Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 13, 2017
Why the Green Economy Is Here to Stay
In recent decades, global economic development has increasingly been impacted by sustainability considerations. While corporations in previous eras may have polluted rivers, produced smog and run through natural resources with reckless abandon, today – whether catalyzed through government legislation, consumer demand, or a sense of social responsibility – companies are developing and growing their businesses with the environment in mind. This concept, called the “green economy,” takes the full cost of an operation – including deferred and indirect carrying costs as well as externalities – into consideration.
President Barack Obama’s administration placed a lot of emphasis on the green economy, particularly in green energy. Obama contended that the future of the U.S. economy, the health of the global the environment, and the promise of green technologies were trilaterally entangled. According to this calculus, the green economy was not a hindrance to businesses, but a way for struggling companies to continue to thrive during and after the 2008 recession.
The Department of Energy, the EPA and more all received increased funding for the development of green jobs and technologies, and new or tighter restrictions on pollutants and other environmental stressors were introduced. No doubt, politics had a role in pushing sustainable technology forward and in compelling industries to “go green.”
The Pessimist’s Case
However, with the recent changes in the global political landscape, many have questioned the capacity of the green economy to persevere.
The dynamic unfolding in US politics vis-à-vis cleantech is in many ways a microcosm for what’s going on in capitals throughout the world. With sustained economic hardship and ever-present security threats, there is an increasing appeal for inward facing policies that place greater priority on the here-and-now than the there-and-then. As such, the argument has been put forward that environmental regulations represent a yoke on the backs of businesses.
As the argument goes, governments around the world may now look to liberate their economies from that yoke and pursue business and resource exploitation strategies that pay now – even if the lifetime costs of such ventures may be burdensome.
Taking a step back, one can be forgiven if he or she interprets recent events and political appointments to suggest that we may be entering an era of rapid and significant upheaval. Indeed, it seems that nothing can be taken for granted anymore. But that doesn’t necessarily mean all the doom and gloom predictions will prove true. In fact, there’s a very strong case to be made to the contrary.
The Realist’s Case
Let me be very clear about it: all the progress made in the green economy over the last few decades is here to stay. While the changing political administrations are likely to bring some sort of change to the green economy, other factors are taking hold outside of public policy and regulation to cement the green economy as an indelible fixture of the business landscape.
What are those other factors, you ask? By and large, they break down into these 6 simple facts:
The Universality of Wind and Solar as Natural Resources
Even to the extent that the green economy relies on government support, it can continue to expect that support – not driven by a sense of universalistic do-goodery but as a matter of sound national development strategy.
It’s really quite simple: while every country in the world has local wind and solar, the same cannot be said for more conventional energy resources. What does this mean? Well, according to Jigar Shah, President of Generate Capital, it means that fossil-fuel-poor countries will continue pouring money into developing renewables.
Moreover, economic policies in fossil-rich countries will be influenced by the business interests of domestic companies looking to export their technology and know-how to those countries eager to build out clean capabilities but currently lacking the infrastructure.
Not just a matter of convergent economic interests, geopolitical power players will want to keep the green economy strong so – as its gatekeepers – they can leverage access to it as a means to more effectively exert influence.
In other words, regardless of the personal attitudes of people in power, national and international interests alike still favor continued renewable development.
The Retreat of Coal is Irreversible
The coal industry – representing the dirtiest energy source – has been in a steady decline for years. While many coal companies forced into bankruptcy have blamed green energy regulations, the truth is much more decisive.
For a time, coal was the least bad option for energy-strapped economies with few viable (affordable) alternatives. Now, that’s just no longer the case. While practically every other energy option has improved, coal has stayed just as bad as ever. As such, the demand for coal is falling. In fact, coal production reached a 35-year low in 2016, with reliance on it having dropped by a third since 2008.
Still, there’s no shortage of coal businesses in operation, and with a clear and present threat to their balance sheets, they’ve begun pushing the story that the practical collapse of once mighty coal has led to a disastrous ripple effect in the broader economy. Millions of jobs, we’re told, have been lost and a large cross section of society finds itself in economic peril as a result.
