by Wildwell » Sun 17 Apr 2005, 15:57:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, economies are also capable of reorganisation and efficiency.
No
These gains are absorbed by the market and redistributed in various ways.
Despite of decades of advances in efficiency, the savings have resulted in growth.
-----------------------------------------------
The Earth does indeed receive it's primary energy from the sun, which is about as renewable as it gets in our universe. We just don't know how to harness it properly yet. In fact, oil is a renewable fuel... it just takes millions of years to produce in quantity.
-------------------------------------------------
Holding up Cuba or Eastern European examples of how there is no meaningful linkage to energy supplies is flawed.
Cuba is an impoverished nightmare supported by vice industries which compose their lucrative black market. Poverty is widespread, and living conditions 3rd world for most of it's population. And I don't have to google for that... I have been there and seen this "oil free" country myself.
Eastern European countries with strong socialist tendencies who subsidize their industries to skew the markets are also a poor example. While this strategy has provided some short term benefits by concealing the real picture, these countries are currently beginning to feel the effects as they are unable to sustain this process. That you can google yourselves.
---------------------------------------------------
This idea that economic health can be maintained absent a cheap plentiful energy supply is counterintuitive.
Just like JD's example above about energy requirements for computer training, oil's hidden subsidy masks the real energy costs. From the energy required for the secretary at XYZ Company to drive to Starbuck's for a latte enema, to the CRT which broadcasts John's course ware, oil's hidden fingerprint is everywhere.
As any 7th grade physics student should be able to tell you.
Energy is the ability to perform activities.
Less energy = less activity possible.
I'll say again for the last time, it depends how you use that energy. By that token, you must therefore assume that all these cars, planes and plastics actually did something useful in terms of the economy, in terms of a specific country and the wider context. What would have been the effect if we hadn't invented them?