May 20, 2008
-
Learning to live with less oil - a lot less oil
Back in the mid-1970's the Club of Rome, an Italian-based think tank picked up on an MIT project started in 1970. This project tried to use a computer model to predict the future of humans on Earth based on economic changes, resource use, population growth, available food supply, and several other components.
With the rather primitive computer programs available to them they probably got only a glimmer of what was to happen but that was enough to cause a rather large political flap. The study was roundly denounced by just about all political leaders who did not like to be told that life as we then knew it could not be sustained much later than mid-twenty-first century. Unfortunately, the predictions are uncomfortably accurate so far, if a little conservative in some areas.
I'm not going to re-hash the findings, they are available in the three publications:
Meadows & Meadows Limits to Growth 1972
Mesarovic & Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point1974
Tinburgen et al RIO - Reshaping the International Order 1976
The conclusions reached basically suggested that unless the world mended its evil ways and started shaping up by the year 2000, we were pretty much on a downward path with no turning back.We didn't do much shaping up, as you may have noticed, and signs of the beginnings of the down-turn are becoming more and more apparent. Among the first of these are pollution problems, a fall-off in food production, uncontrolled population growth and resource depletion.
I'm not going to discuss the first three of these but rather make some suggestions about a major resource problem -petroleum. As far as energy use goes, the U.S. is, as you know, the world's largest user (about 22% of all the worlds energy use) Other large energy users are China (14%), Russia (7%), Japan (5%) and Western Europe (8%)
Perhaps 40-50% of all that energy is petroleum - useful because it (has been) cheap. plentiful, and easily convertible into efficient mobile energy. Nowadays it's not so cheap or so plentiful and is so useful in non-energy uses (think plastics, et al) that it's past time for us to be rethinking our use of the stuff. We will also have to worry about international competition for this dwindling resource - which could turn very nasty. Come to think about it, it already has.Energy is measured in BTUs basically units of heat and almost all energy production either uses or produces heat - not particularly good for the environment - the exceptions are hydrodynamic and wind; which can produce electricity directly with very efficient energy use. Such energy makes up less than 7% of U.S. energy production today - but this could be increased. Biomass energy and nuclear energy make up another 9-10% and present their own problems of pollution and are not particularly portable. How to replace all that gasoline in all those cars is the main obvious problem of today and the near future.
There is no doubt that we will use much less petroleum in the near future - the question is what will we replace it with and how will our lives be changed by this new world order? Perhaps we will really begin to work on the production of exotic new (well, not so new) energy sources like fuel cell-driven vehicles powered by hydrogen (there's plenty of that around) or perhaps use more mass transit powered by electricity - we've had that for over a century (think subways, trollies, maglev).
How are you coping with the high costs of the transition and where do we go from here?
Comments (40)
I'm coping by doing less driving.
I've linked you
hi, I'm new to the Socrates Cafe...
I'm in Sweden, Europe. Here we've gotten used tothe higher costs. It ostly hurts those in rural areas. We've got pretty good public transportations infrastructure so there is seldom a 'must' to go by car.
I think we need to look for a solution from two ways at the same time.
a) we need to find other sources of energy and develop those, such as wind & hydrodynamic.
b) we need to change our lifestyles into being LESS electricity, energy consuming.
I have an idea, that I hope inventors and investors will realize --- I do not have the network or the funds or knowledge to do it, so please pass it on to someone that does.
My idea is to collect energy/electricity that is produced when people excersise on excerising bikes etc -- or just by lifting weights or whatever. This way we could gather energy to be used either in private homes, or to run gyms & fitness studios, or maybe even build up a small stock of energy to be used for the public need.
This way we'd use less petrouleum, nuclear etc --- and people would become fitter and more aware of the corelation between electricty and how we consume it.
I think that the problem is that we really cannot avoid to use our cars or in general to change our life style. I mean, yes, anyone of us can do it, but that won't change the average life style of our society. Because that is imposed by the economic model, which actually is imposed by who makes more money out of that.
So, in the details it is driven by the energy and oil multi-national companies, which obviously have interests in keeping under control all of it. Since the 70s there are, for example, hydrogen power cars, but nobody thought that it could become handy. Why? Because everything is controled by who controls oil, and it's their convenience that in our car there is oil and not hydrogen. Anyway...
You notice? there is a related post in my blog over here:
http://italianroots.blogspot.com/2008/04/alternatives.html
in which some available alternative energy source for our car are listed. My choice fall on LPG gas, which helps the environment but doesn't solve the problem, since that gas comes from petroleum again.
I hate to correct your post also on another point. Hydrogen is not available in plenty around us as you say... actually when i read that sentence i started looking around myself but i didn't see any at all!!!!
Okay, hyrdogen is into water, and water is widely available. But also carbonium, oxigen and all that other stuffs contained in petroleum is widely available around us, nevertheless petroleum itself is not.
The problem of hydrogen is that, although it can be extracted from water moleculae, to extract it you need a huge amount of energy. And where do you take that energy from? Well... you could take it from hydrogen itself but in order to do it you need hydrogen which must be extracted from water with a big amount of energy, which can be taken from hydrogen extracted from water with a big amount of.........
Or, else you can produce hydrogen from water with an amound of energy produced burning petroleum, but in this way you didn't solve the problem.
Since the need of energy to produce hydrogen is due to the need of very high temperature (i don't know the chemical process, but i read some place it is like that!), it looks it is efficient to use solar cells in order to produce hydrogen.
Anyway, hydrogen cannot be considered a source of energy, because any techniques you use to use hydrogen as fuel, the energy is produced converting hydrogen to water, while hydrogen is produced converting from water through the use of energy.
You can consider enregy like a rechargeable battery, which is very useful as a vector to move enregy from one place to another, but it cannot produce any bit of energy itself.
You can also say that petroleum itself works like that because petroleum comes from deposits of organic material being there from thousands and thousands of years, and that organic material come from the decomposition of dead animals, which were produced eating food, which was produced sucking their chemical elements from the earth etcetera etcetera... But that kept infact thousands and thousands of years, so, if we don't want to wait that much we have to consider petroleum something that exist and will be consumed, not being able to recicle it to produce new petroleum.
So, being a good vector of energy, hydrogen is very useful to feed our cars, if available. But we have to study clean and efficient ways to produce hydrogen before.
About clean energy, do you believe that there is actually any clean source of energy? mmmmh.... i doubt... also solar energy is not really so clean.... Yes it is very very much cleaner than other sources, but still, i think that a honest society is the one that tries to save, and not to consume......
or, in other words, the problem is not how to convert our energy source, but how to change our economic model from consumerism/capitalism to a socialist one. That's the real problem.
You are addressing one of the most important question of this age! I commend you for the courage to do so.
Hi Relaxology! Actually collecting energy from lots of small mobile sources can be done and probably will be sometime in the future. Since that type of energy is mostly heat given off by the source, it has some practical use already. Inuit stone dwellings in Northern Greenland were made habitable by the combined warmth of the humans living in them, very clever ventilation, and the light of a single whale oil lamp.
In your modern Sweden, as I remember from my time there, lots of that human energy was already used for transportation- bicycles!
Dario: I think you are giving the "Big Oil Conspiracy" theory too much credit. Sure, they want to maximize their profits but apparently their own engineers have had trouble convincing the "bean counters" that the gravy train is ending an they should start conserving. In this they are sort of like the U.S. lumber industry, who want to cut all the old growth timber as soon as possible for present profit with little concern for the future.
Actually, hydrogen isn't that difficult to extract. Iceland, of all places, is a leader in that technology. Hydrogen has the advantage of fairly efficiently transferring energy from a fixed production plant such as hydro power or nuclear power - where the hydrogen is extracted from water - into a mobile energy source - such as the fuel cell to drive your car. Incidentally, the only pollutant from a fuel cell is the re-combined hydrogen (water)
Basically any way you can collect energy which is generated anyway by whatever source (Sun, Geo-thermal, Hydro, wind) without adding pollutants is "Clean" energy.
What political implications, immediate and long term, do these solutions have?
It depends upon what you mean exactly by "clean".
Sun energy is not clean, because the warmth of the planet could eventually be kept constant if the solar energy is able to "fly away" as it came before heating the earth. If we take that energy and use it in order to do some kind of work, the warmth of the planet will grow.
In a documentary i have seen the simulation of the distruction of the world if suddenly the color of the ice in the Artica and Antartica suddenly becomes black (and so it attracts the solar energy). Also without watching that documentary the effects would be easy to guess, isn't it? So, think about it. If we fill a big area... let's say the Sahara desert, for example, with solar cells... what could eventually happen to the planet?!? It's true that solar energy is clean because it doesn't produce pollution, but that's of no consolation because such a plant would destroy the world anyway.
Not that i am against solar energy, because the need of energy we have now is enormously less than the much that could eventually be provided by a plant that occupies the whole Sahara desert, and anyway the damage of the use of this technology is way less than the damage that an oil plant that produce the same energy would cause to the planet.
Other "clean" energy sources have similar, if not worse, inconvenients.
But it's also true that if the logic of economy is that an amount of energy is provided when that amount is requested, there is no potential limit to the growth of production of energy, because our model of economy is based on the expansion of production of goods, and that expansion implies an expansion of need of energy. Nowadays we have only one car because the cost of the car is a slice of our salary. If energy would be plenty available and so energy would be cheaper, the cost of a car would be much less, and we would buy two... three... four... cars. Why the need to own more than one car since one can drive only one a time? I donno, the only thing i know is that when i was a boy it happened to make myself the same question about tv sets. The answer is obviously that we consume because the society is based on consumerism, and not because we need what we consume. So that, simplifying the thing, if energy would be cheaper we will consume more energy not because we need it but because it is imposed on our social model.
Dick, i think you are undervaluing the "big oil conspiracy". I don't know if you notice, but the whole economical and political control of the planet is based on oil control. If China cannot expand (for now) at such a rate it would, killing westernian economy to the floor, it's because they cannot have enough access to oil. If, instead, we can drive our cars as we want, it is thanks to the fact that who controls the distribution of oil decided to sell us gasoline. I think it's pretty obvious that those bad guys would eventually want to continue to control the distribution and production of energy, whichever source would be eventually be available in the future.
There is a plant that i have seen, as an experiment, that works perfectly, which is that some crazy scientist filled the roof of his building with solar panels which produce the necessary energy to produce some hydrogen, the needed amount to fill the tank of his truck enough for his personal use. That would be perfect if anybody of us could do such a thing isn't it? Duh! I have seen it about 20 years ago! How comes that in these 20 years nobody thought to actually produce that kind of plant in a large scale?
Couldn't it be (i just make some hypotesis...) that if this was the way we could produce our energy and drive our car there woldn't be nobody else but us that make money out of it?
A less crazy guy in the black forest in Germany did about the same: he filled the roof with solar panels, which are used to produce hot water and energy enough for the needs of his family and other 5 rooms of his bed and breakfast, and the exceeded amount he used to sell to the electric company. Also that is something that could be done only in the Black forest and not in the "real world". Why?
Nuclear power is all but clean, from any side you look at it. Hydrogen power is perfectly clean if you consider it from the available hydrogen till the usage of the energy. But if you consider that the hydrogen itself must be produced (as it happens in Iceland), my answer is that it depends upon how you produce energy in order to cut the water moleculae to separate oxigen from hydrogen. As you say hydrogen is a wonderful technology in order to make energy "moveable" from where it is produced (for example it is reasonable to think a nuclear central that produce energy which produce hydrogen, and that hydrogen is distributed so that our cars can be filled, but it's not reasonable to think to put a nuclear central on the roof of our cars in order to have the necessary energy to move it). That's the reason you cannot consider hydrogen a source of energy. It's like if you consider the copper (used for the cables in your house) as a source of energy needed to turn the light on.
Many will point to European nations as a model for the US and say, they don't drive nearly as much as we do. But the average nation in Europe is that of one of our states. How can we reduce oil consumption without severely dividing the nation?
When I was a child, in the 1930's (!), I lived in South Florida and we heated our water with a passive solar heating system. Such a system was quite common then and seems now to be "rediscovered".
Here in Tallahassee, where I now live, there are several businesses and private homes with electricity generating solar panels who sell their excess power to the local city-owned power company (Their meters run backwards when they generate a surplus).
The idea of using a fixed plant to separate the hydrogen which would then be used to power a fuel cell powered vehicle doesn't suggest the generator be carried on the vehicle. Hydrogen can be transported in a tank just like gasolene is - it requires a slightly more advanced carrying system but the technology of such transportation has been known and used for more than a century.
The legislative changes that would be necessary to encourage the growth of this technology and how soon could it be done are good questions for discussion, I think.
European roadways are pretty crowded! They do use a lot more mass transit than we in the U.S. do - it's more efficient for them because European nations generally have a much higher population density than does the U.S.
The U.S. is probably already reducing oil consumption - forced by economic reality.
Both state and the national government can encourage this by subsidizing non-petroleum energy sources thus encouraging them; but we have to be careful here. The ethanol subsidies, for example, have caused some unforeseen problems and probably significantly influenced rising food costs.
Would Americans agree to tax increases in order to pay for such alternative programs? How about excess profit taxes on the oil companies?
A comment about Dario's discussion. He has done a good bit of practical research on the problem high-priced gasoline has caused and has a good description of his personal solution- a new Hyundai Tucson SUV powered by LPG here.
Yes, nowadays i have driven already 15500 km's (almost 10 thousands miles) with that SUV, half of which with only gasoline and the other half with LPG system. LPG cannot run by itself because it can work only when the engine is already hot and running, so there is an automatic system that starts the power with regular gas and it switches to LPG after few minutes.
There's no significant reduction of power, and the cost of the fuel is nearly halfed. Almost no emissions.
But i also noticed that the cost of LPG fuel grows as fast as gasoline and diesel do. And that's the problem: LPG is a gas derived from petroleum.
Ha!
Obviously i was only provoking, with the idea to put a nuclear power central on the roof of your car. That was just to say, and i repeat, that hydrogen is a vector of energy, not a source.
So, at the question "what will the fuel of our cars in the future" one cannot reasonably answer "hydrogen" because it is not a source. Gasoline is a source, diesel is a source, LPG is a source. Hydrogen is not because it needs another source of energy to be produced.
I think i would be really happy one day if i see that project i read about fully spread on our societies, which everybody had some kind of clean energy plant in the yard that produce energy, depending upon the territory they live... geotermical energy for who lives in area where that energy is available, energy from the waves and/or from tides for who lives next to the ocean, solar for who lives in the tropics or also in areas where it is convenient, windmills where it is possible... That could be used to produce hot water, to produce electricity, to produce hydrogen. Hot water for the showers, electicity to light the lamps, hydrogen to fill the tank of our cars.
But i have the suspicion that, being that for who controls economy nowadays it's not convenient that everybody will produce at home their need of energy, that kind of plant won't be relevant in the world in future. Instead i think that for them it will be more convenient to build big nuclear centrals in order to produce big amount of cheap hydrogen for our cars, for our ligths, for our showers, and maybe they will keep on sending radioactive residuals in Africa.
:I only mention hydrogen because it is a known way of vectoring energy (from say, fixed nuclear to mobile fuel cell) which does not need to use petroleum. There are many other possibilities but I think these are only short-term solutions. Eventually our method of transporting ourselves from one place to another will fundamentally change; sort of like the shift from horse-drawn buggies to autos. There are still animal-powered vehicles around and I'm sure there will be gasoline powered vehicles around for a very long time, just not as many of them.
Put your science fiction caps on and predict: What will be the next major form of land transportation?
I bet the next one will be horse-drawn buggies...
I forgot who said something like "I don't know what will WWIII be fought with, but i know what WWIV will: clubs", help me, was it Einstein?
Einstein's famous quote has been published many times is slightly different forms:
""I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth—rocks!"
This is the most oft reported form.
I disagree about the horse-drawn buggies - too much pollution
How about sun-powered vehicles? A group of them have already been driven across the US. Or how about a small sealed nuclear or "cold fusion" unit? Wind powered - Railroad trains or dirgibles with giant sails?
Teleportation?
I remember the Club of Rome. Natural Gas could replace fuel oil as a source of energy. It is more plentiful that gas, and the infrastructure necessary to distribute it is already in place. All that has to be done is replace one or more of the tanks used at our gas stations with containers capable of witstanding high pressures and then fill them with natural gas insteal of gasoline. Waa la. Everyone has access to a fuel supply. As for how to durn it, well, the cost of converting our current gasoline burners into natural gas burners is currently about $500 per engine.
A clean solution for the environment. A not too costly solution for the individual car owner. And a not to costly conversion of the gas stations we so frequently stop at.
Natural gas (methane) has big environment problems (although just little technological ones)... if you read my post Dick linked a couple of messages above, i tried to explain it over there. If you read the huge but really interesting books by Frank Schätzing you can have a more founded idea of what's the problem about.
The problem of "passive" energy sources is that they actually destroy what is already present in the world.
"Active" ones are instead directed to avoid the dispersion of already available energy. Solar is one of these last, because solar energy already hit the world, we are not doing anything else than keep it for a little while before it is disperded. Windmills, same thing, waves and tides, ocean currents... the use of that kind of energy do not pollute the world a big lot, because they are already here, we don't have nothing else to do that catch the train.
Nuclear, gasoline, LPG, methane, bio-diesel, carbon, ethanole, nuclear power... all those things are based on taking something that is in the world, burn them producing on one side energy and on the other pollution - or other destructive inconvenients. We should have learn already by a couple of centuries we are using this kind of energy that we, human beings, became the most infestant animal species ever appeard on the world for that reason. Why not to stop polluting the world? Maybe it will be for no use of ourselves, but why not to think positive for our children?
I think, Dick, that the best solution of the lack of energy would really be reducing the use of it. Unfortunately our economical systems run towards an increase of energy needs. That's the problem. I would love teletrasportation if it meant saving energy. But if such a system meant that i bet my head that its diffusion in the world would be obstacled by the energy companies, which are the ones that control the world economy, and so, also the transportations.
That's the solution, i believe. The problem is not just that we have to obtain energy in another way. But that we have to change our economic system. And that is a much bigger problem since we don't have to deal just with technology but with the head of the humans, which is much harder!
ah... Frank Schätzing, is a German writer, "Il mondo d'acqua" and "Il quinto giorno" are the books i mentioned... i don't know the English titles... that could be "The water world" and "The fifth day"?!?
Schatzing's most popular work is translated into english as The Swarm and is supposed to come out as a movie this year.
As a German author, it's not surprising that his Sci-Fi is a little, shall we say, wordy.
Of course the best solution to Earth's problems would be better stewardship - Use less, recycle, just say NO, - but don't hold your breath until this happens on a significant scale. Probably economic constraints will have the most impact - if you can't afford the gas, you won't burn it.
I driving to Maine at the end of next month, so maybe I'll see first hand what impact on traffic and tourism the high gas price has had.
Ehehe... looks like you and Tychecat always agree uh?
don't hold my breath till that happens? I think it's not a very wise suggestion (if i properly uderstand the meaning: use as much gas as you can untill you won't be able to use anymore).
Ahah... i remember a popular commercial spot on TV for chewing gums, in Italy. There's an old man in a retirement home. A sexy nurse feeds him with a smooth soup, while he, with a wicked taste in his eyes, stares the legs and the decolletee of the nurse under the mini-skirt and the shirt.
Then she turns around and put a chewing gum in her mouth... she smiles and the slogan appears on the screen "chew... before it's too late!", in English.
What i think is this:
1) if we use all what's available "before it's too late", then there won't be enough for a transition period of time.
2) it won't be educative for the new generation. They will be accustomed to use all the comfort we are accustomed to, and they will find it hard to change their habits in order to such a stupid goal as saving the world, if not continuing to live in peace.
3) the lack of resources is already (and it will be worse in the future when resource will be even less available) provoking wars and disparities (rich nations/people will keep with strength their privilege and the ones that will pay more for this will be the poor nations/people).
4) using the available resources tend to close our eyes about how to change the world in order to be able to survive without them
5) it's not our way to use the world that has to change, but our social-economical system has to change in order not to use (that much) the world, or to use it in a sustainable way.
Of course Socrates and I almost always agree - He was/is a very intelligent, thoughtful, and caring entity - just like me
The rate at which we use up petroleum, coal, and other non-renewable resources will probably always be mostly economically determined.
As the resources become more scarce and thus more expensive, alternatives will become more viable and their increased use will change the world's basic culture and direction, just as world-wide pollution and climate change will. The role of governments here should be to encourage and direct these changes so as to keep our world as livable as possible under the circumstances.
Any suggestion as to where we should go from here?
Yes! Should.
Hi all!!
I dont mean this to sound... flighty and silly, but I think the fist step is to really imagine ourselves living in a world without oil. I say this because I honestly cant imagine it, not fully. We use petroleum for so many different things, it is so fundamental, I cant imagine being without it. Until we really internalize exactly what it will mean not to have petroleum, we cant move forward to finding new ways of living. There are some of us who understand, and I think more and more of us are becoming at least marginally aware, if not fully understanding of the change ahead of us. The first step is individual education and awareness and I think that is happening.
I have faith in us, and in the universe. Everything happens in its own time towards the highest good. I dont know how we will end, and everything does end, but it hasnt ended yet, and that is what is important. What is important is now, in this moment, we live, and we must make the most of it.
Take care and have a great day!
have faith in us, and in the universe. Everything happens in its own time towards the highest good. I don't know how we will end, and everything does end, but it hasn't ended yet, and that is what is important. What is important is now, in this moment, we live, and we must make the most of it.
Voltaire, Sartre, and many other philosophers would certainly take exception to that statement, Nikita. There is little or no evidence that "Everything is for the best" or that we are moving toward anything except entropy.
To imagine a world without petroleum, think about the world 150 years ago. Petroleum greased the machinery of industrial development simply because it was available, cheap and plentiful. There were and are alternatives and it is unlikely that we will ever live in a world completely devoid of oil. It will become more expensive, perhaps too valuable to burn indiscriminately, and such a case will certainly lead to a change in our life-styles. At the same time, our present world culture is so strong that it is unlikely that there will be any sudden dramatic change - except in world politics as nations struggle for control over decreasing world supplies.
I think the most serious near-term conflict will be between Russia and China for the vast Siberian oil reserves which China will increasingly need more and more of.
What part do you think the U.S. would play in such a conflict?
Sorry, Nikita, but I hate this fatalist vision of the world. "I have faith in the human beings so, although i don't know where we are going, i know it will end up in the best ways for our species..."... "live day by day and enjoy your life because the future will save our descendants..."
That may be good for somebody of us, like myself, that do not have children... maybe... uhm... maybe not, because i live for the future. Maybe in 100 years i won't be alive anymore, maybe... But my moral forbids me to act without regarding of the future generations.
@tychecat - I agree with you that the world is headed towards entropy, I guess I just dont see what is so wrong about that. In the balance of life there is a beginning, middle, and end. To everyone, everything, this includes the universe itself. Things end so new things can begin, live. I see beauty in that. I think this cycle is for the best. The balance it brings keeps the universe flowing and alive. Does that make sense?
In the case of petrolem, that is exactly the problem, I simply cant imagine it, all my life petroleum and its products have been plentiful and cheap. I dont know what the world was like 150 years ago, and no matter how many history books I may read, it wont give me a good sense of what day to day life was like. I think we are just beginning to understand the size of the change that is ahead of us. We cant go back to the way it was before petroleum, we are going to have to be extremely creative and innovative, and look forward, not back.
As to your question, I think the only thing we can hope to do is to act as a mediator between the two. Since I dont think we can do that, since we need the oil ourselves, I am hoping we allow the UN or someone to act as a semi-unbiased, third party negotiator and peace keeper. I dont think we can do it well alone and I dont think we should. I think it would build contempt and fuel terrorism, honestly. If we are to stop terrorism, we have to work towards discrediting them and stop giving them reasons to want to terrorize.
Take care, and have a great day!!
@dario - hmmmm, you have quotations, but you arent quoting me, so Im a little confused, but I understand that you feel my views are negative, and fatalistic and that they lack regard for future generations. If this is inaccurate, please disregard the following !!
Hmmm where to start... maybe my response to Dick, above, has helped a little... and if you will permit me to point out a logical fallacy above, maybe that will help. Just because I think we should live day by day enjoying our lives (which I didnt say in my previous comment, but I believe, so I will let that go) does not mean that I dont think we should work to build a better future for our children. That is a non-sequiter, I believe is the technical term. One does not necessarily follow the other.
First, because of the cycle of life, we have a certain finite amount of time on this earth (I dont mean that fatalistically, I dont see that as a negative thing, I see it as natural and right). In my opinion, this is an incentive to live everyday thoughtfully and creatively, doing whatever I can to bring balance, peace, and happiness to the people and world around me in the best way I know how (I fully admit that I make mistakes in that, but my intentions are to the good). I have faith that the human race can overcome any and all challenges it may come up against because I know I am not alone in that. I know there are many, many other people out there who are working in the same way. As I said above, everything ends, it must for new things to begin. What matters is the journey and what is left behind.
