Belo Monte Dam approved :(

[Isard]

Originally Posted by applejuice

i don't think that it is fair to insult Brazil(ians) by this decision. They need power and (please, forgive me) I think that building a dam is preferable to spend millions of dollars in oil, which would be burned to an efficiency of 60% at best to produce electric power. Even if the project looks evil now, I think that it will harm the environment much less than using the same amount of oil for electricity generation. Time will tell.

Very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by applejuice

It is more likely that private entrepreneurs will come with a solution. Government institutions are too regulated to let money go into projects that may or may not be successful. Private entrepreneurs will risk their money in such projects, no matter what the outcome would be.

The Apollo Program and Manhattan Project were both government funded. Just sayin'. Private enterprise usually doesn't come along until a technology or system is proven, it's usually a government program that sets the foundation.

*also points to German solar power subsidies* (They had to cut subsidies because the industry inflated too rapidly, it's that much of fertile ground).

And I'll just reiterate, there are other ways to get this power. It's just that the Brazilian government is on the rolls with Eletrobras. 11,000MW can easily be provided by solar, wind, tidal/wave, and/or geothermal, and it would even allow people to go off the grid. Would probably provide even more jobs in the end, and wouldn't force 40,000 of the few remaining indigenous peoples of the world off their land. All this dam does is further the status quo that is fine with sacrificing the environment and defenseless peoples on the altar of no-holds-barred development.

And just an FYI, the Belo Monte dam was actually one of the direct inspirations for the plight of the Na'vi. Again, just sayin'...

[ISV Venture Star]

Originally Posted by applejuice

It is more likely that private entrepreneurs will come with a solution. Government institutions are too regulated to let money go into projects that may or may not be successful. Private entrepreneurs will risk their money in such projects, no matter what the outcome would be.

Very much disagree. Corporations are too short sighted and self interested ("...if there's one thing shareholders hate more than bad press it's a bad quarterly statement...") to be trusted with a matter of this importance. Governments, even if they can be clumsy and inefficient and occasionally corrupt are in theory the direct democratic representation of the people and ideally should have their long term interests at heart. Corporations can serve as contractors or sub-contractors but they must have no influence over the decision making process.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by applejuice

It is more likely that private entrepreneurs will come with a solution. Government institutions are too regulated to let money go into projects that may or may not be successful.

Thats nonsense, frankly. Government institutions are very successful, they built the german railroad and postal system and telecommunication network and electric power heavily relied on government help. Basic science is widely government funded, the resulting innovations then are picked up by industry "for free". In Europe, in many places education is government funded and we are among the best educated people. And as "evil" China is, a lot of their big projects are government funded.

The point is also not if they can do it effectivley or cheap, but if they can do the right thing, the will of the people, the sane thing, the moral thing and behave ethically. And that usually involves doing things that do not make a profit and that are more expensive and thus things that private entrepreneurs would never do.

Are you suggesting that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? You've gone to the beginning of the French Revolution, where the King (and nobility) had all the decisions made to their needs leaving an entire country in famine while they feasted for weeks!

I say that the needs of the few outweigh the desires of the many. The kings feastes were desires, not needs, while the people in that country really had needs that were not fulfilled. I think to have a land to live on, to be able to make a living with it, to keep an existence and to survive is much more a need than a soccer world cup entertainment for the other people. In fact - it is in this context a bit funny that you brought up the Frnch King and his feasts - given that in this case it is just halfway turned around in that the majority wants to have a feast and the minority has to suffer from it.

The next thing is that the needs of the few can outweigh the needs of the many in some cases, like if they are an independent entity, like self-sufficient small states, groups of people, indigenous tribes. Otherwise, the needs of 1 billion Chinese certainly outweighs the needs of 280 million Americans, so they should be free to take away everything from the USA because it serves more people?

