spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We will, it won't be a choice. We cannot un-invent electricity though, although we might not be able to make all the gadgets that can run on it. The future will inevitably be less energy-intensive.
Give up AC to save future generations?
- Thread starter coberst
- Start date
We will, it won't be a choice. We cannot un-invent electricity though, although we might not be able to make all the gadgets that can run on it. The future will inevitably be less energy-intensive.
Hmmm. I wonder if I should give up driving my convertable with the top down and the AC on?
I haven't owned a car since '99. Been a full time pedestrian ever since....but that had nothing to do with the environment....I had to make the choice between drinking and driving....and I chose drinking!
So you believe science has already discovered everything there is to know about the production of energy? We'll never achieve substainable fusion as a power source. Zero point energy will never be tapped. Solar energy will never work. We'll just run out of oil and say, "Well, that was fun while it lasted. Back to sustenance farming.'
Well, if I see you walking on the side of the road, just give me the secret SciForums hand signal and I"ll pick you up. We'll crank up the AC, put the top down, and take off for points unknown leaving behind nothing but tiretracks and an ever enlarging carbon footprint!!!I haven't owned a car since '99. Been a full time pedestrian ever since....but that had nothing to do with the environment....I had to make the choice between drinking and driving....and I chose drinking!
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
More than 25% of America's petroleum consumption is directly consumed by commuting, and that doesn't count the manufacture of the cars and the second-order effects like energy-intensive fast-food joints and nannies driving their cars around to take care of the kids nobody's home to mind. If you want to make a drastic improvement in our energy consumption, replace the dinosaur generation of managers with younger people who aren't afraid to manage people they can't see. Telecommuting is the answer. I'll bet most of the people reading this have jobs they could do just as effectively (or more so) at home.
Fraggle, I've tried to explain the faults of your "answer" several times now, but you don't seem to get it. I'm not going to go into it again, but I challenge you to think about the actual numbers of people that could, COULD, actually telecommute. It's a LOT smaller than you're thinking ..not just a little bit, but a LOT. And you keep making that silly suggestion?!
Fraggle, just start naming jobs/tasks ...and keep naming them, don't stop after only a few select jobs/tasks. If you can't see it by then, then I'm afraid we're just going to have to keep putting up with you idiotic suggestion!
Baron Max
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
The answer is living near to where you work.
By near, do you mean walking distance? Because that would require tearing down and rebuilding most American cities and changing zoning regulations to allow businesses and homes to exist in the same area.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I should have added that perhaps in 100-200 years, some new technology might come along to change the equation. But, for the near term, we are headed towards a low energy situation. Basically, yes, it was fun while it lasted. Much of our activity in the future will center around local farming.
Impossible! You seem to be forgetting that the big cities are full of businesses, yet the people all live dozens of miles away in the suburbs! What? You want people to live in the factory where they work? Or the office workers living in their offices ....with the wife and the kids?
Are you and Fraggle just trying to see who can come up the dumbest ideas tonight?
Baron Max
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Indeed. Walking or biking distance is ideal. We won't be able to do this all at once, it will be a natural trend. Zoning issues have been a disaster in this country.
That's a helluva bunch of farms to produce enough to feed even a small fraction of New York Fuckin' City's population!
C'mon, Spider, think before you post!
Baron Max
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Impossible! You seem to be forgetting that the big cities are full of businesses, yet the people all live dozens of miles away in the suburbs! What? You want people to live in the factory where they work? Or the office workers living in their offices ....with the wife and the kids?
Are you and Fraggle just trying to see who can come up the dumbest ideas tonight?
Baron Max
People will realize how stupid that was. It was only due to the automobile that we built this unsustainable way of life. You don't have to live at work, just nearby in a liveable community, like towns used to be. We always talk about Main Street, although the Main Streets of our towns have been destroyed by businesses like Wall-Mart, built in bleak uninspired landscapes of strip malls and fast-food joints that are bad for us, psychologically and physically.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It sure is. I am the one that's thinking. A third of our population used to be involved in farming, now it's around 2%. That will change.
So you're suggesting that we tear down New York Fuckin' City and rebuild it so that Joe can work near his work place?
Wal-Mart didn't destroy "hometown America", the people and the automobile did it. But without the auto, we also wouldn't have NYC or Chicago or Los Angeles or any other large cities.
So ...we tear all that down and build quaint little towns like in the olden days? ...LOL!
Baron Max
Yeah, and what was the population then, Spider???? Big fucking difference form then to now. Now it won't work, can't work! We import millions of tons of food into this country now ...and you want it grown on little farms? Get real.
Baron Max
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
No, New York city is a fine example of a walkable, dense community. Few people in New York City even own a car. Urbanism is the future.
That's practically the same thing. The automobile and the truck made it possible to locate your big box store in the middle of nowhere.
Nonsense, those cities existed before the automobile. What will dissapear won't be cities, but suburbia.
We will dismantle suburbia for raw materials, and yes, we will be forced to re-build in small, medium, and large urban centers, expect for those people involved in farming.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
You get real, we export alot of food, so we can grow enough to feed ourselves, but we will no longer have the luxury of industrial scale agriculture depending on fossil fuels.
Spider, take a moment to think, perhaps do a little research into farming. What you're suggesting is that a few Mom n' Pop farms will grow enough food to feed New York City? Now just think about that for a moment, think about the number of people that must be fed from those little farms ...and farming with horses and backbreaking labor!
Sorry, Spider, you're too far out in left field for me to bother with anymore. You have no concept of farming. What about winter in the northern states? And if food is grown in the south, how do you get it to markets without fuel?
C'mon, Spider, you're dreaming some of your silly liberal dreams ....that's dreams without any connection to reality!
Baron Max
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
It's not a dream, we will not have a choice about it. It will be either farm or starve. Which do you prefer?