Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sustainable development

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You've shown that you don't have any ability to say what you mean.

I've made myself quite clear. But other people coming in and putting words in my mouth and splitting hairs doesn't help get my message across.

And still, even after the illogic of "sustainable development" has been pointed out to you dozens of times, you still adhere to this irrational credo?

I've yet to see you justify your position that sustainable development is irrational. You've made a lot of accusations, but so far when I asked you to justify them your response has been silence.

The rational thing for man to do is exploit the Earth in the most efficient way he can, keeping in mind the long term.

Now there's a good idea. I suppose it's all a matter of how one measures efficiency and what one values in life. You may think it's more efficient and long term to use a material once, leaving it non-recoverable for future use. Where I think it's more rational to use it and keep using it again and again. Hell, it'd be cheaper than having to dig more out of the Earth and process it every time we need more. But hey, that's just me and the numerous entrepreneurs in the burgeoning recycling/sustainable manufacturing industry.

Production must continue at full speed ahead, including not just manufacturing of goods but also production of new kinds of goods, like new kinds of fertilizers, energy sources and metals.

Ever hear the phrase "stop to smell the roses"? Would the world end if we chose to use more time to think and plan ahead? A little more time to think about where we're heading? Doesn't mean anything needs to stop, just means being a bit more thoughtful. If such a consequence is the result of the sustainable development then all the better. It's better to think rationally and plan ahead than barrel on forward in a single minded pursuit that doesn't stop to ask question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made myself quite clear. But other people coming in and puttin

Ever hear the phrase "stop to smell the roses"? Would the world end if we chose to use more time to think and plan ahead? A little more time to think about where we're heading? Doesn't mean anything needs to stop, just means being a bit more thoughtful. If such a consequence is the result of the sustainable development then all the better. It's better to think rationally and plan ahead than barrel on forward in a single minded pursuit that doesn't stop to ask question.

Well, why are you making a decision that others are not planning ahead for their independent lives? And what authority do you have over other's lives?

A bit more thoughtful? Can you define "a bit"? Seriously.

So, your ideology must be adopted based on your "bits" and "sustainability". What standards do you have for those and how do you enforce those upon yourself and then others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think sustainability is bad in principle, if it doesn't cost much then I don't see a problem in making my house use far less energy than normal by increasing efficiency, etc. I'd only do it if it saves me money in the long run though. And that is the only way "sustainable" or "green" products are ever going to get any leverage, to be actually cheaper in the long run.

The problem is in the long run the world will be a very very very different place. Example: In vitro meat is rapidly advancing. I read somewhere that the cost for a given quantity is having every couple of years, and so it will be cost competitive with traditional meat supplies before 2050. Other examples include advances in biotechnology massively increasing the nutritional value and density of growth for crops, also increasing their growing seasons and viable environments. Food shortage, thanks to those advances, is virtually impossible to imagine. Fusion power is only a couple of decades away, solar panels are halving in price every year or two, and some say they will actually be cost competitive with fossil fuels by 2020 (that's assuming oil prices don't spike due to legislation). Pollution will be cleaned up with bioengineered bacteria, effectively fixing environmental problems.

Even further down the line, nanotechnology will allow us to break down any and all waste of any kind, and rapidly transform it into virtually any material good we desire to produce, and will drop production prices dramatically. Artificial intelligence will grow dramatically in power thanks to increasing computer power, and will increasingly take over manufacturing (and maybe other, more creative) jobs, reducing production prices even more. All of this together means the price of living, the quality of living, and humanity's "impact" on the environment will be dropping dramatically during the 21st century.

Considering that, what does it matter if what I'm doing now isn't particularly "environmentally friendly", even if for some reason I am supposed to be concerned about that? Science and technology will fix all those problems, along with increasing the standard of living of the poorest of the poor right along with the richest of the rich. The aims of socialists, environmentalists, and all the other anti-capitalists and anti-technologists will be achieved through capitalism and advancing technology. They aren't going about their humanitarian aims correctly in the first place and so I don't pay their "suggestions" much heed, unless they make economic sense in the first place (such as replacing incandescent bulbs with flourescents, since they're cheaper in the long run).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what authority do you have over other's lives?