I agree with you that my morals will not permit me to allow the future generations to just fend for themselves, yet I choose to live for the now. I think about the future, plan for it, but within the construct of the present.
If you have any more questions, please dont hesitate to ask! Have a great day!
I would be interested to hear your and Dick's answers to the question he asked me!! Ill check back!
Uhm... Nikita....
Entropy is not "Things end so new things can begin". Better to say it is more similar to "things die to become sand". In other words, i see more beauty in the recognition of a particular order in things, and entropy is the tendence to disorder (actually this, as far as i know, is the definition of Entropy).
I agree with you that it's not easy (i cannot either!) to imagin how was life 150 years ago without petroleum. But i am sure they could live in those conditions, and there is no reason to believe that we cannot live in that way... at the end we have similar shapes and our genetics is pretty much of the same type. Our need of petroleum is actually artificious, just as smoking cigarettes is artificious to me. I quit smoking in october. Was it hard? I guess stopping to use petroleum would be even harder, but we have no options.
I believe that we can be very innovative, but i believe it is wiser to find an innovative way to use less energy, and the much we need to use is something that does not destroy the world.
Unfortunately i also believe that the Man is not very wise, so i believe that, in order not to change stubbornly the social order that he created he will find the way to destroy the world because that social order stands only thanks to the always increasing need of energy.
I am sorry for those sentence i quoted. Actually they were not quotations. I try to explain... it's a typical rethorical figure in Italian, to pretend to quote something which is not actually something that somebody said, but something that an average person could eventually say... for example, writing "Dick is one of those people 'i lived my life so i am wise enough to say that Dario is wrong'", i actually mean that Dick is saying something i expect from an average person like him because it's a common way to think: things must be like that because they always appeared being like that, and although there is the quotations i am not quoting him. And, by the way, it also means that i don't agree with that point of view.
I think that this rethorical form is called "anastrophes", but i am not sure.
(No offense for Dick, i was just making a stupid example...)
So, i was not quoting you or anybody else. I was only trying to guess your point of view simplifying it in a couple of short sentences (and god knows how short sentences is something i need in my comments!!!).
Now that i know that this form is not understandable in English, i will avoid to use it (i am always learning something new, sorry for my miserable English)
I don't understand (sorry) your point about living day by day. To me, living day by day means that if i am hungry i eat, if i am not i don't, if i want to buy a car today i do it, if i don't want i don't. In short, i dont look what is the future because i plan what to do upon my needs for today. So, how can one plan the future life of his/her children, if he lives this philosophy?
About your life style in trying to achive the good for people around you, i am not saying that it is wrong to me, but, first of all what you say is mediated by your culture (how could it be possible the opposite?). You think, as you say, that "human race can overcome any and all challenges" (and this is a quotation!). That, to me, doesn't mean a big lot, because, what does it mean "human race" first of all? I mean, your morality is yours, and if you act to overcome something you feel as a challange, it's you that is working for that challange. If you will be lucky to acheive it it means that or you are very powerful, or you are in a big majrity. Hitler tried to achive the extermination of jewish, for example but he didn't win the challange. If the rule is that human race can win all the challanges, and if we admit that Hitler was actually a human being, saying that he didn't win the challange is a contraddiction, isn't it?
So, i read under your words (correct me if my interpretation is wrong) that the humans will pretty much always win the morally good challanges. I mean, staying in the subject, to perpetrate human life in the best way (or, in other words, to find clean energy available for everybody and live happy our lives) is a good goal, although a difficult challange.
So, being it a morally good challange, you have faith that the human beings will be able to win it.
That, to me, is fatalism. What is good will be acheived, what is bad will be defeated.
Sorry, but i don't believe it.
First of all because the History is written by the winner, and we are the winners because if we were the loosers we would have died already. Hitler is a bad guy because he lost. If he won he would have destroyed everybody else, or change their mind. So, in my place, there would have been a nazist dario that would have said that Roosvelt was a devil, and you would have been a nazist Nikita that would have agreed with me. And this gives a big shake to our vision of what is moral.
Being that moral is not so "absolute" and "definitive" (i am not quoting you here... i am just putting those words in evidence), i wonder how complicated can it be the rule upon which what is good will be achived, being that there is no way to decide what is good "a priori". We could only predict that after the challange will be won by somebody, that somebody will modify the common culture in which what has been achived with that challange will be moral.
What does not work in that sentence "What is good will be acheived, what is bad will be defeated" (i am quoting myself here), is that use of the future tense, and the temporal relation between the two sentence of each couple of periods. I mean "what is good will be acheived" cannot be justified, as it appears, as a cause-effect logical relation... It's not that it will be acheived BECAUSE it is good. At most the opposite: it will be considered good AFTER it will be acheived. But if we rewrite upon these concept the sentence:
what will be acheived will be considered good, what will be defeated will be considered bad
That sentence is not very attractive anymore, isn't it?
Hi Dario!
I agree with your definition of entropy, and though I wasnt thinking of it in the same way, I think it still fits. The world may be headed towards chaos, that is the natural order of things as the universe ages. I guess I dont have a problem with that because I believe it wont stay that way. From what I understand of the universe, philisophically and physically, after the chaos will come life again. Will come order. I have faith in that.
I agree that our use of petruleum has produced an artificial dependence, like that of tobacco or even alcohol (congratualtion, by the way, opn quitting!) I reserve judgement on the intelligence of man, on his wiseness, I think it depends on the person and the situation, but I do believe that man is egocentric. I dont mean this negatively, I mean that in the sense that I believe we do things that will be to our own best interest. I think that we are beginning to realize that it is our best interest to do exactly what you suggested and find ways to use less (and a different source) of energy.
Dont worry about the quotations, I just wasnt quite sure how to respond, since I didnt happen to share the sentiments you quoted. I understand why you did it, but remember that everyone is different, especially in thier philosophies, and it is always risky to generalize.
I might need a little time to think about how to explain how to live for today, but plan for tomorrow... Right now the best I can come up with is that I see the big picture, but focus on the steps to get there. The things I have to do everyday to get me to where I need to be.
Great questions! When I say the human race, I mean just that, everyone. When I say that the human race can overcome any obstacles, I mean that working together we can overcome the things that challenge us AS A SPECIES. HItlers challenge was his own, it was not a challege we faced as a whole, like global warming, and space travel. In keeping with those examples, a challenge does not have to be to overcome something negative, it can simply be to create something good.
