The only crisis I see here is in the author's head. His "solution" won't solve that.

DavidL Wow dude! You've nailed the author with that incisive comment. Well done! Must have made your morning so much more satisfying. LOL

Although I would deplore any straight abuse of the author, this article is long, dull and doesn't say much. This business about using improving info technology to reduce energy use is happening, but is taking longer to implement than first thought. Apart from that its difficult to say just what the article is about..

I agree with you Curmudgeon; the article is pretty useless. Too long and disjointed with no clear argument.

But why would you say that you wouldn't support any abuse of the author? Is it not a 'given' that abuse of an author is 'inappropriate', or is abuse regarded as a perfectly 'normal' and 'appropriate' way of winning an argument around here? Or only when the article is sufficiently bad?

I do wonder what the motivation was for posting this article when there are so many other much more informative, easy to read articles available about the failure of the dominant economic paradigm and the need to do something different.

But it's not a mystery, it is clear that people allow themselves to believe a lot of things that are very stupid and a politically biased person could convince themselves that this article is one 'lefties' will like and so it provides 'balance'.

Here's a summary: I don't like capitalism because it makes some people richer than me, so I'm going to pretend that disaster is looming. Luckily we can escape this imaginary disaster -- all you have to do is THINK LIKE ME!

There will be compulsory re-education classes for those who fail to do so.

Mollydukes
I was referring to DavidL's comment but its a small matter, and probably not worth noting as you say.. JonJ's summation says it all.. I cetainly don't agree that there is a need to do something differnt, but, assuming for the moment that there is a problem, what would we do diffeently that would not cause more trouble than the supposed problem??

Curmudgeon I do believe you are sincere when you say you cannot see that anything needs to change so there is nothing more to say. There are a great deal of very good articles 'out there' in all the respected US and UK news and magazine sources. It would say a lot about your ability to have an objective opinion if you have failed to read any of these critiques.

It does seem dismissive and patronising of you to suggest that all the critiques of capitalism as an economic system add up to, "I don't like it because some people are richer than me".

An amusing riposte? Perhaps, but I saw it as your brain reassuring you that you are a righteous and valuable member of 'the good tribe'.

Read something funny and applicable here I think. "I came prepared for a battle of wits but you appear to be unarmed".

Carry on boys.

The author may not have put the case very well, but can we extend our vision to a future which may only be a mere figment of that which we now enjoy - if we just keep enjoying regardless of the potential consequences? No set timetable, just the future.

Looking at basics, ours and the planet's future will require clean air, water, food, energy and materials, hopefully in an harmonious balance. Food and materials availability will continue to rely on abundant energy, and clean air and water on an absence of irreversible destructive pollution. Are there any challenges to ensure a viable and enjoyable future for all?

Perhaps this is a perception issue, but, doomsday prophecies aside, are there things we could and should be doing better or differently now?

Energy may be abundant now, but its extraction and transport is at ever increasing environmental risk - save for solar, wind and even coal. Eventually 'sustainable' or nuclear will remain our only reliable options - unless you believe in technological fairy tales. But, we remain reluctant to embrace renewables, though at some stage oil and diesel will have to be produced almost exclusively using plants or algae, for example. We may similarly be forced to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but remain hesitant to act voluntarily.

I can see a future where we all wear the same clothes, where only businesses can run vehicles and nearly all private travel will be by public transport, where air travel will be an absolute luxury, and most people will live in modular accommodation, and arable land will be held only in a public/private partnership. Civil liberties will be severely restricted, work mandatory, and child rearing allocated by ballot or screening. We could avoid the worst if we were to reduce our excesses now, but of course, we are only 'human'.

Peter McMahon like most of the AGW alarmists are limited by their own lack of imagination and resolve.

Our humanity has achieved incredible advances in the last 150 yrs.The Universe is a lot bigger than Peter McMahon's imagination and most of our can do nothings,who want to oppress our humanity with visions of poverty.