And in the end your logic even bites itself in the tail as you believe in capitalism, a system in which the "needs" (again more likely desires) of a few rich are valued high compared to the needs of the many. If you hold true to your idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, under your definitions, the wealth of that few who have private gulf courses and jets and yachts should be distributed to the many who are in need of food and shelter and clean water, isn't that right? And in this case I would even agree

The number of affected people (the indigenous) in the worst case is thousands, without power, the number will rise to hundreds of thousands, and considering the growth of Brazil, easily millions without affordable power. How unethical is that?

Even under an utilitarian approach like that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", the "needs" have to be valued. Certainly the "need" of someone to have cheap power does weigh a lot less than the need of someone else to survive...

Actually, more than two thirds of the power that will be generated in the dam are going to be used in cities and houses

That remains to be seen. I seriously doubt it because in ALL cases that I know about in the past, this kind of promise was made and then broken. Usually in form of building more classic power plants closer to the cities to fill that demand and putting industry near the dams because of course the loss by transportation is not desireable.

[apache_blanca]

Originally Posted by Fosus

I just feel bad for the indigenous people of the area. Their culture needs no oil and dams, why isn't it taken as something to learn from instead of yet another thing on the way.

All the oil will be burned anyway (and so will all the dams be built too) it's just a matter of time..

Same here. I feel bad for all the indigenous people. There's so much to learn from them ("the wealth of this land is not under ground, it's all around us") but somehow since they are "less civilized" , they are considered sort of less important. Especially if they sit on the sh**e somebody (who thinks he has a better idea about how the world should be turning, or a better religion, or skin colour, but most of all better guns & machines) wants...

There was a TV interview with an indigenous rights defender, I only got the last minutes of it. The presenter asked if Avatar helped in any way. The guy replied that yes it did - attracting the attention to the cause. "But it is still a fairytale. Guys with bows & arrows against the machines? It's the machines that always win..."

"You want a fair deal? You're on a wrong planet".

Yes, it might be true that this energy source is economically better than burning oil. But what is sad is that these countries, & people who live there, are forced to play the world money & power game they didn't invent, & to live the way that was imposed on them. The world population is big & growing -> the consumption is growing, too - and growth cannot go on forever, there must be some balance. But the way it looks, "not in this economy".
This is sad. Very sad only.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

And I'll just reiterate, there are other ways to get this power. It's just that the Brazilian government is on the rolls with Eletrobras. 11,000MW can easily be provided by solar, wind, tidal/wave, and/or geothermal, and it would even allow people to go off the grid. Would probably provide even more jobs in the end, and wouldn't force 40,000 of the few remaining indigenous peoples of the world off their land.

All good ideas, but of course, the economy must always come into view. Money money money, never enough of it.

[Human No More]

This is an interesting one
Stop the Monster Dam: Protect the Xingu River and Its People | causes.com - it lets you gain money for the campaign without actually doing anything, just clicking on next every few minutes. Put it in a tab and come back when you can, and you're helping... although I'm not sure what it's being used for now

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Advent

All good ideas, but of course, the economy must always come into view. Money money money, never enough of it.

Those are actually more economically viable in the end, the demand is there, all Brazil needs to do is supply.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Thats nonsense, frankly. Government institutions are very successful, they built the german railroad and postal system and telecommunication network and electric power heavily relied on government help. Basic science is widely government funded, the resulting innovations then are picked up by industry "for free". In Europe, in many places education is government funded and we are among the best educated people. And as "evil" China is, a lot of their big projects are government funded.

Yes, certainly, but those government institutions are run by private institutions under services contracts. In countries where the government holds all the control in those institutions, chaos is a normal thing.

The point is also not if they can do it effectivley or cheap, but if they can do the right thing, the will of the people, the sane thing, the moral thing and behave ethically. And that usually involves doing things that do not make a profit and that are more expensive and thus things that private entrepreneurs would never do.

That is interesting. There are better ways of obtaining power with minimal impact on nature. What might that be? Solar? No, very inefficient. Aeolian? still unreliable. Tidal? Possible. Nuclear seems to be a good solution to the problem. Brazil could opt for nuclear power without damaging the Amazonian area, but then the environmentalists would tear their robes and would boycott such solution. Geothermal is also a good solution, but it is not available worldwide.