I think I also need some time to think about your comments on fatalism too... I find myself at a paradox. While I do believe that good (when good equals abundance, happiness, and love) will always be achieved, and that bad (where bad equals fear, and hate) will be overcome something about the way you described it above doesnt fit for me. What comes to me first, is that while I believe in the outcomes I just described, I dont think those are important. I think what is most important is the journey, the knowledge we gain achieving good and overcoming the negative. I am also not sure if I completely agree with your assertion that the winners write history. I think they try. I think they try hard, and succeed in coloring it a bit. But I think we also gain a lot of knowledge from the "losers". For example, the general concensus may be that Hitler was wrong, but he is still in the history books. We learned a lot about life in studying the fossils of the life that came before us and is no more. We need the "losers" of history to prevent us from repeating the past.
Well, thats about all I have for now!! As always, its a pleasure to discuss and learn from you Dario!! Take care and I hope you have a great day!
Brianne
When I was teaching (back in the dark ages) this as the type of opinion difference/discussion I used to really enjoy as it gave me the chance to be as Socratic as hell and to get into all sorts of by-ways about defining terms and basic human psychology and psycho-history.
Ask me sometime and I'll give you some of the reading lists my students had to plow through - before they even got into the classes.
I do feel inclined to venture a comment about Basic Human Goals and how we adapt them to reality.
As Nikita says, when good equals abundance, happiness, and love she is surely speaking about basic desires but I think that humans have a tendency to define abundance, happiness, and love in terms which they are familiar with. In a world where petroleum is rare< I'm sure human goals will have ben re-defined so as to be happy without the energy source we are so accustomed to.
Our ancestors (my grandmother was actually alive 150 years ago!) lived rich full lives without gasoline and I'm sure our descendant will also.
I think you are right that we define our goals, and indeed our world, in terms we are familiar with. I dont really see any other way we could do it! I find our ability to communicate with each other amazing, since we all define things slightly differently due to different experiences and knowledge. I think each perspective is a small part of Truth, and all the perspectives put together equal reality. I think you are absolutely right that we will redefine our view of energy and will be completely happy with whatever comes next.
Take care, and have a great day!
Brianne!
I didn't remember your nickname! but now i know who you are!
I still remember our wonderful discussion i kept in my heart (and in my old and closed blog, over here....
Anyway, about this disccussion.
About Entropy i think i don't have much to say. I studied it in the classes of phisics at the university, but i don't think i ever understood the special meaning of it. Well... i can understand it from the philosophical point of view, but not from the phisical one. I am sure it has any, but i cannot pick it up.
What i can tell you is that it is not the way you say. The law is that Entropy keeps increasing. And entropy is a measurement of disorder. What "measurement of disorder means" is what i cannot understand, but i can tell you as an example that i keep in mind from the college: if you have a bowl of cold water and you add a cup of hot water, anyway you put the content of the cup in the bowl, at the end, after few minutes, the water would eventually become omogeneously of the same temperature. Which means that the moleculae of water in the cup mixed with the ones in the bowl, and that the "shaking" of the ones in the cup (which is actually the meaning of "hot") lost some energy to give to the ones in the bowl. So, if in the moment you put the cup in the bowl the two liquids you had an order that was defined by the difference in the distribution of the temperature, but after a while the entropy increased and that order disappeared.
One could say that you can break that increasing of entropy without putting the content of the cup in the bowl. But that's not really breaking. Its just delaying it. Because in the room eventually the air will be warmed up by the hot water in the cup and the cold water in the bowl will be warmed by the air. It would take hours, but that will eveutally happen. After some weeks also the water would be eventually evaporized, and after some centuries also the cup and the bowl will be disappeared. Yes, you can build a new bowl and cup, you can fill with water that rained from the steam of that old water, but you are taking some energy some places to do that and so on.... At the end, the rule says that EVERYTHING will go into a complete disorder. No way it will ever start from the beginning.
Anyway, you can also say that the law of Entropy is wrong, and i don't have the basis to convince you of the opposite. Or you can do something more clever, inventing the "superEntropy" reducing the Entropy to a particular case (that's what Einstein did with his relativity. He said that the Galileian Geometry was not wrong, but it was just a particular case valid when the velocity is far behind the speed of light... or something like that... i was not very clever in physics).
Uhmm... i am loosing the topics... i don't know why we finished chatting about these difficult subjects...
One thing i would add. You can also say something ("fatalistic" i would add, but that's just my opinion) like that if the uinverse tends to the disorder, well, that means that that disorder is actually the order. So, upon this view, a sandy beach would be more "ordered" than the statue of Venus de Milo. Actually they are both a bounch of silicium and some other similar junk... And i would say, ok, that difference we make between "order" and "disorder" is something ethical which is nothing that should be applied to a physical law. But the real fact is that the Venus is useful, the sand is useless for our lives.
Or, in other words, some available petroleum is useful for us, because it can move our cars and take us to work and back home. Something like water is useless for that purpose, because we have to transform it to hydrogen to move our cars before.
In the same way, simplifying, a world with a hozone hole, with pollution everywhere, with nuclear power which produce a lot of radioactive wastes, a world just few centigrade degrees warmer than this... well... a world like that would be useless for our children, and maybe they won't have enough time to become so clever they can invent something in order to fight this disaster.
And saying that if this will happen is because in a far future everything will start again and the human race will have another chance still looks to me fatalistic.
About "egocentrism", also in that (i am sorry, i am not playing the polemics!!!) i don't agree with you.
Usually one is egocentric (let me say "selfish" which looks more easy to understand to me) when he pursues his own good. Which i would say only in a very limited cases means pursuing the collective good of society. An example (if i am good in something, it is examples!): if i am a thief i would steal your money, Dick's money and probably a lot of other peple's money. Which makes me rich and everybody else poor. So i am doing my own good which is not the collective good.
I also think that the humans tend to be selfish (although, i admit that in a lot of cases also altruism can be considered a selfish behavior), but that's of no use for society. If one day we will eventually decide "to use less (and a different source) of energy", that won't be for a selfish behavior of people, meaning that, if i am selfish i would use all the leftover petroleum, and when it's finish all the nuclear power or other dirty sources, because i want to run as far as i can with my car, but i would like everybody else stay at home and save enrergy instead of producing that pollution i am breathing. That's selfish!!!
About Hitler and the human race.
