Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

[Shahram Mostarshed <smostarshed@gmail.com>]

"Can you give a single example of a universally used product that came
about without profit or enhanced productivity at the root of its creation?"
- How about the Internet?

My background is in high tech, so I know a thing or two about engineered
obsolescence. The profit motive is so strong that people simply try to rush
things out the door and "fix" the problems in the next upgrade.

The way I see it there are three paths we have to choose from:  Military
competition, Economic competition, or
Peaceful coexistence - which would necessarily require a sharing of
resources, economic and military.

This requires an insurmountable paradigm shift. The odds are against us I'm
afraid.

Shahram


On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM, LaMontagne, Bob <RLAMONT@providence.edu>wrote:

> I have kept quiet so far because this has been a boring rehash of old
> arguments. However, I couldn't resist this comment about how "we" should
> make products that last a lifetime. We would not be sitting here discussing
> this topic on an internet populated with computers with a useful life of a
> couple of years if we followed that dictum.
>
> What would we have (beyond banging rocks together) without a profit based
> system? Can you give a single example of a universally used product that
> came about without profit or enhanced productivity at the root of its
> creation? Even long lived tools like hammers came about to make the use of
> our hands more efficient - not because they last long. Short-lived nail
> guns have replaced hammers in construction because of efficiency. Any
> contractor who would forgo using a nail gun and revert to less efficient
> hammers "to realize that every dollar they spend is equivalent to a certain
> amount of carbon emissions" would be an absolute idiot and would soon go
> out of business.
>
> Bob at PC
>
> ________________________________________
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [
> phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] on behalf of Shahram
> Mostarshed [smostarshed@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:36 PM
> To: marx@phy.ilstu.edu; Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike
> Mann _The hockey
>
> "The connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise has not
> been demonstrated" - I thought the discussion was based on the "hockey
> stick" evidence. Are you disputing it?
>
> Profit based production leads to the current phenomenon of engineered
> obsolescence. We need to design products that last a lifetime and are fuel
> efficient, all of which goes against the current profit based system of
> consumption. If people are urged to realize that every dollar they spend is
> equivalent to a certain amount of carbon emissions, perhaps that would be a
> good start.
>
> Shahram
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM, David Marx <marx@phy.ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> > On 20 Feb 2012 at 10:45, Shahram Mostarshed wrote:
> >
> > > Climate is too complex to analyze at a fundamental level. We don't have
> > another planet to
> > > conduct a controlled experiment where we can tweak the variables one at
> > a time to see the
> > > outcome. The best we can hope for is a statistical analysis of climate
> > patterns.
> > > The real question we ought to be asking is given the fact that there is
> > a direct and indisputable
> > > connection between carbon emissions and temperature rise, should we
> > continue with the current
> > > rate of consumption and production (based on profits)?
> > > Shahram
> >
> > Two issues with your message:
> > (1)  The connection between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise has
> > not been demonstrated.
> > It is assumed based on knowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
> > and that the quanity in the
> > atmosphere has increased and is increasing due to fossil fuel
> consumption.
> > (2) You make the assumption that consumption and production are based on
> > profits.  The lifestyle and
> > quality of life enjoyed by modern society is the direct result of access
> > to energy resources that have
> > enabled the production of goods and services that employ people and drive
> > economies.  There is a
> > correlation between per capita energy usage and GDP and also the UN's
> > human development index
> > (HDI).  Yes, we could reduce consumption by choice or by government
> > mandate, but that would
> > severely damage the economy.  An alternative is to maintain or improve
> > quality of life and economic
> > capacity by increasing efficiencies and by using a mixture of all
> > available energy resources going
> > forward with the concept that we are moving in the direction of clearner,
> > more environmentally firendly
> > techologies (if there are any).  Some have the simplistic view that
> > increasing prices on fossil fuels will
> > cause everyone to move toward renewables.  This cannot work because (1)
> we
> > get 83 % of our energy
> > of fossil fuels, (2) the US is currently using around 95 quadrillion BTU
> > per year, and (3) raising energy
> > costs damages the economy that is required to provide resources for the
> > development of the
> > alternatives.  If someone loses their job, they cannot afford to install
> a
> > solar array on their home
> > (especially since it is likely to be reposessed).
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l