I say that the needs of the few outweigh the desires of the many. The kings feastes were desires, not needs, while the people in that country really had needs that were not fulfilled. I think to have a land to live on, to be able to make a living with it, to keep an existence and to survive is much more a need than a soccer world cup entertainment for the other people. In fact - it is in this context a bit funny that you brought up the Frnch King and his feasts - given that in this case it is just halfway turned around in that the majority wants to have a feast and the minority has to suffer from it.

I think that having water and electricity at affordable prices should not be a desire but something guaranteed to every citizen in the Earth.

The next thing is that the needs of the few can outweigh the needs of the many in some cases, like if they are an independent entity, like self-sufficient small states, groups of people, indigenous tribes. Otherwise, the needs of 1 billion Chinese certainly outweighs the needs of 280 million Americans, so they should be free to take away everything from the USA because it serves more people?

That's what is happening, oil prices went up because of the growth of China. The price we are paying for each oil barrel is covering the costs of extraction and refinement of a product that will be consumed somewhere else. The price is the same in all the world, despite the fact that nobody uses the same amount as China.

And in the end your logic even bites itself in the tail as you believe in capitalism, a system in which the "needs" (again more likely desires) of a few rich are valued high compared to the needs of the many. If you hold true to your idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, under your definitions, the wealth of that few who have private gulf courses and jets and yachts should be distributed to the many who are in need of food and shelter and clean water, isn't that right? And in this case I would even agree

Name a socialist country that has banned capitalism and has had success. Capitalism has its evils, but those evils are more tolerable to the evils that Communism and Socialism bring.

Even under an utilitarian approach like that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", the "needs" have to be valued. Certainly the "need" of someone to have cheap power does weigh a lot less than the need of someone else to survive...

We're heading to the second decade of the 21st century. I think it is common sense to argue that having electricity is a right and no longer something optional. The people affected by the construction of the dam will be provided with full assistance from the government of Brazil (at least that's the position of the government of Brazil, all we can do is to observe that it will be done properly).

That remains to be seen. I seriously doubt it because in ALL cases that I know about in the past, this kind of promise was made and then broken. Usually in form of building more classic power plants closer to the cities to fill that demand and putting industry near the dams because of course the loss by transportation is not desireable.

There is a common misconception about power consumption around the globe. About one third of electricity is used in residencies, the other third is transportation use, the last third is industrial use (check the IAE website). The green trend is making the power demand to be electricity from renewable sources: Hydropower is the best option yet.

PS: Regarding private investment in Science, without going too far I'll name just one invention that has revolutionized our world that has come from private hands: The transistor, developed by Bell Laboratories.

[Tsyal Makto]

The social market economies of Europe seem to work pretty well. That Ayn Rand, "gummint = bad librul socilisum" crap is just that, crap. The idea that private industry is inherently good, and government industry inherently bad is such a fallacy. Each has a role in the economy, and that involves checks and balances on the other. You want to see how a real laissez-faire economy works? Don't read Atlas Shrugged, read Lord of the Flies. Libertopia would be hell.

Oh, on solar power.
Top 5 Myths About Solar Power | Solar Panels - Green Power

[Human No More]

You mistake anarchism for libertarianism. These days, that is purely the refuge of trolls and ignorant people.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by applejuice

Yes, certainly, but those government institutions are run by private institutions under services contracts.

"Private" institutions that are paid for and owned by the government... it is merely a form or organization. Recently, more of these things have been privatized, but the origins of them, 50 years ago were 100% state funded.
Oh and one of the love childs of energy policy - the nuclear industry - has received so massive amounts of government funding in terms of research funds, subsidies and the takeover of risks in case of accidents and the search for waste storage, that without the government funds, there simply would not be nuclear power.

That is interesting. There are better ways of obtaining power with minimal impact on nature. What might that be? Solar? No, very inefficient...