Where have I said I have authority over anyone's life? If you mean that the sustainable development movement might fundamentally change people's attitudes and thus turn the whole system in a direction you don't like, then tough. Those of us who believe in sustainable development have the right to freely make the decisions which leads to its fruition.

A bit more thoughtful? Can you define "a bit"? Seriously.

Splitting hairs doesn't contribute to the discussion.

So, your ideology must be adopted based on your "bits" and "sustainability".

What ideology?

What standards do you have for those and how do you enforce those upon yourself and then others?

I believe it is you who is forcing words into my mouth here.

Edited by Zedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have I said I have authority over anyone's life? If you mean that the sustainable development movement might fundamentally change people's attitudes and thus turn the whole system in a direction you don't like, then tough. Those of us who believe in sustainable development have the right to freely make the decisions which leads to its fruition.

Ah, so "tough" is supposed to mean what exactly.

And you state "those of us", who is that? And you "believe"...so, I am required to be a part of your religion, why?

Splitting hairs doesn't contribute to the discussion.

You were the one that ambiguously stated "a bit". I can't help your part of the conversation when you're very vague.

What ideology?

You stated "those of us who believe", so you must have something of an ideology rather than facts that I may choose to use or not use voluntarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't. I agree with you.

The other side is the cost of solar. If it was a one time cost that I might wish to risk, it might be valuable, but the only way I would be able to accomplish it would be via another mortgage with the risks and costs of that. Yes, we could talk about the possibility of better resale. However, my wife's parents have a solar envelope house from the early 80's. Hasn't delivered, and there's no real possibility of better resale on it based on others that made that choice in the area either.

I'm not saying solar might not have a better future, but at this time, it's just not valuable to me as a rational choice for self-sufficiency or a reduction in expenses. I continue to read and look at it, but I'd probably be better off financially with a 30 acre canola field and a lister engine running a generator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other side is the cost of solar. If it was a one time cost that I might wish to risk, it might be valuable, but the only way I would be able to accomplish it would be via another mortgage with the risks and costs of that. Yes, we could talk about the possibility of better resale. However, my wife's parents have a solar envelope house from the early 80's. Hasn't delivered, and there's no real possibility of better resale on it based on others that made that choice in the area either.

I'm not saying solar might not have a better future, but at this time, it's just not valuable to me as a rational choice for self-sufficiency or a reduction in expenses. I continue to read and look at it, but I'd probably be better off financially with a 30 acre canola field and a lister engine running a generator.

Solar will have a better future. Everyone has a horror story from the 70's and 80's. Those systems weren't very good. And the solar hot water industry is still plagued by charlatans from the 80's who came out of the woodwork to cash in on, you guessed it, government incentives!

The fact is that solar hot water technology has come a LONG way since then and it actually works well today. And systems last a very long time. In many areas of the country an 8x8 panel (don't fall for the evacuated tubes) can supply a home with domestic hot water AND heat the home with in-floor radiant tubing. The panels are super easy to make compared to solar PV panels and the manufacturing process doesn't involve nasty chemicals like solar PV.

Solar PV, on the other hand, has come a very long way also. There are now many different types of PV that are getting more efficient all the time - from building integrated PV, to solar film technology, to printable panels. Imagine your typical glass skyscraper. Well over 50% of those glass panels are spandrel panels (the building occupants don't look through them). With efficient, spandrel PV panels those building surface areas can product electricity while blocking building heat gain. But yeah, the technology isn't there yet, especially when conventional energy remains relatively cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with having Capitalism as a political system, to leave individuals to rely on their own property and free trade for their long term survival?

Why do we need a political system that concerns itself with disallowing "unsustainable" development, and encouraging "sustainable" development, and what would the means of doing that be?

P.S. since the word "sustainable" has now been redefined by both you and Zedic as "unsustainable, but long-lasting", perhaps it's time to change the name and also set a limit on what "long" means, and where does the dreaded "short" begin.

Where did I say anything about disallowing unsustainable development? I didn't. All I'd encourage is conscientiousness awareness of what you consume, in order function economically efficient. Doing things like planting trees or strategic logging can make logging more efficient and productive in the long term. The reason for doing so is not that the Earth needs protection, but for efficiency and productivity. It is not an absolute either. If you read my example carefully, unsustainable isn't automatically bad. It all depends on what your individual goal is.