Very cogent, well argued and rational article!
We certainly cannot continue with an economic growth model, that relies on endless population growth, or a highly flawed one that just widens the gap between the haves and the have nots! All while shrinking the actual haves and exponentially growing the have nots!
Part of the reason we are in so much difficulty, is the change in the share/stock market?
In its original conception, people bought and sold shares to share the risk; and generate income from dividends, rather than capital gains!
More investment, less gambling!
More inherent integrity and deals settled with a handshake, less ponzi schemes and or vastly overvalued over-leveraged assets!
Stock markets that were not massively manipulated by complex computer programs, that all but steal mum and dad investors' nest eggs!
We are in an economic train, the metaphorical driver dead at the controls; and, one that seems to be accelerating toward a economic cliff!
The light at the end of the tunnel could be the economic train wreck heading in our direction!
What to do?
Well casting your biblical pearls before biblical swine is not one of them?
What should happen is Romney wins the US elections, and then as he has promised, reduce tax and massively increase spending. Ditto Abbott! [The Regan formula?]
Forget the maths, they don't matter, after all, it's other poeples' money, and the real name of the real game is the wielding of power, for its own sake!?
As expected and predicted, when formerly well-to-do find themselves penniless and roaming the woods/streets, searching for shelter and food/handouts, in significant numbers!
We might finally see a genuine mood for real change, kick started by the occupy wall street movement!
The poor already quite massively outnumber the better off. And if they simply had the smarts to stop listening to the BS, organise and vote as a block, they could usher in/engineer massive changes and or reform/bloodless revolution.
Leaving the Lunatics in charge of the asylum, is not an option, nor is doing what you've always done, all while expecting a different outcome!
Rhrosty.

A very well-intentioned piece that deserves better than the cheap shots fires on the first page of comments, which are a clear example of the truth of the writer's assertion that right-wing media barons have successfully dumbed down the majority of the population.
The suggestion that...'the key to using communications technologies effectively and changing our lives generally lies in changed perceptions of what really matters.' is what wise men have been urging us to do for at least two hundred thousand years - but few agree on what matters. Surveys show that this current model of civilization has not made most people healthier, happier, or more contented.
It's obvious that we're in dire straits with climate change, increasing pollution, running out of food and water... but only Rhosty mentions population control. Just as we can't expect the planet to provide the resources for an ever expanding economy, so it also can't provide space for an ever increasing population without hastening the eventual catastrophic collapse of civilization.
The proposed 'solution' to the problems facing us is a nice idea, but humans are just animals with a brain that can imagine and invent. We haven't escaped our evolutionary instincts, and they're what will destroy us. I don't imagine any other life form will mourn our passing any more than humans regtretted the elimination of plague from their cities.

God what a bunch!

Molly I think you'll find Curmudgeon has read somewhat more deeply then a few "respected magazines", of the type you would read. Propaganda Mags are not his style.

Saltpetre an old cliche I know, but as they say, the stone age did not end because they ran out of stones. I realise you may be too pessimistic to believe it, but the same will apply to the hydrocarbon age. Once we no longer use them, we may have to find another way of augmenting CO2, as it will be needed to promote plant growth.

Rhrosty I hope you're right about Romney. If you are the US will come roaring back, harvesting it's resources, generating so much wealth even the poor will be happy again. Just getting rid of Obama's crony capitalism, & his radical greeny stupidity will fix most of the US poverty.

Ygbirp I agree we should stop population growth. But then we should stop wasting taxes on people like this author, & get rid of the global warming scam & lock up the promoters of the scam. Then we might even be able to make you pessimists happy. I doubt it, but there is a small chance.

"God what a bunch..."

This from the bloke who judges a politician's integrity by whether or not he possesses a driver's license.

Hasbeen lol you really live up to your name eh? I say - hysterically and shrilly of course - that you and your tribe are bereft of any ideas about how to cope with the failure of your grand narrative. Delusional denial and derisory derision of people who are looking for something better is all you can muster as a response to the very real problems that we face.