Well one thing to do would be for example to properly fund development and implementation of these alternatives that do not work perfectly by now - something that costs money and brings no revenue - something no company will do. The other thing is that some of the options are actually quite viable - Germany will take the lead in showing this to everyone and this is the first time I am actually speaking up for this country I live in which I usually do not like so much as a nation state - but the road is paved, the law will be passed this week to get away from nuclear power and eventually coal and into other sources of energy as well as large scale reduction in consumption. And this is actually government action, without such laws that were demanded by the people who went on the streets by the tens of thousands, the whole process would drag along until hell freezes over because no alternative gives as much profit as cheap fossil fuels.

I am not so much for the government per se, I am actually inclined against hierarchy and rulership, but I prefer a halfway democratic government over corporate rule based only on economics, individualism and greed for sure. At least governments have a remnant of responsability and reaction to public opinion while private corporations lack this by definition and are not following moral rules but economic rules and the economy as we all know is a "dog eat dog" world with not much margin for altruism.

I think that having water and electricity at affordable prices should not be a desire but something guaranteed to every citizen in the Earth.

Water - definitely yes - Electricity - If it can be done without harming others then why not, but if someone else has to pay for it, then no. I think it is very much unethical to define "electricity at an affordable price" as something that precedes over the rights of other people just because they happen to be of a different culture.

I dont know what that part about Cina and oil is about - but my point was, that no one in the US would agree that the interests of China should be rated higher than the interests of the USA just because there are more people. Maybe the reality works towards that, but I doubt that many US people agree that this is the way it should be and surrender to it. So why should the Xingu or any other minority that is sacrificed for the "needs" of another country, culture or "race".

Name a socialist country that has banned capitalism and has had success

Well, but according to the principle of the "needs of the many" being more important than the "needs of the few" it would have to be. One thing can be said about for example eastern Germany - there were no people in poverty or without education there. And globally it certainly would have to be, because the needs of the Africans are not really met by industrialized nations exploiting and exporting resources and food from there. In fact the industrial economy is based absolutely on that the needs for the few ("us") are rated higher than the needs of the many (the so-called "third world") because the energy and resource flows are quite unidirectional.

And the halfway "socialist" countries of Europe are doing a lot better in many respects than the purely capitalist countries on average ...

The people affected by the construction of the dam will be provided with full assistance from the government of Brazil

Yeah sure "There are plenty of other trees - they can move!" - Honestly if you would have a home that your family has been living in for generations, that has a nice garden, great neighbors, a job that makes you happy, a fruit orchard your grandparents planted and custom made parts that make it really a lovable place - would you be content if someone comes by and tells you you will have to leave but will be provided an appartment in building 23C in the 23th floor in the city and you certainly will have job opportunities there to work in a factory or callcenter? And that does not even come close to what this means for these people. For young people that may even work, but for older people, it breaks their hearts and souls and they actually die from it. It is forceful relocation - something that happened many times in history and never ever worked to the advantage of the people affected.

There is a common misconception about power consumption around the globe. About one third of electricity is used in residencies...(check the IAE website). The green trend is making the power demand to be electricity from renewable sources: Hydropower is the best option yet.

Hydropower is renewable but it is not "green"! This kind of projects show it as well as the rapid and thorough decline of fish species in the US. There is so much wrong about dams that I dont even wat to start about it again....
And the point about where the electricity goes was not about whether or not residential areas use electricity or not, but all I said was that the electricity of hydropower usually is used to meet industry demands because the industry can be built next to the dam, avoiding the transport of energy to a city - the city cannot moce to the dam.

PS: Regarding private investment in Science, without going too far I'll name just one invention that has revolutionized our world that has come from private hands: The transistor, developed by Bell Laboratories.

Ok, that is one shining and often cited example from a time long ago standing against at least a dozen or so already mentioned here in the forum. My point was also not that private companies cannot invent stuff at all, but that the majority of basic research, like the principles that lead up to the development of the transistor come elsewhere and that government funded research plays a major role especially in areas that are not somehow tied in to applications. Do you think any private investor would want to build a CERN or fund research on climate change, ecology, Earths history, Cosmology? Things that not only cannot be patented but that do not even lead up to technical applications that will create markets, revenue or opportunities for economic gains?

