have in the West, the impact on climate change would be significantly lessened if the population was smaller.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
History told the country population should flourish to have a population to war and overthrow.

So if the elite governing had gone to war instead of the population control in the world would have been family controlled.

We did not ask science to irradiate burn our garden nature yet you did. Science today owns a personal karmic responsibility to assist those they harmed. Removed nature and food.

Invention could have owned natural supporting balances. By using the earth like a natural power....wind..solar...water..
Thermal...steam etc. Yet those types of sciences did not yield personal wealth.

As science says I invented to assist human toil and to increase production.

O gods earth supplied everything its human family needed. We created every problem ourselves.

We say past humans were mean and nasty and did not allow spiritual intelligence to assist human life.

Which is everyone's responsibility as an adult and a parent for humanities balanced survival.

We needed to own the choices of a limited family for their future sake.

Yet teaching of life balances was limited.

It is the fault of the teachers to not teach for mutual life benefits.

And it's not too late.

We know we have enough for everyone. Yet today should begin with new teachings and insights. With no threats.

Humans are sick and tired of being threatened. We have had enough of bullies.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
We did not ask science to irradiate burn our garden nature yet you did. Science today owns a personal karmic responsibility to assist those they harmed. Removed nature and food.

Invention could have owned natural supporting balances. By using the earth like a natural power....wind..solar...water..
Thermal...steam etc. Yet those types of sciences did not yield personal wealth.

As science says I invented to assist human toil and to increase production.

O gods earth supplied everything its human family needed. We created every problem ourselves.

Necessity is the mother of invention. If there was no necessity, there would have been no invention.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Necessity is the mother of invention. If there was no necessity, there would have been no invention.
No.

Want for self by group owned invention. Life owned what it needed balance and mutual shared work. The old no longer toiled cared for the young. Perfect life balance.

Science invention was for time shift first not resourcing.

Proof is to theory for your own presence first. Then machine to time shift self.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No.

Want for self by group owned invention. Life owned what it needed balance and mutual shared work. The old no longer toiled cared for the young. Perfect life balance.

Science invention was for time shift first not resourcing.

Proof is to theory for your own presence first. Then machine to time shift self.

If the earth produced enough food on its own, then humans would never have invented the plow. There would have been no need for it.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
'Code red': UN scientists warn of worsening global warming (apnews.com)

Earth is getting so hot that temperatures in about a decade will probably blow past a level of warming that world leaders have sought to prevent, according to a report released Monday that the United Nations called a “code red for humanity.”

“It’s just guaranteed that it’s going to get worse,” said report co-author Linda Mearns, a senior climate scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. “Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.”

But scientists also eased back a bit on the likelihood of the absolute worst climate catastrophes.

The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which calls climate change clearly human-caused and “unequivocal” and “an established fact,” makes more precise and warmer forecasts for the 21st century than it did last time it was issued in 2013.

Each of five scenarios for the future, based on how much carbon emissions are cut, passes the more stringent of two thresholds set in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. World leaders agreed then to try to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above levels in the late 19th century because problems mount quickly after that. The world has already warmed nearly 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since then.

Under each scenario, the report said, the world will cross the 1.5-degree-Celsius warming mark in the 2030s, earlier than some past predictions. Warming has ramped up in recent years, data shows.

“Our report shows that we need to be prepared for going into that level of warming in the coming decades. But we can avoid further levels of warming by acting on greenhouse gas emissions,” said report co-chair Valerie Masson-Delmotte, a climate scientist at France’s Laboratory of Climate and Environment Sciences at the University of Paris-Saclay.

In three scenarios, the world will also likely exceed 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial times — the less stringent Paris goal — with far worse heat waves, droughts and flood-inducing downpours unless there are deep emissions cuts, the report said.

“This report tells us that recent changes in the climate are widespread, rapid and intensifying, unprecedented in thousands of years,” said IPCC Vice Chair Ko Barrett, senior climate adviser for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

With crucial international climate negotiations coming up in Scotland in November, world leaders said the report is causing them to try harder to cut carbon pollution. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken called it “a stark reminder.”

The 3,000-plus-page report from 234 scientists said warming is already accelerating sea level rise and worsening extremes such as heat waves, droughts, floods and storms. Tropical cyclones are getting stronger and wetter, while Arctic sea ice is dwindling in the summer and permafrost is thawing. All of these trends will get worse, the report said.