Good on you for supporting the Curmudgeon bloke, solidarity is a good thing. It's great to see how you members of the individualist tribe stick up for each other. Provides even more anecdotal evidence for me to believe that E.O. Wilson's group selection theory.

I never cease to admire the remarkable capacity of the human brain to believe that we can make things better and to keep coming up with ideas to make things work better. Well, some human brains do this. Others just hang on to the past, where they felt comfortable, and shout loudly that it was all fine if only you lefties could see that.

Check out this site. It might be useful as a source for the 'facts' that you prefer to believe.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

I thought it was a joke but apparently it is for real!

@ Poirot,

Two points:

1) How very misogynistic of you to assume the politician would be a “he”, and

2) Take a look back at Mollydukes (Marmadukes?) little skit (read: regurgitation of cliché put downs) –which you seem to be defending -it was totally uncalled for/unnecessary. And had more in keeping with a 4 year old showing off.

The opening sentence says it all really, another scholarly piece by the 'we'll all be roon' school. You are all immoral, greedy and selfish and I insist on changeling your behaviour because I am on the high moral ground. Listen to me and do what I say!

When the author begins his piece with reference to the 'junk science' found in Carsons book, Segways into the limits of growth junk and 'peak oil' meme, we know we have a piece of junk thinking direct from central casting. Did the author forget the population bomb I wonder?

Predictable dull rehash..... nothing personal Peter, just suggesting the vague generalisations be supported with some genuine empirical data or some reading outside the cocooned leftist 'progressive' world you inhabit.

One point, SPQR...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5433#148386

If you want, you can give your apology to me and I'll pass it on to Poirot.

WMTrevor,

<< if you want, you can give your apology to me and I'll pass it on to Poirot>>

Not neceeeesssssarily.

You see, Hasbeen was decidedly NON-sexist in his disparagement.
He damned ALL all pollies who didn’t have a license.
It was your little Belgian private dick who chose to edit and limit it to “he(s)”
So on that account –no apologies are in order.
But, you can pass on my warm hellos to Poirot, next time you’re in touch -- but, please don't pass anything else on to her.

What an odd concept of non-sexist disparagement you have, SPQR.

From the comment in question:

"...will you never learn old mate?
...that twit Carr,... him buzzing... he was crowing... his election win. His ego... makes him...
The man is...
Besides, you can never trust someone who does not have a drivers licence. In this day & age, that alone makes him a bit strange.
He's a good match..."

The only way I can see to make it non-sexist would be to alter the penultimate sentence to, 'Besides you can never trust anyone who does not have a drivers licence. In this day & age, that alone would make them a bit strange.'

Which wasn't the point Hasbeen was making.

No risk of anything else being passed on other than your warm hellos to Poirot. Moustache's tickle, wherever they touch.

On the bright side I've found a new word to describe a false claim of changing the sense of a comment - an ediot.

WMTrevor,

All that toing and froing about Carr was just the entrée.

The pièce de résistance was that penultimate sentence:
<<Besides you can never trust *ANYONE* who does not have a drivers licence>>

And it was that sentence which your moustachioed mate had (like a blow fly) alighted on.

Well, we can't go on like this toing and froing all day --besides I think I've used up my quota of responses on this thread --so we'll just have to agree here and now that, you are wrong and I am right –and leave it at that.

(you watch, any moment now Poirot is going to buy into this on your side –which will show (beyond doubt) I WAS RIGHT all along)

PS: I’m rather fond of Barry Humphries take on Bob Carr: “He looks like an undertaker"

SPQR,

"You watch, any moment now Poirot is going to buy into this on your side..."

(Who can resist such an invitation?)

...but you ignore the crowning glory of the whole sentence, as in: - "and that alone makes him a bit strange."

(That is "him", btw)

And who did that make (in Hasbeen's opinion) a bit strange?

It made Bob Carr a bit strange.

And who is Bob Carr?

Bob Carr is a politician who happens to be of male gender.

And how does my buying into this conversation at this juncture "prove" you were right all along?

