Leaderboard

I do wish you would stop posting hysterical propaganda videos. It is sheer crap to say the world is going to run out of fossil fuel. The problem fossil fuel suppliers face today is of resources they own becoming worth less due to the energy transition away from their use. Solar and wind energy are already cheaper than that from fossil fuel, potentially leaving them with “stranded” assets: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01356-y People like the Saudis are very worried their income will dry up, even though they have plenty of oil in the ground still. As for the energy situation 50 years from now, we won’t be using much fossil fuel at all, not because it has run out, but because we will have chosen to stop using it. There seems to be a political/ industrial fossil fuel lobby, in the US particularly, that is currently employing a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt to undermine and slow down the energy transition. In your previous thread you posted videos seeking to undermine confidence in electric vehicles. In the present thread you post videos trying to whip up fears that we urgently need more fossil fuel. Am I wrong to suspect an agenda in your posting behaviour? Or have you perhaps been suckered by these people?

I think this is the danger of a word that seems to be clear what in what it means, but actually isn't. It is not necessarily related to something that might or might not be popular. Rather it is the overarching anti-elite messaging (as if he wasn't rich and part of the elite himself). The populism part is really that he claims to represent the unheard masses and to rise up against... someone. Probably common sense, for the most part. The platform itself does not need to be popular in the broadest sense (though obviously, it has to resonate with someone). But it is not same as just supporting things that the majority of people want (e.g. common sense gun laws, abortion rights, higher salary for teachers etc.). And again, the misunderstanding is understandable, but just not what the term more commonly refers to (exception for a fairly narrow time in the long past). Populism tends to come out of the tool box in times of crisis, as an important factor is not stating things that are popular, but rather promising to fix things that are not. It was less about being for something, but rather against. And these promises are usually vacuous. Populists/demagogues were fueled in Europe due to the immigrant crisis. What these group did was to whip up fears (and data be damned) and promised to take care of it somehow. Including deporting folks who did not look like them.

WE SHOULD NOT TACKLE THE ENERGY PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS EASY. WE SHOULD TACKLE IT BECAUSE IT IS HARD. President John F. Kennedy said something similar about man's going to the moon.

Within the confines of propositional logic (binary logic, that is) a proposition cannot be true and not true at the same time. I suppose that's what you're pointing at here. It makes sense to discuss whether a proposition is true or not true. It makes sense to discuss whether a proposition contradicts another, and therefore only one of them can be true. Truth is a value you assign to a proposition. A function, if you will. You do not assign truth/not truth to truth itself. Does that make sense?

Sorry, I thought the energy problem would be patently obvious to most people here. If you don't think there is an energy problem, perhaps you haven't seen your electric or gasoline bill lately. Ok, according to this video, a "global energy crisis is coming". Who here agrees or disagrees?

I disagree with the definitions, especially in this context. In Authoritarianism imposing will on others is often a consequence, but is not the definition in the political sense (which I assume is the context). Authoritarianism in a political system refers to system in which strong central powers by maintain their power by limiting elements of pluralism. Capitalism has nothing to do with bettering oneself as such. It minimally just refers to an economic system characterized by private ownership of means of production which is geared to maximize profit. Again, there are consequences of such systems, such as accumulation of wealth (and in an unfettered system it means that the means of production will inevitably accumulate in few hands). But the consequences of definition are not how the system is being defined. Capitalism doesn't necessary lead to authoritarianism. However, wealth relates to power and folks, who effectively have the wealth of small nation, indubitably have great power. Now, if they somehow abstain from the political arena, it might be less problematic. Likewise, if they have a system in place to constrain their influence. But if they wield it unchecked and influence media, politicians, academia and so on, then again we have concentration of power, which goes towards authoritarianism. So populism is an interesting term as on its face it may be what you said, but there is more to it, when we look at in which contexts it is being used and what it describes in those contexts. Specifically, populism was to my knowledge never a clearly defined term. The one point that is characteristic for most uses of populism is an anti-elite (and often anti-establishment) use. The issue there, of course, that those claiming to be anti-elite frequently are part of the very same. However, I don't think that there was ever a clear foundational meaning. Specifically, it was rarely used in the same way groups would consider themselves "socialist", "conservative" or otherwise. It is only rather recently where group define it the way you do, i.e. following the will of the people (whatever it might mean) and I think it is mostly because media conflate populism with demagoguery and as a consequence, demagogues who are called populists are now claiming to be follow the fill of the people, ironically often by using authoritarian tactics.

Almost as puzzling as why do conservatives use "liberal" as a pejorative description of a vast range of progressive/Left policy ideas they don't like. Liberalism is defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy (see AUTONOMY sense 2) of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class) Your definition of authoritarian doesn't sound like the one I have heard or used, or representative of how progressives use the term. The use I am familiar with, and thought was agreed upon, is: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people. Probably a near synonym of an authoritarian leader would be an autocrat or dictator. So, I wouldn't care to characterize someone asking for equal rights before the law as being authoritarian or an imposition of one's own will on others.

ENERGY is that nasty E word everybody here seems gunshy about talking about. So, there really is no energy problem? Ok, discussion points: what can be done about the global energy crisis?

That is, as far as I know, correct. There are some indirect applications in for instance ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). This may be of interest to OP since it is used, maybe on a daily basis, when browsing the internet; Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) is of interest because it offers the same level of security with (much) smaller key sizes than for instance RSA. I did not find an open paper at this time** The following section is an attempt of a summary but it is outside my area of expertise and understanding, maybe @joigus or other experts can contribute: While Wiles' proof itself is not directly related to cryptographic applications, the deeper understanding and advanced techniques developed through his work have influenced fields that use elliptic curves. Without Wiles' Proof the theoretical framework supporting ECC would be less robust. The lack of proof of the Modularity Theorem* could leave gaps in understanding the deep properties of elliptic curves, potentially undermining confidence in their security properties and/or making them more vulnerable to sophisticated mathematical attacks. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_theorem **) This seems interesting but I could only get the abstract: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-3758-5_5

Well, I've heard people bad-mouth electric automobiles too. What are we going to use to charge them one day without fossil fuels involved anywhere in the energy chain? Nukes? Wind? Solar? Hydroelectric? Sea tides? Biofuels including wood? Hydrogen? A squirrel running in a squirrel cage to charge the batteries? If I were to buy an electric car in Iowa right now and plug it in at home, the power to charge it would be off the local grid which has generators run by fossil fuels. There is no place to plug in an electric automobile in my apartment complex anyway. I have an all-gas-powered '95 Toyota Corolla which gets 30 MPG highway still. The purchase price of an EV is out of the question for me. I use 10% Ethanol at the pump. 15% will ruin the fuel lines. My fears aren't that we need more fossil fuels. My fears WERE that fossil fuels won't last forever. My fears are that there might not ever be any fossil fuels alternatives that are feasible. Modern industrial society will someday fold. It's back the bible life of shepherds again, maybe? Every alternative to fossil fuels put on the open table for discussion is going to be criticized by some people. There are many naysayers.

Ok, then what have people in the scientific community taught us about energy? Let's hear YOUR analyses of the current total global energy situation and what the future means to humanity in terms of energy. What are the known facts regarding energy on earth and man's reliance upon it, not the emotions? After all, the human body itself cannot live without some form of energy. Energy is life. Period. I know some folks here hate video postings, but this video poses the question regarding running out of fossil fuels in the near future: What might happen if all fossil fuels totally ran out from planet Earth 50 years from now?