A new use for solar power: pump oil

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Clarke

You don't want to be wealthier than the entire House of Medici , and command more resources than Holy Roman Empire at its peak? Because fixing the world with that seems significantly easier than fixing it now.

Keyword: "seems"
We already have - each of us - more wealth than the lords of the dark ages and we have as a city more power and wealth than the entire Roman Empire. So tell me - why are we not fixing the world with all that power, but instead are destroying it? Or for that matter use that power to a large degree to watch youpr0n videos, football games, commercialy, buy new shoes and cars and cellphones instead? I do not see why even more power should in any way cause such a shift? Maybe instead of minimizing human impact and restoring (if that is possible at all!) ecosystems all that innovation may also just go to develop virtual realities, establish colonies on other planets, travel to the stars or finally wipe out whatever enemies the ones who posess that power have.

Originally Posted by Human No More

It allows more of the existing resource to be used for a useful purpose, so it is more efficient - it doesn't have to be permanent as a solution.

I guess it depends of what you call useful. I would say a free flowing river is very much more useful to the fish, the beavers, the trees, the bears and the fishermen living by that river than if that river is turned into a resource - be it an efficient one or not, the sturgeon or brown bear or local tribesman will not care.
And extinction of species and ecosystem destruction is pretty much a permanent thing.

Wrong.
Not only does a maglev not 'reduce destruction on Earth', unobtainium is not an interim measure technologically.

Oh please - that tone is a bit agressive again, I try to understand you, not to fight you.
And yes, a maglev definitely reduces destruction. It is a much more efficient use of energy compared to regular trains or cars or airplanes. Less roads are needed, too. And certainly scientists are already working on artifical superconductors that will make the mining of minerals for that purpose unneeded.

I realise that problems will never be able to disappear, and that humanity must work to reduce the conditions that CAUSE them. That is what I have ALWAYS got from the message[...]I'm a pragmatist, I have a goal in mind but realise that change must come in increments that are possible, rather than in one single unit that is not. It doesn't mean I care any less.

Well I agree except for the "small increments". We definitely must reduce these conditions, but that is not something that I got from Avatar, that is what I grew up with. For me the message was stronger, because the NA'Vi did not say "we need to reduce the impact of mining on our environment", but they said "the skypeople have to return to their planet". For me this - toghether with me watching the whole thing unfold over the past 3 decades maybe got me to see that small increments wont cut it. Pragmatism is what I practiced long times, but what I realized is that it just wont be enough. What do you do if you see that it wont be enough to do small steps but a big leap is called idealism and unrealistic. Maybe we are screwed, but I hope not. Yet I know in my heart that we need big leaps and not small steps. If that is realistic or not does not matter if it is required, and I think it is.

Humanity needs to survive for the next decade or two (preferably while reversing overpopulation), at which point these issues will not be relevant and remaining oil becomes obsolete.

So your trust in the future is that great that you think we just need to "push through it" for the next 20 years? That what we see is not really a big fire, but just a firewall that we can run through if we dare to and for a moment ignore the pain and fear?

to change the CAUSES of a problem, not just bash at the problem without doing anything to mitigate what caused it to occur. THAT is what I got from Avatar's message, and THAT is what James Cameron himself is doing. He isn't saying 'ban all hydroelectric power' but pointing out the impact of the planned one.

Well what causes the problem is not building a dam - it is the demand for electricity. I think what I do is to also look at the CAUSES, but I look at it in another way, maybe more from a deep ecology or cultural standpoint. I look at what caused the situation we are in now and which now demands us to build dams and exploit tar sands and see if that can be adressed. If there is an addict in the help center, I can give him drugs or replacement drugs, help him to have a place to sleep - I can try to rid him of his addiction - but it is also needed to look at why in this city there are so many addicts. What social and cultural situation is at the root of that occurence. That may be a little less pragmatical and maybe it does not make sense for a simple social worker to think about these problems, but I think that it is a good thing to think of it. So I guess what will be the best strategy is to combine this - to see what one personally can do here and now but also at least look at the bigger picture in addition to that and see if one can act upon that as well.

So I can and will continue to seperate our trash in 10 different bins for better recycling but that does not keep me from opposing excess plastic wrappings or printed spam mail or for that matter oil extraction to make that plastic and deforestation to print these letters.

No, humans would go extinct, most likely together with all life. Humanity would not survive the resultant war.

Wow, your outlook on a post petroleum world is more pessimistic than even the worst peak oil presenters I have heard

Think of it as taking apart a pile of blocks - if you knock the bottom out, you lose everything. If you remove them from the top, you make a difference without standing over nothing left.

Well the problem I saw developing over my lifetime is that for every block removed fromt he top, there are 3 new ones built. Overall the pile is rising and rising despite the well meant and honest and pragmatic efforts of people. Call it frustration but to me it seems that the pile is rising and rising even faster as higher it gets and as much as people try to remove blocks, more and more exponentially are added. This lead me to look at lower blocks in the pile which would definitely collapse part of that pile, but by that also get rid of a number of that blocks at a time. I dont know if we have to go for the bottom. Maybe there are some really bad blocks at the bottom and we will never get there by trying to dig in from the top while there are more and more blocks put upon us. One of these blocks is for example the myth that the block can continue to grow indefinitely, that infinite growth is possible. Another one is that we are seperated fromt he world. Another one is that it is justified to have powerful and powerless people. To dig to these big blocks that are pretty deep down in the pile is something I contemplate. Can this be done by removing top layers? Is there a way? And if so, how much will crumble if we actually manage to remove them and try to replace them with something else?
Sorry for the exploitation of that metaphor, but I found it to fit rather well

You clearly have no idea what the singularity is. Nobody disappears, nobody turns into energy beings or whatever. ... all it is is a specific point of understanding which allows unprecedented progress in a desired direction.
...oh, and no, it is not necessarily AI either.

Well the AI thing may be just one way - I guess what it comes to is that some way or another, beings are created by technological means that are more intelligent than humans. The idea then is that these beings would faster and faster create even more intelligent beings and by that reach some kind of enlightenment and level of technology that is incredibly powerful and fundamentally beyond our understanding and thus also fundamentally unpredictable in its outcome. To think that this means that someone would disappear is nonsense and I never said that. The reason why I compared it to the rapture is, that it is perceived as a point after which all turns to the better after some time that was worse. The world will suffer, more species will die, more rivers become toxic, but then after that trialing times, technology and science will invoke the singularity and from that a new world will be born that is heaven on Earth and all sins are forgiven, all wounds are healed. I think that sounds darn close to mythology, specifically the rapture and apocalypse.