Of course, this sort of rhetoric is hyperbolic to the extreme. The fact of the matter is that there are more jobs in solar and wind than in oil, gas, and coal combined – and the jobs are a lot safer too.
In the US, it’s specifically the Middle American regions hardest hit by general economic malaise, that are the epicenter for wind and solar development. Places like, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, where the working class is benefiting tremendously – and stands to benefit even more given eco-forward policy – from the green economy.
In other words, the role of Big Coal as a vital engine for economic growth or employment is mostly a myth. Going forward, it – and the smog that comes with it – will have a significantly downsized part in the global energy ecosystem.
Raw Economic Forces Buoy Renewable Investment
Long thought to be dependent on subsidies and feed-in tarrifs, the green economy is now standing on its own two feet. More encouraging still, the catalyst for this maturation of the green economy can be traced to raw economic forces.
Whereas in the past, a state that wanted to build a solar energy farm would privately award the contract – inviting all sorts of inefficiencies and improprieties – today the process is increasingly open to competitive bidding. This infusion of free market forces is driving prices lower and releasing a lot of previously untapped cleantech potential. As a result, record low per kilowatt hour prices are being reached around the world.
In fact, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that solar power will be a viable alternative for all industries within the decade, on its path to becoming the world’s leading source of electricity by 2050. The IEA also predicts that the booming solar industry will attract a whopping $44 trillion in investments worldwide, from both private and public sources.
But it’s not just a bright future for the renewable energy market, it’s a bright present. Already today, advanced energy is worth more than the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, politics play a very small part in the valuation of this market.
Consider for example the fact that Rick Perry – the next energy secretary of the United States – presided over the largest state expansion of wind power in US history while governor of Texas. Not only that, but by the time Perry left office, Texas was poised to set the fastest rate of solar growth among US states.
The point is that this boom – then and now – is guided unmistakably by business-minded calculous rather than a sense of environmental stewardship.
Consumers Want to Support Businesses that Go Green
Nearly two out of three millennials – who now hold the lion’s share of spending power – prefer to spend their money with corporations who promote social change and responsibility. Furthermore, 60% of consumers of all ages are willing to pay more for products from companies that promote sustainable business practices.
Consumers believe products from corporations with social responsibility policies are of higher quality and pursuantly, they’re willing to pay more for these products. With this giant sector of the public so hooked into the green economy, it pays for corporations to follow suit. Put simply, green values are part of the zeitgeist.
Green Energy Saves Companies Millions
Renewable energy isn’t just a key part of advancing green economy or good for relationship marketing – businesses that incorporate green technologies make it work for their bottom line.
Companies such as Wal-Mart, Dell, Cisco and PepsiCo have saved tens or hundreds of millions through renewable energy technologies. Success experienced by the world’s largest and most well-known companies demonstrates to other businesses that supporting the green economy is not only feasible and beneficial for PR, but profitable as well.
Businesses Committed to Sustainability Perform Better During Tough Times
According to the Harvard Business Review, companies committed to sustainability practices fared better during the 2008 recession than companies who did not. Those with strong commitments to environmental sustainability in particular experienced a lower cost of debt by up to 45 basis points.
Most importantly, businesses that stick to their environmental guns do not experience any meaningful declines in share prices. Businesses with low corporate social responsibility reputations, on the other hand, weathered considerable losses.
This makes a lot of sense if you think about it since a pillar of sustainability is waste reduction. In business, the less inputs a given output requires, the higher the value add. These two concepts – waste reduction and value optimization – are extremely synergetic. The more sustainable the operation, the more efficient it is. Most of the time, there’s a straight line running between efficiency and profit.
It’s true that the world can be a chaotic place, and the times now seem particularly ripe for disruption. But in all likelihood that disruption will be kind to the green economy. No matter how you approach the question, the answer is the same: when it comes to the environment, the progress made over the last few decades isn’t going anywhere.
28 Comments on "Why the Green Economy Is Here to Stay"
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 1:13 pm
Progress?