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

The social market economies of Europe seem to work pretty well. That Ayn Rand, "gummint = bad librul socilisum" crap is just that, crap. The idea that private industry is inherently good, and government industry inherently bad is such a fallacy.

I think Ayn Rand was mentally not really a "normal" person. My guess is at least severe autism if not something more serious. And on her ideas this whole economy is based *shudder*
--> video tip: currently running on BBC: "All watched over by machines of loving grace" - part 1 has Ayn Rand in it...

Originally Posted by apache_blanca

There was a TV interview with an indigenous rights defender, I only got the last minutes of it. The presenter asked if Avatar helped in any way. The guy replied that yes it did - attracting the attention to the cause. "But it is still a fairytale. Guys with bows & arrows against the machines? It's the machines that always win..."

That is the sad truth, yes. It is depressing really - because the power is clearly on the side of the machines and imperialists and the only way the fraction with bows and arrows is going to win is if they manage to somehow acquire the means and the power to defeat them. How they can do this is a question that is extremely interesting. Inciting a mass movement is certainly one, albeit not one that works if the majority profits from the destruction of the few. International diplomacy is one, another is probably direct action, but that is often also unsuccessful because the dozers are only stopping for a day or two for people chained to trees or if they are monkeywrenched. Lobbyism works only if money is plentyful.... anyways I think this is a very very interestin topic to ponder - what are the best and most succesful tactics for a minority to defend their rights if they are up against a stronger enemy. This situation is not unique and there have been instances of victory - the USA never conquered Vietnam by military force, the British left India, the "Coconut revolution" managed at least for a while to keep ecological destruction by powerful companies away from Bougainville Island... its a ****ing fight for everyting these people love and I think all tactics are open, even if I personally do not like all of them and prefer any kind of action that does not involve pointing guns, I will not condemn anyone for using any of them if they manage to reach their goals - it is not my right to question them as I am not in their shoes.

[Rainbowhawk1993]

Originally Posted by Human No More

You mistake anarchism for libertarianism. These days, that is purely the refuge of trolls and ignorant people.

Agreed

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Human No More

You mistake anarchism for libertarianism. These days, that is purely the refuge of trolls and ignorant people.

That's what libertarianism has pretty much become, in the United States at least. Libertarianism, as originally intended, was never about economics, it was a social policy (heck, Noam Chomsky calls himself a libertarian socialist, what I sorta define myself as). It was people like Rand (no she wasn't an anarchist) who hijacked it and slowly changed it into an economic policy of extreme laissez faire capitalism, and so called "libertarian" US politicians recently have slowly been crossing into anarchy territory by pushing her philosophy to the extreme (some want no environmental or child labor laws). That policy has never worked well for societies, case-in-point, the Guilded Age. Ironically, some have even turned that philosophy on it's head, calling for laissez faireism, but also calling for limits to social liberties, like abortion, drugs, or marriage.

So maybe that word still means something to it's original meaning where you are, but where I am, the meaning has definitely changed to something close to anarchy in practice. I would like to have the original meaning back, but I'm not holding my breath. So no, I'm not an ignorant troll (thanks for trying to call me that, though, that was really sweet ), my leaders are, and maybe you should consider the political climate of the country I am from before you insult my intelligence.

Haven't we already been over this?

[auroraglacialis]

There definitely is a distinction between neglect and "dog-eat-dog" society and Anarchy. Anarchy means without rulers - Nation states are one form of rulership, but corporate rule is also a form of that - as is monarchy or dictatorship. The essence of what truely is meant by Anarchy in the positive sense is a situation that has no rulers. Such a situation does NOT come from a laissez faire mentality or neglect or abolishment of all rules. The idea is to get rid of rulers, not to get rid of rules, but to let the people make their own rules.
Laissez faire capitalism or "neoliberal" politics are bound to lead to a strongly hierarchical and stratified society that very much has a defined rulership and governance, just not one elected by the people but instead elected by the shareholders and not bound to human rights and a constitution but to the rules of the economy. This is absolutely the opposite of what the word "Anarchy" means.

Erm - OFF TOPIC by the way!