I'm not redefining sustainable. All I'm saying is this: if Income rate - Spending rate > 0, sustainable. If Income rate - Spending rate < 0, unsustainable. Replace "spending" with "consumption rate" and "income" with "rate at which resources restore themselves and are discovered". Sometimes it might take thousands of years for a resource to near 0, if it even nears 0 at all. In such cases, sustainability isn't a very important measurement. If it takes ~5 years, sustainability may be a valid consideration FOR AN INDIVIDUAL to make.

If you fish in a lake at a rate of 10,000 fish per year and fish are born at a rate of 2,000 per year, you will run out someday. It is not sustainable. Now if the entire population of the lake is 1 million, you'll probably be fine for quite a while. If the entire population is 20,000, you'll probably only have enough fish for 3 more years until there are NO fish at all and therefore 0 profit from that lake.

Just because I use a word that ecofreaks love does NOT mean I support ANYTHING that they want or ANY of their methods.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, any species in a closed environment (ie, the Earth) will eventually drive itself to extinction by consuming all its resources.

Your lack of understanding of the terms you're spewing onto this board is about as close to that Penn & Teller episode where a bunch of hippies signed a petition banning H2O as I've ever seen.

Please, look up, and note the big yellow thing in the sky. The Earth is not a closed environment, if it were one, it would be a barren rock, with no one there to use "its" resources.

The rest of the sentence is also false. You're basing it on nothing, in fact you made it up just now, because you thought it sounds clever. It doesn't, there have never been any species in closed systems that drove themselves to extinction, nor will there ever be in the future.

Where did I say anything about disallowing unsustainable development? I didn't. All I'd encourage is conscientiousness awareness of what you consume, in order function economically efficient. Doing things like planting trees or strategic logging can make logging more efficient and productive in the long term. The reason for doing so is not that the Earth needs protection, but for efficiency and productivity. It is not an absolute either. If you read my example carefully, unsustainable isn't automatically bad. It all depends on what your individual goal is.

Alright, so why are you telling us all this in the Political Philosophy section, in a thread about people who are trying to use political means to bring about what they call "sustainable development", under the false pretense that long term solutions are good, and short term solutions are bad? (and by short term, I mean the century or more for which we're still guaranteeed to have oil, and all sorts of minerals, on Earth)

You are talking about being cost-effective, or technological solutions, and that is not what people who want to turn the nation or the planet into a "sustainable society" mean. Strategic logging should have nothing to do with politics. I have no interest in learning about, or discussing, the more technical aspects of logging, and I posted here because I honestly don't think that is what the people arguing for sustainable development mean. They are proposing political action, but are evading the issue of government force.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that solar hot water technology has come a LONG way since then and it actually works well today. And systems last a very long time. In many areas of the country an 8x8 panel (don't fall for the evacuated tubes) can supply a home with domestic hot water AND heat the home with in-floor radiant tubing. The panels are super easy to make compared to solar PV panels and the manufacturing process doesn't involve nasty chemicals like solar PV.

Solar PV, on the other hand, has come a very long way also. There are now many different types of PV that are getting more efficient all the time - from building integrated PV, to solar film technology, to printable panels. Imagine your typical glass skyscraper. Well over 50% of those glass panels are spandrel panels (the building occupants don't look through them). With efficient, spandrel PV panels those building surface areas can product electricity while blocking building heat gain. But yeah, the technology isn't there yet, especially when conventional energy remains relatively cheap.

Solar hot water was quoted at about $15,000. Given that we use about $25 of natural gas a month last year, and that's really only our hot water as we use a pellet stove for heat, it would take me 50 years just to break even based on a very, very simple outlook.

Yeah, I think PV has came a long way, and, I agree, conventional energy is cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so "tough" is supposed to mean what exactly.

Do you honestly not understand what that usage of the word means?

And you state "those of us", who is that? And you "believe"...so, I am required to be a part of your religion, why?

What religion?

Believe:

2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

Webster online dictionary.

You were the one that ambiguously stated "a bit". I can't help your part of the conversation when you're very vague.

How was I vague?

You stated "those of us who believe", so you must have something of an ideology rather than facts that I may choose to use or not use voluntarily.

How so?

Your lack of understanding of the terms you're spewing onto this board is about as close to that Penn & Teller episode where a bunch of hippies signed a petition banning H2O as I've ever seen.

So, instead of attacking the argument you must attack the person?