Progression.
Global sea ice records broken (again)
“According to NSIDC data, the Global sea ice area record for lowest minimum has just been broken, as shown on this Wipneus graph (world famous now because of what happened after September last year; see the dark red line on the right side of the graph which should be fairly easily to spot)”
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/global-sea-ice-records-broken-again.html
Anonymous on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 1:51 pm
More like the Green-WASHED economy is here to stay.
Not suggesting the desire isn’t there on a lot of peoples part to see the economy ‘cleaned up’, but those people are NOT the ones in charge. The ones in charge, have a much different concept of what ‘green economy’ means in practice.
EC is a cheerleader for BAU, except with copious amounts of greenwash(aka bullshit) applied.
onlooker on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 1:58 pm
Guess, when everything is reduced to rubble and death and destruction will people get it through their thick skulls that only a drastic reduction in population and consumption is going to save us. Oops we do not want to be saved that way.
Cloggie on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 2:04 pm
Not suggesting the desire isn’t there on a lot of peoples part to see the economy ‘cleaned up’, but those people are NOT the ones in charge. The ones in charge, have a much different concept of what ‘green economy’ means in practice
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy
dave thompson on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 2:09 pm
The “green eCONomy” Nothing but a corporate CON job.
Davy on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 2:59 pm
Why don’t we get real and call it a diversified energy economy instead of a green economy. Economies are not green. Alternatives are not green. Our attitudes and behaviors are not green and alternatives are not going to change that. We can become “greener” by changing behaviors and attitudes and combine this with alternatives, efficiency, and good practices. The problem is alternatives get swallowed up in the traditional dirty economy just making more of a mess. Nothing changes and little carbon reductions occurs. Toxic waste ends up here and there from this supposedly green technology. So quit insulting my intelligence with the word “green”
We have very important reasons to use alternatives. There is a critical mass of industrial capacity building and a human skilled work force ready to make it happen. Alternatives are becoming cost effective and good choices where in the past they were subsidies for an agenda. There are important applications for alternatives besides the usual “green designation”. Lighting, backup systems, and emergency services should be alternative whenever possible. We need sustainability and resilience and alternative in the right mix and the right place are hard to beat. Alternatives give us all this by diversifying our energy portfolio. This is a no brainer. It is good for the economy for many reasons. It’s good for the future. Let’s do it but quit calling it green!
Green is not the magic the green-washers constantly preach. Greenwashing makes me sick really but it is better than a regular status quo fossil fuel sucker. They are the worst being ugly and dirty. Trump sucks in this respect. He is dirty and stupid in regards to energy. When trump talks about energy I want to puke. Green is not going to save us. It will buy us some time before modern man crashes and burns because modern man is fundamentally unsustainable and systematically not resilient. Longer term on a finite planet with unchecked population and consumption growth any species will crash and burn and man is no different. Basic wisdom tells us this and there is nothing complicated about that. All it takes is a little common sense.
Alternatives can make good lifeboats for many locals. Alternatives are not going to stop climate change because that is likely a done deal. We have poked and prodded nature into doing that herself. No need to worry about saving the climate or reducing our extinction event with alternatives. Let’s quit preaching this shit at least among big boys and girls. We can lie to the kids because they can’t handle the truth. Let build and use alternatives because they have value and we should but quit calling them green.
Sissyfuss on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 3:01 pm
Yes Cloggs, Europe is doing a much better job at transitioning to renewables than their North American progeny but remember that we are a much younger nation with much lower population density. We can hide our crap much much easier than you crowded ones. Now that we have Reagan 2.0 headed for the Green House, the garden will be ripped out to be replaced by a stripper well and some well endowed strippers. The entertainment value of all this is truly to be appreciated.
Anonymous on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 3:10 pm
To cloggster, I would say, and……..?
Energy is not the ‘economy’, even if you and EC seem to think it is. It is the things we do with that energy, that define how clean or dirty the economy actually is. You can have the cleanest and greenest energy production system ever seen(kind of like the one you fantasize exists now, or soon will), BUT, if you use that ‘clean energy’ to power a consumption-for-the-sake-of-consumption economy (ie what we have now), it wont matter a great deal in the end.