For example, the kind of heat wave that used to happen only once every 50 years now happens once a decade, and if the world warms another degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), it will happen twice every seven years, the report said.

As the planet warms, places will get hit more not just by extreme weather but by multiple climate disasters at once, the report said. That’s like what’s now happening in the Western U.S., where heat waves, drought and wildfires compound the damage, Mearns said. Extreme heat is also driving massive fires in Greece and Turkey.

Some harm from climate change — dwindling ice sheets, rising sea levels and changes in the oceans as they lose oxygen and become more acidic — is “irreversible for centuries to millennia,” the report said.

The world is “locked in” to 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) of sea level rise by mid-century, said report co-author Bob Kopp of Rutgers University.

Scientists have issued this message for more than three decades, but the world hasn’t listened, said United Nations Environment Program Executive Director Inger Andersen.

For the first time, the report offers an interactive atlas for people to see what has happened and may happen to where they live.

Nearly all of the warming that has happened on Earth can be blamed on emissions of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. At most, natural forces or simple randomness can explain one- or two-tenths of a degree of warming, the report said.

The report described five different future scenarios based on how much the world reduces carbon emissions. They are: a future with incredibly large and quick pollution cuts; another with intense pollution cuts but not quite as massive; a scenario with moderate emission cuts; a fourth scenario where current plans to make small pollution reductions continue; and a fifth possible future involving continued increases in carbon pollution.

In five previous reports, the world was on that final hottest path, often nicknamed “business as usual.” But this time, the world is somewhere between the moderate path and the small pollution reductions scenario because of progress to curb climate change, said report co-author Claudia Tebaldi, a scientist at the U.S. Pacific Northwest National Lab.

While calling the report “a code red for humanity,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres kept a sliver of hope that world leaders could still somehow prevent 1.5 degrees of warming, which he said is “perilously close.”

Alok Sharma, the president of the upcoming climate negotiations in Scotland, urged leaders to do more so they can “credibly say that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive.”

“Anything we can do to limit, to slow down, is going to pay off,” Tebaldi said. “And if we cannot get to 1.5, it’s probably going to be painful, but it’s better not to give up.”

In the report’s worst-case scenario, the world could be around 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.9 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than now by the end of the century. But that scenario looks increasingly unlikely, said report co-author and climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, climate change director of the Breakthrough Institute.

“We are a lot less likely to get lucky and end up with less warming than we thought,” Hausfather said. “At the same time, the odds of ending up in a much worse place than we expected if we do reduce our emissions are notably lower.”

The report also said ultra-catastrophic disasters — commonly called “tipping points,” like ice sheet collapses and the abrupt slowdown of ocean currents — are “low likelihood” but cannot be ruled out. The much talked-about shutdown of Atlantic ocean currents, which would trigger massive weather shifts, is something that’s unlikely to happen in this century, Kopp said.

A “major advance” in the understanding of how fast the world warms with each ton of carbon dioxide emitted allowed scientists to be far more precise in the scenarios in this report, Mason-Delmotte said.

In a new move, scientists emphasized how cutting airborne levels of methane — a powerful but short-lived gas that has soared to record levels — could help curb short-term warming. Lots of methane the atmosphere comes from leaks of natural gas, a major power source. Livestock also produces large amounts of the gas, a good chunk of it in cattle burps.

More than 100 countries have made informal pledges to achieve “net zero” human-caused carbon dioxide emissions sometime around mid-century, which will be a key part of the negotiations in Scotland. The report said those commitments are essential.

“It is still possible to forestall many of the most dire impacts,” Barrett said.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well then, would somebody please tell China to stop polluting? After all, they are the biggest producer of CO2.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So all you meat-eaters out there, are you going to do your part to prevent this catastrophe by becoming vegetarians?

This is a ridiculous way to go about it and the reason why after 40 years of scientific warning, we are still nowhere close to solving the issues.

It's like saying "why are you still driving in a car with fossil fuel???"
Well.... because when I go to buy a new car, 99% of them use fossil fuels and the 1% of electric cars is way outside my budget while also very impractical because of a serious shortage of charging spots. And professionally, the mileage you get on 1 charge is also quite ludicrous.


