Give up AC to save future generations?

Give up AC to save future generations?

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.

I claim that a compelling sense of stewardship must come through a comprehension of the science of morality (yet to be developed).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You may think that people "should" regard themselves as stewards, but "must"?

Personally, I reject the premise that if we all were to give up air conditioning future generations would be saved. AC, by itself, is not a big problem. AC piled on top of everything else is a problem, perhaps.

That said, I am unconvinced by the argument that I need to sacrifice because I owe something to people not yet born. I do not even believe those people have a right to live (insofar as that I support the rights of women to abort them, if the women so choose), so it is a little difficult to imagine why potential future people who do not have a right to life in the first place have the right to a cozy environment if they do happen to be born. If the very lives of those potential people can be terminated in advance, then surely the mere condition of the environment in which those people will live can be made less hospitable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CFCs will cease, existing CFC air-conditioning systems will continue to cool large buildings for some time. However, building owners face rising operating costs from an excise tax on the continued replacement of CFCs and soaring prices as the supply of the old refrigerant dwindles. Such factors are leading building owners to convert or replace their air-conditioning systems with far more efficient equipment that uses environmentally acceptable refrigerants.

According to the Air-Conditioning, Refrigeration Institute (ARI), approximately 90% or 75,000 of the 84,000 centrifugal chillers that exist in North America will have to be converted or replaced over the next 10 years. Estimates of the conversion and replacement market are $6 billion in the United States and $7-$8 billion worldwide.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&star...sIXQCA&usg=AFQjCNHyeOUSh2bCG23Bv04poIeN6zhJ0w


FDA's move toward phasing out CFC-containing medical products is part of a worldwide reduction in CFC production under the international agreement "Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer" and the U.S. Clean Air Act. (See "Planet-Wide Phaseout.") Signed by more than 160 countries, the protocol called for a general ban on CFC production in industrialized countries by January 1996.



So if there's no pollutants being put into the atmosphere why stop producing AC units?:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suspect that you both are expressing a standard attitude toward such matters. I also suspect that our species and perhaps many other species will not survive long with such attitudes.

 

Then why not suggest that we all go back to subsistence farming? No a/c, no electricity, no automobiles/vehicles, no phones, no Internet, no farm machinery (other than horses and horse-drawn machines), ..., why stop at only a/c?

Baron Max

 

IMO, the problem is not 'we must convince everyone to change their way of thinking' as this is often impossible and just as frequently ill advised but rather to create incentives for people to find innovative solutions to a problem.

For example, which is better:
A) An engineer inventing a new engine that is twice as fuel efficient, therefore using half as much fuel to meet existing needs, OR
B) The government legislating that people are only allowed to drive half as often

I know I'd go with option A.

 

The thing I'm pointing out is that we can't stop innovation but can alter it so that it is less harmful to the environment. Less than 20 percent of the worlds population even has electricity let alone AC units. The material that makes up a AC unit can be recycled to make something else. The thing humans must do is to learn to become environmentally aware and be responsible for cleaning up around us as best we can and as soon as we can. I'm all for helping the environment but I'm also aware that humans need jobs as well. Those jobs can be involved more with environmentally friendly things they produce to become more of a "green planet".

 

That sounds good, but ...people always forget things like the manufacturing processes to make those engines/cars - how much energy does that take? And the fuel? How is it processed? Batteries? How are they made and are they hazardous to the environment?

In today's world, that's the only viable option. The people of today must be forced to do things ...they simply won't do it on their own ...even for the good of the world or even their own little society.

People must be forced to do almost everything ....or it won't get done!

Baron Max

 

There are always externalities, the trick is to get people to notice them in their decision making process, you do this by charging them a fee based on the inconvenience their actions cause to the rest of society. The problem is working out how to value that inconvenience.

 

I'm afraid that's been the method of choice for gazillions of years ....and it ain't ever worked with any degree of success. So why continue a policy that has failed for gazillions of years of human existence?

People simply have to be forced ....or they won't do it.

Baron Max

 

The recent gas crisis shows that people can change their ways without being forced. The price of gas went up to 5.00 a gallon and over 3 billion miles LESS were driven this year compaired to last. That show's that all that needs to be done is make prices high enough and people will change their ways very fast! No government needed.

 

No, but you'll notice that it's actually "force", right?????? Which is what I've been saying all along ....people must be forced or they won't do shit.

Baron Max

 

However the price of a pack of cigaretts has gone to well over 5.00 a pack in many states but smoking hasn't decreased that much.

 

Now you're talking about addiction ....which in itself is a matter of "force".

See? To get people to do almost anything requires some degree of force (or i your silly example, addiction).

If you'd get off your high ideals about humans, you'd quickly see that humans are first and foremost assholes. And second, they're greedy, selfish, eqo-centric assholes. When you see that, when you begin to understand, then and only then can you "help" them .......which always means "forcing" them.

Quit thinking of humans as nice guys .....then you'll begin to see the way things really are.

Baron Max

 

Smoking has decreased a lot.

But AC is a bad example. It's one of the easiest things to run on solar, for starters - the demand matches the supply almost perfectly. It's environmentally almost neutral - free, in a sense.

And it's as necessary as heat, in some locations. People die without it.

 

That is a brilliant argument. You've taken two pillars of liberalism and turned them against each other. Very nice.

 

Where do you see "pillars of liberalism" in that argument?

You've got a rightwing authoritarian argument for abortion matched with a rightwing authoritarian argument for rationing AC.

 

Shouldn't we give up cars first? CFC are being phased out as we speak. Cars are the real issue.