A ‘green(ish) power system will still drown in its own wastes, byproducts and toxins just as surely as a entirely dirty one will. The difference? A green(ish powered world will just poison itself with better taste. You are singularly incapable of distinguishing the tree from the forest.
I know, too subtle and nuanced for you to grasp.
onlooker on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 3:19 pm
And also to be real, we are supplementing currently our FF dependence with Alternatives not replacing. Great comments guys on what a limited type of solution this now amounts too. Again, not to be redundant but the point is important. We have simply too many people on this planet and are too invested and addicted to a high consumption lifestyles. Getting truly green is about powering down. However, as has been said that is so difficult now with so many people. Professor Erlich wrote about this in his seminal book “The Population Bomb”, but the world did not take heed. So even if we decided to live the most frugal lifestyles possible we still have needs of 7 plus billion to take care of.
GregT on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 3:57 pm
“The ones in charge, have a much different concept of what ‘green economy’ means in practice”
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy
“A European Energy Union that will ensure secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy for EU citizens and businesses by allowing a free flow of energy across national borders within the EU, and bringing new technologies and renewed infrastructure to cut household bills, create jobs and boost growth.”
Right Cloggie. Growth is the problem, not the solution to the problem. The ‘green economy’ is better described as: ‘green washing’. Total BS.
penury on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 4:16 pm
I do not think that the words “green” and/or sustainable mean what you think they mean. Stop and think about a truly sustainable population of “humans” would be like on the planet. Ls fewer individuals, Right? Now sustainable energy, not much energy required per person in the new world, is there? Goodby growth, goodby a lot of trash that we currently consume, goodbye economy as we know it. What comes next? t will not be nice, But I will not be there.
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 4:32 pm
The End of the Energiewende?
“The prominent German economist Heiner Flassbeck has challenged fundamental assumptions of the Energiewende at his blog site makroskop.eu. According to Flassbeck, the former Director of Macroeconomics and Development at the UNCTAD in Geneva and a former State Secretary of Finance, a recent period of extremely low solar and wind power generation shows that Germany will never be able to rely on renewable energy, regardless of how much new capacity will be built.”
http://www.theenergycollective.com/energy-post/2395990/the-end-of-the-energiewende
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 5:15 pm
I just finished rereading “A Short History of Progress” by Ronald Wright (2004) based on his Massey Lectures. A quick read full of example after of example of the humans repeating the same overshoot scenario. Full of historical writing going all the way back to Sumner describing how the PTB knew what was happening and why, yet kept on with the status quo.
The 2004 CBC Massey Lectures, “A Short History of Progress”
“Each time history repeats itself, so it’s said, the price goes up. The 20th century was a time of runaway growth in human population, consumption, and technology, placing a colossal load on all natural systems, especially earth, air, and water–the very elements of life.
The most urgent questions of the 21st century are: where will this growth lead? Can it be consolidated or sustained? And what kind of world is our present bequeathing to our future?
In A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright argues that our modern predicament is as old as civilization, a 10,000-year experiment we have participated in but seldom controlled. Only by understanding the patterns of triumph and disaster that humanity has repeated around the world since the Stone Age, can we recognize the experiment’s inherent dangers, and, with luck and wisdom, shape its outcome.”
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-2004-cbc-massey-lectures-a-short-history-of-progress-1.2946872
Good stuff except y’all can ignore the part about “wisdom” and shaping civilizations outcome – it’s already written.
All 5, 55 min audio lectures are available at the link.
rockman on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 7:02 pm
Here to stay??? Might want to wait until it arrives before one speculates if it’s going to hang around. LOL. It’s still a fossil fuel economy as witnessed by the fact that 80+ million new ICE’s hit the road in 2016 to join the 1.2 BILLION already on the road.
makati1 on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 7:04 pm
Another bullshit article.