The thing is, you can't expect consumers to make the "wise climate decision". The consumer will always buy what is on offer according to his/her likes and budget.

When it comes to things like this, it's the job of policy makers to "regulate" the market and make sure the consumer isn't even able to make the "wrong" choice in the first place.


Like when decades ago, we found out that asbest is damaging. Up until that point, asbest was a common material to use in construction.
Or when we found out that CFK gasses were destroying the ozon layer. Every spray can in the world used such gasses. Refrigerators and stuff too.

So what happened? Policy makers took immediate action and simply made the stuff illegal.
There was no "lead up" period. There was no "phasing out". There was just the final decision of "over and done with". Boom. Suddenly all spray cans had to work without such gasses. Suddenly it was illegal for every new construction job to use asbest.

Yes, in case of oil it's not "that" easy to just decide from day to the next that it's illegal. I get that. Economies would collapse as oil is far deeper routed into the very base of almost everything.

But there is a LOT they could be doing to PUSH the world to a zero emmission society. A LOT.
And they do NOTHING of the sort. They do some things, but not nearly enough.

Tell all car manufacturers that by 2025, buying fossil fueled cars will be illegal globally.
By 2030, driving in a fossil fueled car will be illegal.

This will force all manufacturers out of the status quo. This will force investment into new and clean technology.

Yes, initially it will hurt economies worldwide. So be it.
This is one of those times in history, when politicians need big balls instead of worrying about re-election.
Nobody likes to make unpopular decisions. But sometimes, the unpopular decision is the only good decision.

50 years from now, which question will people ask their grandparents?
"Where were you when your generation failed to save the planet?"
or
"Where were you when your generation was brave enough to do what had to be done?"


I hope it is the latter.
Regardless if it hurts my pocket. I have kids.
I'ld rather have a "less comfortable" live knowing that they will grow up into a stable world rather then living in luxury knowing that they will know calamity and untold suffering in the future.

We are the generation that will decide the fate of those that come after us for hundreds, if not thousands, of years to come.

On which side of history do you want to be?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is a ridiculous way to go about it and the reason why after 40 years of scientific warning, we are still nowhere close to solving the issues.

It's like saying "why are you still driving in a car with fossil fuel???"
Well.... because when I go to buy a new car, 99% of them use fossil fuels and the 1% of electric cars is way outside my budget while also very impractical because of a serious shortage of charging spots. And professionally, the mileage you get on 1 charge is also quite ludicrous.


The thing is, you can't expect consumers to make the "wise climate decision". The consumer will always buy what is on offer according to his/her likes and budget.

When it comes to things like this, it's the job of policy makers to "regulate" the market and make sure the consumer isn't even able to make the "wrong" choice in the first place.

I tend to agree. I think a lot of people might demonize certain industries or devices that were originally invented to serve a basic human need, whether it relates to transportation, food production/availability, communications, energy, or any number of other areas of society which are considered vital in this day and age. I think we're in what I've heard some people call a "technology trap."

As you mentioned, the oil industry gets roundly criticized for what some people might consider unscrupulous business practices and environmental irresponsibility. But pretty much all of society depends on the product they sell. We are dependent upon it, in one form or another. We can't just stop and quit cold turkey.

We could try to reduce it somehow and come up with alternatives. Some might think, science and technology got us into this mess, so maybe they'll figure out a way out of it. Perhaps someone will invent something spectacular - some product or process which might solve all of our problems.

As for cars, it's not just cars, but our entire transportation system. A lot of cities grew and turned into the dynamic we currently see precisely because cars were invented and available to the public. Cars are useless without roads, so the people demanded more and more roads to travel on. And they'd better keep them well-maintained, as potholes can be quite annoying. It also fueled people moving away from the cities and into the suburbs, which push further outward from the core city center. People wanted to move out to their McMansions on 3.3 acre lots, so they can feel like they're living out in the country, while still enjoying the benefits of the city - even if they have to spend an hour in bumper-to-bumper traffic just to get there.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I tend to agree. I think a lot of people might demonize certain industries or devices that were originally invented to serve a basic human need, whether it relates to transportation, food production/availability, communications, energy, or any number of other areas of society which are considered vital in this day and age. I think we're in what I've heard some people call a "technology trap."