Please, look up, and note the big yellow thing in the sky. The Earth is not a closed environment, if it were one, it would be a barren rock, with no one there to use "its" resources.

So its mere existence is enough to deter us from inadvertently doing ourselves harm?

in fact you made it up just now

I'll like to see you prove that.

It doesn't, there have never been any species in closed systems that drove themselves to extinction, nor will there ever be in the future.

So no species has ever failed due to a strained environment which wasn't able to sustain them? That's how extinctions happen.

Edited by Zedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, so why are you telling us all this in the Political Philosophy section, in a thread about people who are trying to use political means to bring about what they call "sustainable development", under the false pretense that long term solutions are good, and short term solutions are bad? (and by short term, I mean the century or more for which we're still guaranteeed to have oil, and all sorts of minerals, on Earth)

Yes, it should have nothing to do with politics. By saying it should not have anything to do with politics is a political statement, though. So I'm unsure what problem you have with anything I said. Sustainability is a consideration to make, it is not to be automatically demonized. It's not the sustainability that's the issue, it's how the ecofreaks want to achieve it and their basis for their beliefs. Putting the Earth first, man second. The purpose of my posts is to say how a negative knee-jerk reaction to the word sustainable (a word environmentalists have destroyed and obliterated for political purposes) is silly/incorrect. I have a negative knee-jerk reaction to the word altruism, but it is a rational and correct reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've yet to see you justify your position that sustainable development is irrational.
All of my posts in response to you have shown this. Primarily I keep hammering away at the point that "continuously using our resources" and not consuming resources is an impossibility, which renders adoration of "sustainable development" irrational. I keep hammering away at the point that attention to the anti-concept "sustainable development" distracts people's attention from the real problem, namely the idea of collective ownership of resources, and that anything that you think is a problem is only a problem because property rights and responsibilities are not well-defined. (Examples: fish, oil, phosphorus, timber which are often to universally government-controlled). I keep hammering away at the point that "sustainable development" is an excuse for other agendas, especially environmentalism -- as witnessed by your confusion over the property issue underlying pollution and your unsubstantiated charge that agricultural monoculture is "unsustainable" (this is the "biodiversity" branch of environmentalism).

You have not shown that there is any reason at all to insist that production have zero effect on the surrounding ecosystem or consume no resources. If you cannot give a reason to hold production to those requirements, then adhering to such requirements is irrational. Surely you can at least see the connection between "lack of reasons" and "irrational". All I am asking you to do is think about these very dangerous concepts that you are advocating, and understand the horrifying absurdity to which they reduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly not understand what that usage of the word means?

-Able to withstand great strain without tearing or breaking; strong and resilient: a tough all-weather fabric.

-Hard to cut or chew: tough meat.

-Physically hardy; rugged: tough mountaineers; a tough cop.

-Strong-minded; resolute: a tough negotiator.

-Slang Unfortunate; too bad: a tough break.

-Slang Fine; great

It must be "unfortunate;too bad: a tough break" as you advocate for people's ability to rule over individuals below...

Where have I said I have authority over anyone's life? If you mean that the sustainable development movement might fundamentally change people's attitudes and thus turn the whole system in a direction you don't like, then tough. Those of us who believe in sustainable development have the right to freely make the decisions which leads to its fruition.

What religion?

Believe:

2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

Webster online dictionary.

Religion:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it should have nothing to do with politics. By saying it should not have anything to do with politics is a political statement, though.

So, then you're saying that everything has to do with politics because not everything should have to do with politics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The biggest argument for sustainable development (in my mind) is the fact that the Earth's capacity to sustain its current balance is limited. If you stress something hard and long enough it'll eventually fail. (duh) So the question is, why should we irreversibly destroy nature's balance and scramble to find an artificial solution to sustain life after the fact?

Yes, the Earth's resources are technically limited. But practically speaking, we have just begun to scratch the literal surface of the planet. As has been mentioned by other posters, the free market is capable of ensuring that there is capital to exploit "more difficult to reach" deposits as well as help drive research & innovation to find new ways to satisfy old desires. There is no real fear of running out of anything; there is only the manufactured hysteria driven by the desire of those who desire the unearned.

If you wish to invest your time & resources in "sustainability" that should be your prerogative. It should be the prerogative of those who don't see the point of composting, recycling and all kinds of "footprint reduction schemes" to carry on doing what they are doing.