In other news: Why A Filipino cashless society will not work
“86% of Pinoys have no bank deposits … The main reason cited by the respondents for not having bank accounts was not having enough money to keep one. Others said they did not need accounts, they could not manage an account, they found banks or similar institutions inaccessible, service charges were too high and … they did not trust banks.”
“The three most common assets held by households were home appliances (90.6 percent), their own residence (75.5 percent) and motor vehicles (27.5 percent).
Only 5.2 percent of households borrowed money to acquire their residences while 11.9 percent of them applied for a loan to buy motor vehicles.”
Did you notice that those homes were OWNED by 95% of the occupants? Debt is not a worry for most Filipinos. Unlike in the land of the “free”. LOL
Sissyfuss on Fri, 13th Jan 2017 11:31 pm
What’s the deal, Mak? I hear Duterte is pissing off the powerful Catholic church by handing out condoms to his people. This in a country where abortion is illegal even in the case of rape or incest. What’s his next move, pushing the Pope out of a helicopter?
makati1 on Sat, 14th Jan 2017 12:14 am
Sissy, I do not know, but I support him. The church has too much power here and keeps the people down. You should see the expensive buildings the church builds with money taken from the poor. “Taken” is the correct word, or maybe stolen.
BTW: Duterte entertained Abe, the Japanese premier, in his bare feet at his home in Mindanao yesterday. I would like to see Trump do that. lol
Cloggie on Sat, 14th Jan 2017 4:16 am
http://www.theenergycollective.com/energy-post/2395990/the-end-of-the-energiewende
Mr. Flassbeck is apparently still aiming for a plug-and-play solution: fossil out, renewable in and hoopla, continue happy motoring.
Not going to happen indeed.
Replacing fossil capacity with alt-energy is only one side of the story. At least as important is using far less energy. The potential for energy saving is enormous and you can still have a reasonable comfortable life.
1. Why do women need to work? Why can’t they stay at home with the kids, like throughout the ages? A worker is per definition an energy consumer and commuter, big time. And a wage earner, that is going to be spend on “stuff” and tourism miles. And with IT we are slowly running out of much of the old school production work anyway.
2. With the internet, cloud, groupware and Skype around it is no longer necessary to commute for those people with an administrative job. How many of them? 50% of the workforce? That work can be done at home or a small collective office at walking distance in your town/village. No need to commute and more important, no need to own an expensive car.
3. Tourism. When I was a kid, end fifties, my parents took me and my sister to the beach of Oost-kapelle in Zeeland for holiday, 2 hours by train. That was it as far as tourism was concerned. Today Western Europeans routinely are swarming over the entire planet, preferably twice of three times per year. Thailand, Australia, Bali, Curacao. These holidays take at least as much fossil fuel as an entire year of commuting. Life would perfectly go on without these holidays.
4. car ownership. It is probably going to be denounced here as a “techie dream”, but the driver-less car could become a blessing in disguise… since it eliminates the necessity of car ownership and save on the embedded energy of the car. Average car usage: perhaps 2% of the time; the rest of the 98% the car is rotting away by the way side. In public transport vehicles are used all the time, for decades on end: buses, trains, planes and ships. The driver-less car could effectively become part of public transport and as such subjected to rationing, if necessary. At some point private car ownership can be forbidden and car usage restrained. The Dutch government has announced recently that it wants to see Holland become a large scale testing ground for self-driving cars and the first country in the world to make it work. Eight o’clock Dutch news two days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap-04HB7m-4 All roads are going to be adapted, as per January 2017, to begin with with strict lining. By 2050 all car transport will be autonomous (and electric). That means you no longer need traffic lights or traffic signs or expensive signaling. And with more precise navigation, you can work with narrower roads. The new European GPS-killer Galileo (completely operational by 2020) with 1 cm accuracy will be a great help here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)
5. In my own country Holland and perhaps other European countries, all new houses build need to be “energy neutral”. That means very strict thermal isolation, solar panels, heat pumps. A relatively new source of energy, with the potential to eclipse solar and wind is geothermal energy, that in Holland will be exploited on a large scale in the coming decades. You need to drill two holes of ca 1 mile deep and pump water through the system and use it for district heating. The more drillings you do, the better and hence cheaper the technology will become. Fossil fuel based space heating in Holland consumes three times as much energy as electricity consumption.
