HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » ScientificAmerican: Insid... » Reply #10

Response to solarhydrocan (Original post)

Sat Feb 15, 2014, 01:30 PM

10. If this is the answer, then there is something seriously wrong with the question.

The question shouldn't be "How do we replace fossil (or nuclear) fuels with solar?"

The question should be "How do we improve the standard of living for all people (not just the wealthy) and reduce the impact of humans on earth's environment?)

The answer to that question does not involve a very expensive mish-mash of Rube Goldberg technologies.

The most effective answer is to limit human populations. Generally, people will have fewer children if they have easy access to birth control, medical care is good, people are educated (especially women!), standards of living are comfortable, and elderly people are financially independent of their own children or grandchildren.

The next most effective answer is to build an attractive, much less energy intensive society than we have now.

One of the first things that struck me in this article was the $3000 average annual gasoline cost quoted. I drive a recycled "salvage title" car and maybe use about $400 gasoline annually, and the numbers are similar for my wife. (These are current, high, California gasoline prices.) My wife and I used to be Los Angeles commuters, back in the mid 'eighties, but by planning and some good fortune we've managed to avoid that lifestyle since. Ideally, I'd like to live in a fully walkable community where we didn't need cars.

I confess I am a very simple person who could live in a tiny house in a garden with a solar powered laptop and reading light. After I went off to college, and before I met my wife, it was a common living situation for me. I know I can live without a refrigerator, or even a washing machine. (I know I can live in my car too, but that's another story...) One of my great grandma's lived in more primitive conditions than that, with no running water, well into her eighties.

But that's not the sort of life I'm talking about. I imagine dense semi-urban cosmopolitan walkable communities with private home ownership, gardens, good public transportation; places with good plentiful jobs; places where owning a car is something few people desire.

I'm not the sort of architectural fascist who would force people into such communities, not at all so much as I feel forced to live as I do now in a suburban house within a smaller city, with a car in the driveway. But I am the sort who is pushing for low energy, low resource-intensive lifestyles that are more attractive than those generally offered by today's U.S.A. society.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 OP
onethatcares Feb 2014 #1
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #2
Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2014 #5
fasttense Feb 2014 #3
eridani Feb 2014 #4
cantbeserious Feb 2014 #6
DeSwiss Feb 2014 #7
Martin Eden Feb 2014 #8
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #15
neverforget Feb 2014 #9
LineReply If this is the answer, then there is something seriously wrong with the question.
hunter Feb 2014 #10
MH1 Feb 2014 #13
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #14
hunter Feb 2014 #16
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #17
El_Johns Feb 2014 #11
Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #12
greytdemocrat Feb 2014 #18
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #19
1000words Feb 2014 #20
Yo_Mama Feb 2014 #21
solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #22
Please login to view edit histories.