As you mentioned, the oil industry gets roundly criticized for what some people might consider unscrupulous business practices and environmental irresponsibility. But pretty much all of society depends on the product they sell. We are dependent upon it, in one form or another. We can't just stop and quit cold turkey.

We could try to reduce it somehow and come up with alternatives. Some might think, science and technology got us into this mess, so maybe they'll figure out a way out of it. Perhaps someone will invent something spectacular - some product or process which might solve all of our problems.

As for cars, it's not just cars, but our entire transportation system. A lot of cities grew and turned into the dynamic we currently see precisely because cars were invented and available to the public. Cars are useless without roads, so the people demanded more and more roads to travel on. And they'd better keep them well-maintained, as potholes can be quite annoying. It also fueled people moving away from the cities and into the suburbs, which push further outward from the core city center. People wanted to move out to their McMansions on 3.3 acre lots, so they can feel like they're living out in the country, while still enjoying the benefits of the city - even if they have to spend an hour in bumper-to-bumper traffic just to get there.
Indeed.

This whole thing might eventually force us to simply "reinvent" society.

Having said that though.... technology can indeed help us "transform" without actually having to change our way of life much. "Way of life" in the sense that you accurately described it, what with the whole roads and city make-up thing, all being based on people being mobile with cars.

I think the only real solution here, is massive investment in alternative energy research. Extreme improvement in how we harness solar power for example. Better (and cleaner) batteries etc etc.
Leaving it all upto the private sector, like Tesla, to come up with such technology is just delusional.

That will never work- or at least, it will never work fast enough.
Untold billions of dollars should be poured into this worldwide, while at the same time extreme measures must be taken to give the private sector incentive to go green.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The thing is, you can't expect consumers to make the "wise climate decision". The consumer will always buy what is on offer according to his/her likes and budget.

When it comes to things like this, it's the job of policy makers to "regulate" the market and make sure the consumer isn't even able to make the "wrong" choice in the first place.

Not my plan. It's a plan a large group of scientists have signed onto.

And I agree, the consumer will gravitate towards the easiest and most convenient way to go about life.

However, I don't believe government is always going to make the best decisions regarding our future. Once you've given government the power to make decisions for you it is difficult to take it back.

Sometimes, I accept the necessity of governmental control but we have to be very cautious about giving our freedoms away.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Not my plan. It's a plan a large group of scientists have signed onto.

And I agree, the consumer will gravitate towards the easiest and most convenient way to go about life.

However, I don't believe government is always going to make the best decisions regarding our future. Once you've given government the power to make decisions for you it is difficult to take it back.

Sometimes, I accept the necessity of governmental control but we have to be very cautious about giving our freedoms away.

Let's see how you feel about "freedoms" when the world becomes pretty much uninhabitable because the "evil government control" didn't have the courage and political balls to make the only correct decision.

The private sector is not going to invest gazibillions of dollars in developing new tech to replace the current tech so that people 100 years from now aren't faced with the inevitable calamities.

It's always government that needs to push into that frontier.
To illustrate, companies like SpaceX only exist because governments, through organizations like NASA, took those first steps in laying down the ground work with the apollo missions and what-not.

Those first steps, that R&D, are always a money sink.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars to maintain a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the earth 100 times over, it might perhaps be better spend into massively increasing the efficiency of solar power and better and cleaner ways to harness and store that energy, for example.


Sorry, but that "freedom" bit, I regard as a ridiculous argument.
Did you also complain about "freedom" when governments outlawed the use of CFK gasses which were destroying to ozone layer? Or when they outlawed the use of asbestos due to its nasty effects on health?

How is CO2 emissions any different from those two? Serious question.
Other then the economic impact being much bigger.... what's the difference?

I'ld say that if there is a difference, it is that the nasty effects of CO2 emissions are WORSE then those of the use of asbestos and CFK gasses.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Let's see how you feel about "freedoms" when the world becomes pretty much uninhabitable because the "evil government control" didn't have the courage and political balls to make the only correct decision.

The private sector is not going to invest gazibillions of dollars in developing new tech to replace the current tech so that people 100 years from now aren't faced with the inevitable calamities.

It's always government that needs to push into that frontier.
To illustrate, companies like SpaceX only exist because governments, through organizations like NASA, took those first steps in laying down the ground work with the apollo missions and what-not.