WmTrevor,

Merci beaucoup, mon ami : )

SPQR I am sorry that you don’t understand how to use the word misogyny. But ignorance is not a permanent condition you know; you can rectify your deficits by reading widely and being interested in what is actually happening in the world of ideas and solutions to problems.

Understanding the difference between misogyny and sexism and how to use the words appropriately is an important issue to talk about because there aren't any 'rules' that exist somewhere - not even on the internet - that tell everyone what is true and what is not.

We, that is everyone who is interested in making a better world, need to talk about the issue and construct rules for today, since the old ones are not working. The old white male rules may have and continue to work well for you, but they have never worked well for me and, many people I know both male and female and in-between.

I have a choice now, because of those 'white male' rules, in particular the rule of law - fantastic, wonderful men who fought for human rights. So now I can have a say and I'm saying clearly that I don't want the old rules. I think we can do better.

I am also grateful for the internet. I have never found it to be 'safe' to argue face to face with a man so I love this way of interacting. I don't have to be scared of the usual response - violence verbal or physical that I have experienced and seen so much of in my work - when a woman fails to defer to a man.

Can I ask why you spoke/typed to Poirot about me rather than address your criticism, or was it an insult? to me? And why would you judge me to be 'showing off'? What do you think I am showing off and is it not a good thing to show off the things you do well

Mollydukes,

Nice to see you back here - and kudos for your insightful posts.

Perhaps SPQR finds you a tad more imposing than [he?] does Poirot?

thank you Poirot. I am pleased that you appreciate my input. So SPQR is 'scared' of moi? I did briefly imagine myself as Eleanor of Aquitaine while watching that doco on SBS the other night - about the queens of England

SBS http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2292101620

I am reassured that there are several commenter's who have read and understand the article and agree that there is a real need for some changes in our economic paradigm and that it is imperative to do something about climate change.

Oh and SPQR, you missed the real example of sexism in my comment. To call you blokes 'boys' is an insult, as it devalues your maturity and ability, no? It is sometimes an insult when men call women, 'girls'; but only sometimes.

Context is everything or at least a big part of the thing. But you won't understand that; you will say you just disagree with it but really you don't understand it and it is easier not to do the 'work' involved in understanding something that doesn't come easily

Mollydukes,

<< [W]hy [did you speak] …to Poirot about me rather than address your criticism… to me?>>
I was addressing my concerns to Poirot as head girl prefect of OLO.

<< SPQR I am sorry that you don’t understand how to use the word misogyny.>>
But I do. I think you might be behind the times. The M word has undergone something of a revision in recent times (in recent days, even). Misogyny now encompasses anything that a quorum of women find offensive —even looking at your watch a while a woman is talking is misogyny. So if anyone thinks only men are capable or deserving of being politicians –as Poirot apparently did (!)-- then that most certainly would be classed as misogyny –and the fact that it came from a female who is using a male pseudonym only makes it all the more sinister!

<< is it not a good thing to show off the things you do well>>
I think we all know that four-year-olds haven’t got much they do well

<<We…need to talk about the issue and construct rules for today …>>
You are something of Jekyll and Mr Hyde character Mollydukes. With one breath you spout noble platitudes and the next like a character out of A Clockwork Orange you go out of your way to bait a good civil guy like Curmudgeon.

<<I am also grateful for the internet. I have never found it to be 'safe' to argue face to face with a man so I love this way of interacting. I don't have to be scared of the usual response - violence verbal or physical that I have experienced and seen so much of in my work - when a woman fails to defer to a man>>
You must have had some traumatic experiences –I felt/experienced similar when I had nuns are teachers.

Can I ask a personal question: Are you of Asian background?
The reason ask is that some of your expressions have very Asian tone.

PS: It would be interesting to see you start a thread about: <<old white male rules>

SPQR,

"....So if anyone thinks only men are capable or deserving of being politicians - as Poirot apparently did (!)..."

I was - as you are well aware - replying to Hasbeen, and referring to his comment (on another thread) regarding Bob Carr.