), i would say that his challange was not his own, unfortunately. If it was like that we can forget nazism reducing it to a nightmare of just a crazy somebody. It was not like that. Nazism was (and IS) a big movement, and Hitler, with his ideas, was legally elected by the majority of German after WWI. And if he lost WWII, it was not for defending Jews, but for economical reasons. It was the first goal acheived by capitalism. You can also say that Hitler was a bad guy, and that in this capitalism acheived a good goal, but the fact is that Hitler lost his challange, which was a challange that the majority of people wanted, because for reasons that had nothing to do with the challange itself. In other words, Jews extermination was a bad goal, but it's not for that reason that it failed.
Although it was just an example (and it's not mandatory it fits exactly my purpose
What i wanted to say is another thing: if Hitler won WWII, now the extermination of Jews wouldn't be so negative for our culture (and so for our conscious and moral). Just like the concentration camps for Japanese people in America is not considered a big deal nowadays. Just like Guantanamo is just a good way to fight the muslim terrorists, just like in Italy a group of nazi-skin that kill an homosexual guy (a news of a couple of weeks ago) is just considered as an isolated case by the new fascist mayor of Rome (actually somebody on Berlusconi's side - a good friend of Bush, Obama and Clinton).
With this i just want to say that the same bad thing can be considered upon different eyes belonging to who is the winner.
That's why, to decide if something is good or not, we should see who wins, before. But after he won, we know already that what he says is good.
In other words, if (as i believe) nuclear power will be the winner, when everybody will have that energy available, it will be considered a good way to overcome the bad obstacle of the lack of energy, but that doesn't make me happy at all!
About the fact that the loosers "teach" something to the winner... mmmh... well... Hitler is not a good example here, because the taught cannot be that he was wrong. History must be remembered for that reason. Hitler is a bad guy upon our moral. Our moral is like that because Hitler lost. So, anyway, we don't want another HitlerII to menace our society, because if he behaves the same he would be a bad guy too, upon the same moral. Nevertheless some crazy one can also think that he wants to be HitlerII, and so we have to protect ourselves from it. Not because it is absolutely immoral, but because it is immoral for the particular moral of the components of our society.
I agree somehow that also loosers can teach something positive. But that's just because our society (thanks heavens!) admits that the power can make mistakes. An example? The Kioto protocol is a holy thing to me, nevertheless i admit that it is destined to be looser. That's why our society can admit that the decisions of our governments are not infallible. Something can be good but not applied because governments are blind.
Okay, a lot more to say but this is already too long.
dario
Adding to Dario's comment on the future use of nuclear power; are you aware that a much cheaper, less polluting, and safer form of atomic reactor exists, has been experimented with for decades and is the probable future of nuclear power?
This type of nuclear reactor is one powered not by Uranium, rather by Thorium. These reactors are not only safer, they cannot be used to "breed" Plutonium or as atomic weapons.
The idea is discussed HERE
Where any of you aware of this alternative - I wasn't until recently; it is apparently a well-kept secret.
Dick, i am sorry, but the nuclear central that doesn't produce radioactive waste has not yet been invented.
And, although i am a stupid in physics, as i said, i would add also that it will never be invented. Because radioactivity is where the nuclear central actually take their energy. In other words if a nuclear central doesn't produce radioactivity that means that it doesn't produce energy. If it does produce energy, it does produce radioactivity. Yes, i would accept a nuclear central that produces no radioactivity (and no energy), but i think that's kind of useless, isn't it?
If you want to produce radioactive waste, well, you please have to tell me where you are going to put that waste. Because i would say no, if you are gonna put it under my chair. But i would say no also if you want to put under your own chair, because the safety and health of the world is of everybody, not only of people that have the monopoly of energy.
By the way, Dick, i don't think i explained well what is my idea of future, if that's what you are asking.
Let's for a second suppose that today they discover a clean source of cheap energy for everybody. Would it work to overcome our obstacles?
I firmly believe not. World will be still divided between rich people that can access that energy and poor ones that will be excluded from that cake. There still will be wars against terror in order to avoid China and India to access that energy, because if they do, they will be too much competitive against our own economy. So, we won't be able to export our products in China and India and in a big part of our nowadays markets. So they will be the rich ones that will exclude us from that energy source.
And we don't want it, so we have to fight our economical wars against China and India, killing a lot of poor people in the middle east or something.
And then, who controls that energy source... will he give it for free? After he spent a lot of money to protect our energy fighting those wars? Mmmmh... i don't think so. He will eventually produce a "vector" like hydrogen and cars that run with that fuel and hydrogen station to fill'em. He will sell all that stuff to you and me, making a lot of money. And he will make himself the one we depend on for our normal lives.
In other words we need energy, but that's not our real problem. Our real problem is that this kind of economy cannot work forever. We have to convert to some other systems which, anyway you put it, make us poorer.
In that utopic world (utopic? Wouldn't Utopia be a world in which everything is good?), we won't need an always increasing amount of energy, so the problem won't be if clean energy exists or not, because we wouldn't need it.
Said that, let's also suppose that i am wrong. That extreme consumeristic capitalism can work, because we find a perfect population to reduce to poverty and slavery for other millennia, say onto Mars. And let's also think that nobody of us (me included) won't see any immorality in this.
Do you really think that alternative sources other than nuclear or any other kind of dirty energy will be developed so that nobody would ever make money out of it? Mmmmh.... do you think that we are using our cars because we like to use it? Do you think that when we go shopping we use plastic bags instead of... say... cotton ones because we prefer plastic to cotton? Do you think that we have a Tv set on 24/7 although we don't watch it because we like to do that way?
No, we do waste that much of energy and petroleum because it is convenience of who controls its market, and convinced us that we do really need it (we are so easily convinceable! nowadays i cannot live without my cellphone... 20 years ago i didn't even know what a cellphone was...).
We waste energy because it is convenience of who controls energy... Or... better... i take it back. We waste energy in general because we believe that wasting everything is good for our economy. And the good of our economy is good for us. We waste everything because we believe that it will eventually be an advantage for us. And it is like that because we live in a consumeristic society, which is based on that principle.
So, we have to waste energy.
Upon this concept, the question "does it exist an alternative source of energy?" looks to me an usignificant digression. The answer is out of theme: "we need to change our economical system". But unfortunately this is not very attractive for pretty much nobody.
Anyway, just to make an example that won't ever be realized, some stupid ecologist computed that just covering 10 percent of the sahara desert with solar cells we have a plant that produces more than our actual need of energy. Yes, ok, technical problems, african terrorism, blah blah blah. But that, in my mind, shows clearly that nuclear power is just another sneaky way to make money out of the destruction of the world.