Those first steps, that R&D, are always a money sink.

Instead of spending a trillion dollars to maintain a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the earth 100 times over, it might perhaps be better spend into massively increasing the efficiency of solar power and better and cleaner ways to harness and store that energy, for example.


Sorry, but that "freedom" bit, I regard as a ridiculous argument.
Did you also complain about "freedom" when governments outlawed the use of CFK gasses which were destroying to ozone layer? Or when they outlawed the use of asbestos due to its nasty effects on health?

How is CO2 emissions any different from those two? Serious question.
Other then the economic impact being much bigger.... what's the difference?

I'ld say that if there is a difference, it is that the nasty effects of CO2 emissions are WORSE then those of the use of asbestos and CFK gasses.

I'll just point out that energy companies (formerly oil companies) have invested a fortune into renewable energy. Not for our benefit, in fact they suppressed renewable energy for a time until they had full control of the technology themselves. Maybe it's bad to control the technology like that but I doubt the government would have had the know how. The energy companies had to make it cheap efficient, profitable. Things that wouldn't be of concern to the government.

Also, I don't see the government as evil, just not really motivated for efficiency and cost reduction. The government is people, no better, no worse than anyone running a company. Just their motivations are political. Not a fan of political motivations.

As I said, I'm not against necessary government intervention but they need to be careful about getting in the way of innovation at the same time. A very fine line which I don't have a lot of confidence in the ability of politicians to travel unbiased.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I'll just point out that energy companies (formerly oil companies) have invested a fortune into renewable energy. Not for our benefit, in fact they suppressed renewable energy for a time until they had full control of the technology themselves. Maybe it's bad to control the technology like that but I doubt the government would have had the know how. The energy companies had to make it cheap efficient, profitable. Things that wouldn't be of concern to the government.

Also, I don't see the government as evil, just not really motivated for efficiency and cost reduction. The government is people, no better, no worse than anyone running a company. Just their motivations are political. Not a fan of political motivations.

As I said, I'm not against necessary government intervention but they need to be careful about getting in the way of innovation at the same time. A very fine line which I don't have a lot of confidence in the ability of politicians to travel unbiased.

You don't seem to understand.
It's not politicians that would do the research. :rolleyes:

Companies need to turn a profit. They can't pour billions, trillions, into R&D with a negative ROI.
But governments can.

Those doing the research would be scientists and engineers at universities and other non-profit organizations that rely on donations and grants.

Their findings can then be used by companies to commercialize it.

When SpaceX started, they didn't need to start from scratch.
They had access to all the know-how from decades worth of research from organizations like NASA.

Without such government programs, SpaceX wouldn't exist.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
You don't seem to understand.
It's not politicians that would do the research. :rolleyes:

Companies need to turn a profit. They can't pour billions, trillions, into R&D with a negative ROI.
But governments can.

And you see this as a positive. o_O I imagine there are a lot of the 1% happy, even ecstatic about your attitude.

Those doing the research would be scientists and engineers at universities and other non-profit organizations that rely on donations and grants.

Those getting the government contracts, paying those scientists/engineers would still be making millions from these government contracts.

Their findings can then be used by companies to commercialize it.

Or not. There is no guarantee that the money the government throws at these projects will amount to anything.

When SpaceX started, they didn't need to start from scratch.
They had access to all the know-how from decades worth of research from organizations like NASA.

Without such government programs, SpaceX wouldn't exist.

One somewhat successful program against 100s maybe 1000s of failed ones.

Sure the government can throw billions at any project that is politically expedient. It's not their money. The money comes from us and more likely future generations. Once the government has their hands on our money, they can spend it on whatever suits their fancy. Must be nice, all that financial power with very little accountability.

How many trillions are you willing to indebt future generations for with no guarantee of substantial return?
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Once the government has their hands on our money, they can spend it on whatever suits their fancy. Must be nice, all that financial power with very little accountability.
That's not actually true. If you've ever worked in public services or a department of government, you'll know how many of these are highly restricted by law in what they are allowed to do with their budget, to the point where a significant amount of inefficiency in these bureaucracies comes from inflexible budget restrictions. The problem with government spending as I see it is not that they can do whatever they want with money - they cannot - but that almost all of that money comes from the working class but to a large degree benefits the wealthy and powerful.
 
Top