One more thing: while you don't mention it in your long posts, you must be fully aware that government intervention is currently being used to enforce the sustainability scenarios. Without legislation forcing us to sort garbage, recycle, stop using this and start using that -- would or could any of these "green" industries actually flourish on their own merits? Why do they need the government crutch? What does that tell you about them? People are quick to spot a bargain, you know. If these green products made honest sense, they wouldn't need to be chaperoned into our lives by government fiat & legislative strong-arm tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, then you're saying that everything has to do with politics because not everything should have to do with politics?

No, only that "it has nothing to do with politics" is a political statement, whatever "it" may be. It would suggest what politics is not. A discussion of sustainability will not always imply environmentalist politics, as many seem to think. "You think sustainability is worth thinking about? Why do you hate capitalism?" It's very hard to have a conversation about a particular concept when it gets politicized to -that extent- immediately. I don't see where Zedic even said that the government should do anything.

Yes, it has been made into a political issue, but it's worth discussing if "sustainability" is an important concept in the first place. If it's not, it is only political. If it is important, it may or may not be political.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, instead of attacking the argument you must attack the person?

No, I attacked the argument, which claims the Earth, a planet on which all life gets its energy from the outside, is a closed environment. I implied that it is ignorant and wrong. So blatantly ignorant, that it reminded me of the uneducated gesture of militant environmentalists signing a petition banning H2O. Ignoring the existence of the Sun and banning water are comparable in degree of ignorance of the subject being discussed, are they not?

So its mere existence is enough to deter us from inadvertently doing ourselves harm?

The energy that created all life came from the Sun. Its mere existence, outside the Earth, is enough to ridicule your statement that the Earth is a closed environment. It is also enough to allow me to dismiss anyone who would claim that the Earth is a "closed environment", and make baseless remarks following that claim, while trying to advise "mankind" against destroying themselves.

So no species has ever failed due to a strained environment which wasn't able to sustain them? That's how extinctions happen.

No species we know of has ever existed in a closed environment. I don't see what strained open environments, or open environments that aren't "able" (you keep personifying inanimate objects and abstract concepts for some reason) to sustain a species have to do with this, you clearly said "closed environment", in your previous statement, and you did not mention "strained" or "unable" to do anything.

Let me remind you of your argument, which I did attack, and imply it was ignorant, and explained why that is three or four times now:

Because, any species in a closed environment (ie, the Earth) will eventually drive itself to extinction by consuming all its resources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm likely out of this thread, and many others, for good until around late December, as we enter into the very busy at work time fo the year. But I had to reply to this:

Fair enough, you make a good point about shale oil and this above. In the end, it's all about personal choice and market demand. If people don't want pesticides, GM foods, or petroleum fertilizer food then they can choose organic. I personally don't like the way the large agribusiness is run and choose organic for that reason. I do think agribusiness is unsustainable, but I'm not an expert on the topic so I can't prove it right now. If indeed I'm right and it is unsustainable, reality will step in and give everyone a reality check anyway.

You can choose organic because there is a massive agricultural industry in place. Otherwise you'd probably ahve a choice forced on you: starvation.

Fact is we can't produce enough food for everyone in the world by so-called organic means alone (BTW, GM crops are as organic as any other, ditto crops treated with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers). The result of the green revolution (the one that increased crop yields trhough better technology and the use of science) is that America, Canada and many European countries use less farmland now than they did in the past, yet produce much more food. Even in years of bad drought prices go up a bit, but there are no "lean times" as there used to be for anyone in these countries. To a lesser extent this is so of less advanced countries that make use of modern methods.

So enjoy your tomatoes grown with animal dung, rotted leaves and whatever bacteria hitched a ride with them. But take a moment to thank the big agricultural industries that allow you to indulge in such luxuries.

Unless there's a massive technological break through, I don't see solar as a powerful enough alternative to oil and coal either. I'm placing my bets of nuclear power (both fusion and fission) for large scale operations.

I will admit to being pleasantly surprised. Yes. Nuclear fission alone, deployed in a massive scale, would solve a lot of problems. For one thing Uranium is cheap, plentiful and ahs a very stable market price (because it's more widespread than oil).