6. In 1970, for instance Holland used only 1/3 of the electricity consumed today in 2017. Life was pretty bearable already in those days. There is no need to replace all fossil capacity .
7. Increased energy efficiency of all devices. My new fridge consume 50 kWh/year, the previous one 200 kWh. My Philips 40 inch consumes 135 Watt, my iPad Pro of 13 inch merely 10 Watt. But it is possible to watch films (mostly Youtube videos like Alex Jones.lol) on that iPad. If you have the choice you watch your flat screen, but if you haven’t? Lights of 1000 hours life time and 75 Watt are now gradually being replaced by expensive but very durable (15,000 hours life-time) and very energy efficient LED lights (10 Watt, same amount of light).
8. Mr Flassbeck is ringing the alarm bell based on a few weeks of data. The reality is that even in Germany, most roofs still have no solar panels. Very profitable offshore wind has hardly been exploited. Geothermal in Germany? Hardly. The Energiewende is merely beginning, whether mr Flassbeck likes it or not.
Davy on Sat, 14th Jan 2017 6:49 am
“Replacing fossil capacity with alt-energy is only one side of the story. At least as important is using far less energy. The potential for energy saving is enormous and you can still have a reasonable comfortable life.”
Clog, this is a systematic story and it is a global one. One size does not fit all. Not all areas will collapse at the same rate. Any and all solutions are too little and too late. Scale is too great and time not enough. That said this process can be slowed down considerably by your very good list of changes in behaviors and technologies. The problem is you are not going to change enough behavior by talking. Market based capitalism and freedom of speech mean bad behavior and ideas will still be a force of darkness. Many bad behaviors and ideas appeal to those dark emotions that satisfy humans. They are things people lust for and want because they feel good not because they are good.
Forced change will occur from reality. When this happens all those bias and bad behavior that humans have will have to be broken and rearranged by needs for survival. The problem with this is in a complex world of interconnectedness and resource demands the consequences will be dramatic for any reduction in growth and widespread changes in behavior. The herd can move too quickly for the system to adapt. We are no longer resilient to these type of changes. There are too many hidden risks and too much that is unsustainable.
It is unclear how this will unfold. It is clear location will play a significant factor but it will also be the unknowns of fate that will play a significant part in these changes. Luck will save some and others will have done all the right things and fail. How and where things break first will impact us all and provide direction. Currently direction is unclear. Many don’t even see a decline. Techno optimists and status quo “delusionals” see progress of a human manifest destiny. You know, their sky daddy said so. Technology and human knowledge is just another sky daddy. Atheist are deceived by this too. We all have a meaning to find direction. The human mind gets in the way is the problem.
I don’t have a prediction for time fame and the scale of change but I will predict both are ahead. What I am saying is growth as we know it in the 20th century is over. Political, economic, and military realities will be forced to shift by this paradigm change. It is places like your northern Europe that are taking the right steps that are better placed to survive these changes but that by no means guarantees success. Keep up the good work clog. You have mentions many things you have done personally that are best practices.
GregT on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 1:55 am
“6. In 1970, for instance Holland used only 1/3 of the electricity consumed today in 2017. Life was pretty bearable already in those days. ”
And in 1870 there was no electricity consumed anywhere in the world, and there was also no electricity consumed for some 200,000 years before that. Life was pretty bearable in those days as well, and it wasn’t like human beings were pining for electricity, because they never had any need for it.
makati1 on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 2:27 am
Watt/hours per person:
US = ~2,000
Ps = ~100
Interesting that the 12th largest country in the world, with 100 million people, and the 34th largest trading exchange, manages to run on 1/20th the US electric consumption.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20252
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
Poor whiney American snowflakes. LMAO
Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 4:21 am
And in 1870 there was no electricity consumed anywhere in the world, and there was also no electricity consumed for some 200,000 years before that. Life was pretty bearable in those days as well, and it wasn’t like human beings were pining for electricity, because they never had any need for it.