I realise you're attempting to come across as oh-so-clever, SPQR, but deliberately dissembling other poster's intentions isn't clever at all. Can't you debate without being underhand?

You'd make a good politician.

A man can be a misogynist yet not sexist. Hating women, yet accepting they have the right to equality before the law. I know men like that Interesting, isn't it?

Poirot,

With all due respect, we now (since at least three weeks ago), live under a new paradigm.
And henceforth we'll all need to watch our P’s and Q’s, and he’s and she’s.

We have all seen how when Romney says: "binders full of women"
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/17/opinion/cardona-binders-women/index.html
It betrays his deep disdain for women.
That when Abbott comments on “The government lack of experience in raising children”
It is a slur about women’s right to choose.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/julia-gillard-misogynist-sexism-baby

The scales have been removed from our eyes.

The “old white man rules” that you and I might have grown up with, no longer apply.
And, as a sign of solidarity I suggest you re-label yourself [Ms] Marple.

SPQR Sorry but I have no idea how to respond to your comments and questions.

I don't mean to be insulting, but you will see it that way. I am not Asian, I am an 'aspie' if that makes things clearer and I don't do normal human interaction.

I see no evidence that you have anything to offer me, in my search for 'the truth'. I don't actually believe there is such a thing as objective truth but I am sure that we should continue this admirable quest; that is what science and scientists do, and the scientists who are finding 'truth' include climate scientists and social scientists.

You don't really have much to offer in the way of information or interesting opinions that challenge my worldview. Your 'claim to fame' is that you are (or you think you are) proficient at taking cheap shots and I think that is a dysfunctional way of behaving. It negatively affects our ability to build a better world that is inclusive and makes the best 'use' of, and provides opportunities for all types of people.

I have no agenda to shut you up or remove your right to say stupid and nasty things, you go right ahead but I do deplore the miss-information that passes for opinion here.

I have 'revealed' some of my'traumatic' experiences - which I think of as opportunities rather than tragedies - in previous posts some time ago. I do believe you can search this site if you are interested.

I myself am not really interested in what individual people do, I am interested in the patterns I see in human behaviour. I do try to be normal, but it's not easy when one isn't 'normal' or 'neuro-typical'.

But thanks for your response.

Mollydukes, Very well put. I admire clear and rational thinking.

Mollydukes,

You - you put it very well.

Isn't it fascinating that SPQR had difficulties with your style.

Who wants to be neuro-typical anyway? - it's the folks who think outside the square that tend to make the difference to humanity.

Btw, My 11 year-old HFA son found this the other day - and found it hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybDKfGEw4aU

It's a Saturday Night Live satire of Westerners moaning about the new iphone upgrade.

Hi Mollydukes,

I was watching a documentary the other week and one of the psychologists made a comment that none of us are “normal”.
We all have degrees of "abnormality" –it’s only a question of magnitude.

I am not offering any “truths”. I also have no firm answers.
But I second your confidence in science--and this branch of science/research in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

As for my “cheap shots”, they are not really intended to be taken seriously.

I encourage you to stick with OLO there are a lot of intelligent and talented people on this forum.
And you write very well –nothing like a four year old!

Cheers

True. "Who wants to be neuro-typical anyway? - it's the folks who think outside the square that tend to make the difference to humanity."

Doesn't need to be a global crisis, either... this one minute from The Onion Newsroom - Study: Alzheimer's Patients Say They Do Not Have Alzheimer's, helped me whilst caring for my father (he said at the time he saw the joke!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieK1PTXmopE