Just today i was thinking (also reminding another discussion i am participating in an italian blog). Why the hell i don't want to produce pollution? Why am i recycling trash? Why do i try to avoid to use plastic where i can? Why do i try to re-use old things instead of buying new? Why do i use energy saving bulbs? In few words, why do i try to save the world? I guess that in about 50 years i will be probably dead. And i don't have children. And petroleum or nuclear or carbon or other dirty sources of energy will be enough to let me live my wealth till then. Why should i worry for the human race?
That's what i don't really understand. How can it be possible that people with children don't even worry for a second... don't even ask theirselves what their future will be?
or was it 1 percent?
Thorium does produce nuclear waste - just not as much or as long-lasting. It is perhaps a better transition solution as we wean ourselves away from massive energy consumption.
Economic Capitalism is only one of several driving forces which power human cultures and culture change. Marx suggested supplanting this force with one that was not as brutal and unforgiving as the economic system he saw in late nineteenth century Europe. He apparently saw a wise philosophic group directing the Economic Institution - which he thought paramount - in a completely altruistic direction.
Alas for Marx, the Economic Institutional framework had to share importance with others (Family, Education, Religion, and Government) and attempts to organize these frameworks solely around economics never worked. Also, the group directing the economic institutions was neither wise, philosophic, or altruistic - at least not in Russia.
Capitalist economics may, in fact, be the solution to the problem. As resources become scarce and more expensive, other hopefully less polluting, alternative power sources will become more attractive.
There never has been absolute unrestricted Capitalist economics in any culture for very long. Being civilized means learning to live together and the absolute capitalist doesn't like being civilized - unless he is the one on top happily repressing everyone else. civilized people won't stand for that for very long.
Dick, you know i find sometimes very interesting to participate to SC's discussions, but sometimes i find that, maybe for a cultural difference, maybe for something else, there are some barreers through which my thought cannot pass. And this is a perfect example that times to times happens when i am pointing over here my point of view.
I don't agree with capitalism, and that is clear for everybody, myself included. But when an American reads that statements, he reads between the lines that i am Marxist. Which is not true, first of all. Then the usual flow of thoughts of that American reading concludes that i like the application of Marxism to some societies in the XXth century... so i like USSR socialism or something. Which is obviously not! And he concludes with the quasi-Aristotelian sillogism: Dario is against capitalism; Dario is communist; communism is evil; Dario's thought is wrong.
Is there a way in America to criticize capitalism without falling in this sillogism? Because if there is not, well, it's useless for me to participate to such a kind of discussions.
Anyway, i am stubborn so i try again to criticize capitalism.
A capitalist society can work (i am not saying here that it is ethical or not, just that it can work). And it worked in the XX centuries. Because it is based on the expansion of economy. USA economy was doing good, last century, because it could expand. And with "expand" i mean that it could produce more than what it really consumed thanks to the fact that a part of its productino was destined to export. USA exported its final product and imported the materials. I am using USA example just because it is a good example, but i could say Italy instead and it didn't make any difference, if not for the fact that Italian economy was strongly dependent from USA one.
And that could work in the XX century, because expansion was allowed. In the XXI century they invented the globalization. This means that one cannot just look to the economy of USA or Italy, but the entire world economy has to be considered.
And if we consider the world economy instead of the American one, there is a little detail that has to be changed: it is impossible to export outside the world and it is impossible to import from outside the world. Because there is nothing outside the world.
So, if in the XX century USA (and Italy) became rich thanks to the fact that outside USA (Africa, Asia, South America) they became poor (so, balancing the average wealth), it follows that in the XXI century it is impossible for the world to become rich thanks to the fact that outsede the world (extraterrestrian planets?) they become poor. Which follows that, if we keep using the same capitalist system, we (human beings) cannot become more rich.
Which implies that capitalism cannot work in the global economy. And that doesn't mean that Marxism could work better, i am NOT saying this.
I believe that Socialism and Capitalism cannot work on the world economy, because they are made to be applied on a State economy, and not on the world economy. It's like mmmmh.... do you like tiramisu? It's usually done with Mascarpone cheese... in america, where Mascarpone is difficult to find, they usually do it with cream cheese... Mascaropone one is better, but cream cheese is good too. But you cannot use mascarpone or cream cheese as side sauce for the Gran Bollito Misto (it's a meat traditional dish from Piedmont). Gran Bollito Misto needs sauces, but mascarpone (or cream cheese) sauce doesn't match at all. Mayonese matches, instead.
So, my suggestion to the world is: let's invent mayonese sauce for the Gran Bollito Misto dish!
Dario:
I used Marx as an example of an anti-capitalist philosopher because he is probably its most well-known and thoughtful critic. I suspect it is less well-known that he was also a fierce critic of socialism as it was developing among the Bolsheviks. In his later life he often made the statement that he "was not a communist".
A major problem with "Classic" capitalism, as you suggest, is that it tends toward exaggerated economic growth and competition often at the expense of other aspects of the culture.
In the growing globalization of the world economic institutions as well the developing world-wide culture; it is becoming more and more difficult to balance (slow down) economic and population growth. It has always been the dream of Utopian socialists that a perfectly balanced world where all human needs were satisfactorily met could be attained. Until recently there was no particular popular demand for such a world but it looks as if this demand is growing. It will be very interesting to see how we meet it.
@tychecat -
Hi guys!
Im sorry I havent visited in awhile, but I kinda skimmed the last of the conversation and it made me think..
1.) As far as pollution goes, we dont want to cut it to 0, right? If we cut it to 0, that means there would be no production, and that isnt life serving for anyone or anything. So what is the real problem? Do we need to check the rate of growth of pollution? Or is scarcity of the products that give us energy the big issue? Or both? If it is one or both of those, how do we do that? How do we reach the goals? Pollution in general just seems like to big a problem to tackle efffectively, seems like we need to be specific in framing the problem and setting the goal to solving that problem. If there are multiple problems, there needs to be multiple approaches to solving them, yeah?
2.) In my opinion, the big thing being produced today is ideas. Information seems to be the big product in the world today, and its communication and dissemination seem to be the up and coming businesses. As the rest of the world catches on to that, what does this mean for pollution? Will there be as much? Of what type?
As always, its a pleasure to discuss with you both! Take care and have a great day!
you are truly a good webmaster. The website loading speed is amazing. It seems that you’re doing any distinctive trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a great process in this matter!