But don't forget coal. There is a lot of coal yet. The US has the largest known coal reserves in the world, for instance; energetically speaking, they contain more energy than all of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. It's also cheap, plentiful and stable; plus there is already a vast infrastructure built around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, only that "it has nothing to do with politics" is a political statement, whatever "it" may be. It would suggest what politics is not. A discussion of sustainability will not always imply environmentalist politics, as many seem to think. "You think sustainability is worth thinking about? Why do you hate capitalism?" It's very hard to have a conversation about a particular concept when it gets politicized to -that extent- immediately. I don't see where Zedic even said that the government should do anything.

Zedic said "we" should solve the problem of sustainability. (and then claimed he used the term "we" as an informal word or colloquialism--how exactly is we informal or a colloquialism, that's beyond me)

That can only be interpreted as a collectivist political statement, because it brings up a false concept (sustainability does not exist, we cannot keep our environment the same, no matter how hard we try), and suggests mankind (another false concept, when used as an entity that's expected to think, act, or decide with a single mind) should do something about it. So everything I say next, in which I debunk sustainability as a proper goal for individuals, does not address Zedic's point of view, only yours. My answer to Zedic's claims is that collectivism is the large scale initiation of force against individuals. It is massive evil.

Here's the definition Zedic gave, I'll ignore the "we", and the "our". Let's pretend he meant "companies", or "individuals", and "their" instead of "our":

But to answer the question, "What is sustainable development?" The very name implies that current development isn't sustainable. (I personally agree with that premise.) Sustainable development is the movement to find a sustainable alternative to what we do now. Meaning, instead of depleting our resources, we continually reuse them in an ongoing process that closes the waste loop. Instead of going from cradle to grave, it goes from cradle to cradle.

There is no such process, that closes the waste loop, and goes on forever. The premise is, by the way, a bit more than just "current development isn't sustainable". The premise is that there are exactly two types of development:

1. processes that have an "open waste loop", and are "cradle to grave".

2. processes that "close the waste loop"

Let's look at them:

1. The first alternative is obviously a false one. All industries, all technologies, throughout human history, have had an "open waste loop". No one ever payed attention to not wasting anything, in the history of the human race.

And yet, not a single one of those technologies or industries went from cradle to grave, leaving the people who used to benefit from it wasting away. The West has been going from good to great, ever since the industrial revolution. The more "open waste loops", the better for me, my comfort, my communication, my ability to understand the natural world. Not worse, better. No technology and industry graves in sight. None. Just pretty, lovely change.

2. First off, it doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a "closed waste loop". Second, any time you make it your goal to "close the waste loop", you are going to profit a lot less than if your goal was, and what a surprise: profit.. Unbelievable, if you aim for profit, you'll get more profit than if you aim for a "closed waste loop". By the way, profit means happy, happy means good. According to Objectivism. According to Environmentalism, a closed waste loop means good. That's the main goal, that's why sustainability is the main goal, not profit. A "tree grower guy" (is it a logger?) can make sure his forest isn't depleted just fine, by aiming to maximize his profit, and his life, and that of his children. If instead, he aims to close the waste loop, he is not going to be very happy, since he has an impossible, pointless goal in front of him.

3. Yes, the third alternative is an "open waste loop" that's "cradle to cradle". (I can't believe I'm using this metaphor, it's so weak-how does a cradle suggest continuity?) That simply means that when a rational person, who has his long term profit as his main goal, realizes that changes in his open waste loop are necessary, meaning that some of the resources he's wasting are getting scarce, so it's time to waste something different, he does exactly that. He changes his loop, he adapts to his very much open and always changing (not closed in any way whatsoever, and not constant in any way whatsoever, no matter how many people Viro intends to sacrifice to make it so) environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solar hot water was quoted at about $15,000. Given that we use about $25 of natural gas a month last year, and that's really only our hot water as we use a pellet stove for heat, it would take me 50 years just to break even based on a very, very simple outlook.

Yeah, I think PV has came a long way, and, I agree, conventional energy is cheap.

Hmmm, a pellet stove is good green technology! :)

$15k sounds way, way high even for a big house. I think if you shop around you'd find that "one" contractor who knows his stuff and has it priced right. But no matter, for an existing house with a pellet stove that works well it would make no sense to retrofit with radiant tubing anyway.

Ah well, we've probably strayed far enough off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...