Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Connecting the grid is a matter of decision.
|
No, connecting the grid is a matter of economics. We don't will things into being, we act on that will, which requires expenditure of resources. Expenditure of resources has to be weighed against the opportunity cost (the things you can no longer afford if you expend resources a particular way)
Quote:
|
Weather variability is just something we have to design for.
|
Yeah, just like cancer is just something we have to design for. Very complex problems are no simple task, which isn't to say they aren't solvable or unworthy of making an attempt, but a reliable interconnected grid powered almost exclusively by renewable energy is seriously difficult. I mean, we're pretty sophisticated as a species now, in fact the most sophisticated we've ever been, and we don't already have this wonder system in place.
Quote:
|
If we're talking about an existential threat to the entire planet then economics becomes meaningless.
|
Well, we're not talking about an existential threat to the entire planet, therefore economics is nearly everything.
Quote:
|
Money is just a construct.It has no wealth.It is not wealth.It's just a medium of exchange.
|
It isn't just a medium of exchange. It's also a:
- Unit of Account- Standard numerical monetary unit of measurement of market value of goods and services
- Standard of Deferred Payment- Method of settling debts. When you perform work for an employer, they become indebted to you, and settle this debt by issuing a paycheck.
- Store of Value- Relatively stable store of value until it is converted to a medium of exchange at a later time
In other words, money represents future ability to produce goods and services. No money, no goods and services, and no extremely complex and resource intensive renewable energy systems.
Quote:
|
As to running out of things,I'm just parroting what Lomberg published.He's held in high regard for his economic and statistical prowess,and I thought his predictions would be germane to the conversation.
|
I don't know who Lomberg is, so I'm unfamiliar with how well regarded he is regarding the discussion at hand. Reputation aside, if any person has compelling evidence to support a claim, I'm very eager to see it, and willing to accept reasonable conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
How we can equitably distribute wealth in a receding economy. And how to educate people to get them to accept a negative population rate.
|
I'd look to other countries that have receding populations as a study in what works well, and what does not (Japan). I'm not convinced the contraction is the steep cliff you allude to, and anticipate more of a gentle downward slope.
As long as people are laboring for their money, it is immoral to take that earned money to distribute to those who have not labored. When robots are doing most of the laboring and there are no jobs for people, then distribution of wealth is moral.