Around the world there are millions of blind people. None of them have drivers licences, so we know they can't be trusted?
I don't know why Bob Carr doesn't have a drivers licence? Perhaps he has progressive myopia? And can't see much further than a fully extended hand?
With the best will in the world, we will still need to be using fossil fuels for at least the next fifty years?
There's some rather large glasshouses in northern SA, that exploit salt water as evaporate?
Enough to keep all the plants extremely healthy.
Large open air ponds finish the job and salt is also harvested and sold?
The power source and additional heating comes from NG?
The exhaust is fed directly into the hothouse, after flowering, where the plants thrive free of pests, which are asphyxiated overnight, by costless Co2 saturation?
Tarong power station is trialling Algae as a mop crop that is capable of cleaning up emission.
Similarly, Green Technologies, Boston, Massachusetts, is on the record, as perfecting a closed cycle system that scrubs smoke stack emission.
Queensland abandoned carbon capture and storage, as simply being far too expensive!
But only after they had wasted 100 million on the trial?
The advantage of using Algae as a mop crop is, there is a profit that can eventually be realized from endlessly sustainable bio-fuel!
Algae only use 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigated crops!
They absorb 2.5 times their own body weight in carbon emission, and under optimised conditions double that bodyweight and absorption capacity, every 24 hours!
100 tons today becomes 200 tons tomorrow, 400 the day after! billions of tons are possible, the only limit being available fertilizer/effluent!
A foreign firm are already doing it in our Northwest, utilising sea water; and are looking at supplying in excess of a million litres of bio-diesel annually, to local mines!
The aforementioned are ways we might do things both differently, throw a hundred million of govt money at; and, produce a decent profit from doing so!?
Rhrosty.

Privatisation has been a dismal failure that has undeniably concentrated far too much of our finite wealth in far too few hands! 1% owning 40% of Americas total and finite wealth!
Privatisation has allowed many govts to simply outsource core responsibilities, and in so doing, reduce tax!
After that, many were able to bring in balanced budgets or even surpluses, utilising derivatives, which effectively kicked the debt can down the road for around thirty years!
Meaning, others are left with the debt burden.
Capitalism is supposed to include risk and competition, not vast monopolies and captive markets!
To whit, we need to reclaim both energy and capital and all essential cash cow services, as publicly owned and operated property. Competing duopolies, would remove the only viable critique, ever levelled at publicly owned corporations?
We need to completely ban short selling, corp raids, asset stripping.
We also need to vastly reform our tax system, to remove an ever increasing load from fewer and fewer shoulders.
And instead, create a single broad based, entirely unavoidable system, that returns around an averaged 37% to the averaged Australian bottom line and around 25% to averaged household incomes!
A 4.8-5% single stand alone expenditure tax would do just that!
And increase inland revenue by around 100 billion per, which by the way, becomes immediately available; daily, to consolidated revenue!
Meaning a govt no longer needing to borrow, to finance its core responsibilities!
Doing what you've always done while expecting a different outcome, is madness and arguably the single reason, the whole world is in so much trouble today.
We have no other choice but to embrace change; rather than operate as self serving road blocks, in the path of absolutely essential reform!
We can all be far better off, rather than a pitiful and shrinking few of us!
Money really does have to circulate through many millions of hands, for modern western style economies to actually work; and or prosper the most industrious and innovative amongst us!
Rhrosty.

Excellent, Rhrosty... therefore it will not happen. Governments need the country to be in constant crisis in order to instil fear and get re-elected. A contented populace will lose interest in politics and politicians, as Belgium proved by running along perfectly with no government for more than a year. We only need a few wise people to guide us who actually know what they're talking about and have no axes to grind - not politicians!

Just fell across this discussion rather late.
The author's whole premise is based on the presumption that digital
technology will be widespread and developing continuously.

This presumption will very likely be wrong.
The material processing and production will at some point become very
difficult to enable the manufacturing of components to continue.
Our main preoccupation will be food production.

Indeed, Bazz - and don't forget the impending water wars that have already begun - albeit without violence so far - between the eastern and southern States

[Deleted - text from spammer. The company is called The Renewable Energy Action Company and their address is Head Office and Display Showroom:
Unit 2/10 Dairy Drive, Nth Coburg, Victoria 3058. If you want to contact them and tell them that spamming forums is not on, then here are their contact details T:1300 533 564 F:(03) 9939 5788 E:info@treac.com.au]