It may be true that at all points in history life was bearable…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmX7K8noikE
…otherwise we would have seen mass suicides in history. “Stepping out” is not that difficult.
But you only need to run a vegetable garden to be confronted with the universal desire/lust/will to live, survive and blossom. Rain, snow, frost, darkness… next Spring life will be back, with a vengeance. Put seeds in the soil and observe how the little fellas are competing for every sun ray and drop of water.
Leading a life without electricity is perhaps possible, but why should we aim for that.
My “ideal” world: my Europe from Atlantic to Urals covered with forests, clean rivers, far less people (and Europeans only), beautiful cities in ancient architecture (no ugly modern sky scrapers) and at some open spaces in the forest rocket launchers for the Moon and Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3oHmVhviO8
Back to nature? Fine. But please don’t do it over your lungs.
peakyeast on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 4:27 am
Crime experts document unholy alliance between Mafia and Vatican
https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2014/11/14/authors_present_work_on_ties_between_mafia_and_church_at_inspire_book_fair_sunday.html
Seems like Duterte should excommunicate that sick religion from his country.
makati1 on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 5:39 am
Peaky, they are all sick. Protestant, Catholic, Jews, Mormons, etc. ALL are only about power and wealth at the top. The top of every religion is filled with greedy, power hungry men. But then, so is every government and corporation. It is a common sickness in humans. But we are well on the way to exterminating the problem forever. Be patient.
Cloggie on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 6:24 am
The top of every religion is filled with greedy, power hungry men. But then, so is every government and corporation.
You just described the essence of organic life in a Darwinian world, a world that every kristian/commie seeks to eliminate. Every beehive and wasp nest has a queen. Every monkey tribe has a “greedy, power-hungry” alpha male. And now both Russia and the US have their own alpha males, replacing the globalist Trotsky and Soros types.
But we are well on the way to exterminating the problem forever. Be patient.
Translation: life shouldn’t exist. Nihilism in action.
A lot of people here have that attitude, the vulgar sexual deviant idiot jailbird from Vanhooker comes to mind. Peak oil, resource depletion, over-population, climate change, collapse, all serious issues, but it provides a lot of folks here with ammo to unload their mental problems onto the rest of the world via the internet.
It is one giant orgiastic glee with a collapsing world (or so they hope). If you want to witness the slow or sudden collapse of Anglosphere as the world’s top dog first hand, come to this forum.
Davy on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 8:12 am
Your atheism makati is no different. Atheist love to believe in science, progress, and development. Look where that is getting us. You can’t blame everything on religion. Increasingly the world is going secular and it is increasingly diving into a hole of collapse. Your atheist mentality is little different than the extremes of religion. Maybe the problem is man himself in any form. Religion is a convenient scapegoat for hypocrites and assholes.
onlooker on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 9:14 am
I think you hit it on the nail Davy with “Maybe the problem is man himself in any form.” Yes, all these institutions and constructs we criticize in the end are man made and reflect our own weaknesses, vulnerabilities, vices etc. Our progress as a species accelerated technologically but became stagnated spiritually. To criticize anything on this Earth related to humans is to peer into the collective psyche of humans. As E.O. Wilson stated and I paraphrase — The problem with us, is we exhibit paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions but God like technology.
GregT on Sun, 15th Jan 2017 11:20 am
“It may be true that at all points in history life was bearable……otherwise we would have seen mass suicides in history. “Stepping out” is not that difficult.”
Over one million people die by suicide worldwide each year.
The global suicide rate is 16 per 100,000 population.
On average, one person dies by suicide every 40 seconds somewhere in the world.
1.8% of worldwide deaths are suicides.
Global suicide rates have increased 60% in the past 45 years.
http://www.suicide.org/international-suicide-statistics.html
It would appear that life has become more unbearable, rather than more bearable.
“Leading a life without electricity is perhaps possible, but why should we aim for that.”
Perhaps because it has removed us from those things in life that have real meaning Cloggie.