Re: Offer Reiterated

Check out http://www.geni.org for the solution to the energy question...

Regards,
Mark

> I know that "net energy" is not on very many radar screens.  But if one can
> understand the concept, then one can get a pretty good idea of why present
> forms of government will not survive the next 50 years.  Cities that require
> huge energy subsidies simply to be habitable for humans (e.g., Los Vegas,
> Phoenix) will be largely abandoned.  Likewise, cities requiring long supply
> lines of water and food (e.g., Los Angeles) and/or in very cold areas must
> also be largely abandoned.
>
> Social "collapse" is defined as the rapid transformation to a lower degree
> of complexity, typically involving significantly less energy consumption.
>  see  COMPLEXITY, PROBLEM SOLVING, AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES, by Joseph A.
> Tainter, 1996; http://dieoff.com/page134.htm ]
>
> Societies "collapse" when they become too complex for their energy base.
> Thus, the collapse of capitalism is inevitable because capitalism must grow
> to survive -- must become more-and-more complex and consume more-and-more
> energy.
>
> The only political writer I have read who understands the situation is
> William Ophuls.  I believe his best work is ECOLOGY AND THE POLITICS OF
> SCARCITY REVISITED; Ophuls, 1992.  Unfortunately, this book is now out of
> print.
>
> I think I have done a pretty good job of explaining our "net energy" crisis
> in simple English -- using nontechincal terms (no math) -- in the latest
> ENERGY Magazine.  I provide a summary of the most-frequently proposed
> alternatives and explain why we can not solve the "net energy" problem. (I
> will FAX a copy of this article to anyone who asks.)
>
> It boils-down to two issues:
>
> #1. Even if one assumes that fossil fuels could be replaced by renewables
> (which I don't), then we would still have to divert present "net energy"
> from other areas of the economy into future energy production.  A "market
> economy" (government by competing moneyed interests) has no way of
> accomplishing this.
>
> Gever et al., has calculated that if we wait for market signals before
> embarking on a crash renewables program, then the "net energy" available for
> non-power production sectors of the economy will fall to 30 per cent of
> present values before starting to rise again.  See a graph at
> http://dieoff.com/page143.htm
>
> #2. But I have looked at all alternatives, and even if one assumes the ideal
> political context (central economic planning) -- and no more babies --
> nothing renewable can produce enough "net energy" to power today's
> capitalism -- let alone, ongoing economic growth of, say, 2 per cent per
> year.
>
> I am pressed for time.  If anyone would like to ask questions on-list,
> please ask them now as I am going to unsubscribe soon.  Of course, you can
> always contact me privately and I will help you if I can.
>
> Jay -- www.dieoff.org
>
>


--
Regards,
Mark Siegmund
email:  siegmund@thegrid.net
Tetworld Peace Through Development Project & Game
Introductory Page:  http://members.tripod.com/~Tetworld/world1.html
Main page: http://members.tripod.com/~Tetworld/+index.html
The Tetworld Story:
http://members.tripod.com/~Tetworld/index.htm
Award winning ezine"21st" (Tetrahedron and the Game article)
http://www.vxm.com/link.siegmund.html
To subscribe to Buckminster Fuller discussion list about global game concept
and proposal, or to join the Tetworld Game list or the Belize Development
list, go to:  http://members.tripod.com/~Tetworld/+index.html
and select the desired option.