I think that our governments will do the right thing after they have exhausted all other alternatives. With that said, I recommend watching this ted talk.
This talk's main argument is that you cannot defy economics for long. The speaker lost $150 million investing in wind energy and argues as a result that renewables just aren't there yet. Instead, he suggests that we will proceed to using natural gas as an energy bridge to renewables.
When I Google the definition of economics, I usually get something about the production and consumption of goods. I think this definition is too specific and misses the point.
Now that I am studying machine intelligence, a key question emerges. How can machines learn? It seems that the best way to answer this question is to ask, "How do humans and animals make decisions?" We use economic theories and game theories to produce machine 'brains.' Thus, I think economics is the study of how groups and individuals make decisions about almost anything. Even when the decision is emotional, a sort of emotional economics is taking place. We always try to maximize whatever it is that we value the most, valuing the future in whatever way we think is proper. i.e. is a reward tomorrow better than a reward today?
Because this is true, we vote with our wallets. Regardless of what somebody tells me they think is important, I won't believe them until I see how they spend their money. I have many friends who rant and rave about the Alberta tar sands, yet they consume disproportionate amounts of gasoline, jet fuel, electricity, consumer goods and so on. They cause the Alberta tar sands to happen. They would not be willing to pay slightly more to use Bullfrog Power. It is clear then that their priorities are different from what they would have me believe.
The question then is how can we convince people -- most of whom think like this -- to act in line with the 'beliefs' that they claim that they have?
People choose to consume oil and coal because they are made to look cheaper than the alternatives. They are still heavily subsidized in many places, the most externalities are multiplied by zero (most like because they are hard to count). I laugh when I hear someone say that coal is cheaper than oil -- maybe it is if you don't count all of the things that matter to most of humanity.
You can't defy economics for long. Natural gas is now becoming cheaper than coal or oil so I think we will move there next, unless thorium reactors becoming cheaper themselves.
I think that if natural gas becomes our energy bridge, it will prove that our economic system is distorted. I don't say that the economic system is broken because it is quite proven that a free market will choose whatever is 'best.' Remember that 'best' is whatever people actually want most - not what is a lofty goal of society. This might mean that we make iPads instead of feeding the world's poor. It only happens because most people see no reason to care about the world's poor. Can you deny reality?
The question then is: how can we make people care about the things that are in the long-term interest of mankind? If we view people as players in a game, then economics are the rules of the game. We always follow these rules. Therefore, world governments need to ensure that the real costs of our choices are clear.
If there is no price on carbon, then we are saying that we think that climate change is not really a problem right now.
If coal plants can cause acid rain and poison nearby inhabitants without being fined or charged, we are forcing people to conclude that acid rain is not that big of a deal and the people living nearby probably didn't matter anyway.
If people can demand oil so much that we decide to invest billions ravaging Alberta's environment, it must mean that we do not value Alberta's environment.
My main point then is clear: if we value something, then we must put a value on it -- a dollar value. Corporations don't do what is ethically right or nice, they are psychopathic constructs that optimize dollars over some period of time. Coal plants don't have parents to teach them that slowly poisoning people for profit is naughty.
Governments (read: you and I) must assign value to everything. How can you compare things accurately if they are not quantified? Once we do this, the 7 billion clever minds will do the rest. If we end up valuing long-term human survival and happiness, we will achieve that. If we value short-term happiness and the demise of our grandchildren, we will achieve that too.
So if we lay out the options and assign a cost (with uncertainty) to coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, thorium fission, uranium fission, etc. then we can choose some collection of them and discard the losers based on the objective interests of humanity. I think they all deserve to play by the same rules.
This is not a trivial task, since our values and interests differ so greatly. But right now we are simply excluding some values, while including others. Instead, if we include them all, things will change for the best. I say this because most people on Earth have children at some point. I don't think it is possible to have children and thereafter live with disdain for the future without having some mental defect.
I originally wrote this because Gord asked me what I thought about thorium fission. So to answer your question Gord: if thorium fission is as good as it sounds (and I've read about it too and it does sound promising) then we will inevitably do the right things after we try everything else first.
I am optimistic. The reach of education and information has never been so pervasive and will only improve as humanity marches onward. If we are more educated, we will demand more than just a partial edition of the facts when making our decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment