The Manifesto:

 

A Common Elements Approach to Humanity's Future:

What I am proposing is the idea that, to have a healthy economy, we need to focus on risk; a large segment of which is due to our choices for materials. Given the natural global limit on supplies of certain metals, and the risks associated with their mining and refining, I see a future where we have intelligently chosen to use the less risk-adverse metals, ceramics, natural materials, and bio-plastics to replace the current applications of these metals whenever possible.

New battery technologies, conductors, and corrosion-resistant material will be better if made from the elements common in the Earth's crust, and since we have evolved in sync with our planet, we too will be better off, as our bodies are well adapted to handle these more common elements. Less risk means better living for everyone, and an abundant supply of resources that will be virtually inexhaustible.

Green is good but not when it's taken to the extreme.

Chuck, this is an interesting take of the current state of affairs because you've approached it from an angle that I (as an insane Adam Smith Capitalist) have difficulty arguing with. By framing the problem as one of RISK as opposed to making it a moral or environmental one, you remind me of the Capitalist's response to taking on too much risk - diversification!

 

So I agree we should begin by diversifying our sources of energy right now, even if I don't believe in something akin to "peak oil" theory. The problem I see is infrastructure. So we can agree that oil is primarily used to fuel our cars. We pump gas at any one of hundreds of thousands of gas stations spread across the country. Whatever a new type of car runs on will need (presumably) a new infrastructure.

 

 

But even this isn't certain... take a look at Tesla's announcement:

 

http://www.teslamotors.com/

 

The CEO says that within four years such cars will be under 30,000 dollars. Assuming these things catch on... and people buy them due to the low cost per "gallon" of electricity relative to gasoline... imagine the strain it would put on the electric grid! We'd need a few more nuclear power plants to say the least.

 

Here's a great quote from their website:

 

The Ultimate Multi-Fuel Vehicle

 

Electric cars equal freedom. Not simply from oil reliance, but from dependence on any specific power source. Electric power can be generated from natural gas, coal, solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear sources — or a combination of all of them — without changing the design of the car. No matter how or when the world changes, the car adapts, making it immune from obsolescence.

 

We foresee a day when all cars run on electric power and when people will struggle to remember a time when a love of driving came with a side order of guilt.

In the short term we need to drill for more oil in the US. It will take 30-40 years to get off oil so in the short term drill more, long term find an alternative fuel. A lot of recent polls put Oil price as the number one issue in the 2008 election, and I think McCain energy policy is what most Americans want.

In the short term we need to drill for more oil in the US. It will take 30-40 years to get off oil so in the short term drill more, long term find an alternative fuel. A lot of recent polls put Oil price as the number one issue in the 2008 election, and I think McCain energy policy is what most Americans want.

The oil in the US is, in all truth, a drop in the bucket! Maybe we could get another 10% of the supply boosted if we went whole hog on it; so that concept worked well in the past, but we must focus on a common sense, demand-side approach, and find the supply-side coming from as Jay say, diversified sources!

The truth of the matter is, just like it has been with refrigerators and freezers, simply doing a better job with the designs of equipment, and getting the "beer cold", without using so much energy, is the answer! This is not rocket science - just good old fashioned common sense stuff. And many of these gains are already market choices; they simply have to be made available to the buying public with incentives. (as if rising fuel and electricity costs won't do the trick alone!). So, the same thing applies to buildings - insulate, ventilate, and heat-exchangers for air. Autos & trucks- apply known technologies to sharply reduce air drag on the bodies, and use known technologies to double the efficiency of the drive system, whether that be from internal combustion technologies, or battery/fuel cell/capacitor/electric motor drive technologies. (even retro-fits for OTR trucks should boost mileage dramatically, and provide a transition cushion).

Then, on the Supply side, diversification! With reduced demand, a transition to renewable sources (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, hydro-electric, some biomass) will be easy and painless. A transition to high efficiency should reduce demand by a factor of 4 or greater, and thus supply from renewables to meet that demand will be quite easy to do.

The oil in the US is, in all truth, a drop in the bucket! Maybe we could get another 10% of the supply boosted if we went whole hog on it; so that concept worked well in the past, but we must focus on a common sense, demand-side approach, and find the supply-side coming from as Jay say, diversified sources!

The truth of the matter is, just like it has been with refrigerators and freezers, simply doing a better job with the designs of equipment, and getting the "beer cold", without using so much energy, is the answer! This is not rocket science - just good old fashioned common sense stuff. And many of these gains are already market choices; they simply have to be made available to the buying public with incentives. (as if rising fuel and electricity costs won't do the trick alone!). So, the same thing applies to buildings - insulate, ventilate, and heat-exchangers for air. Autos & trucks- apply known technologies to sharply reduce air drag on the bodies, and use known technologies to double the efficiency of the drive system, whether that be from internal combustion technologies, or battery/fuel cell/capacitor/electric motor drive technologies. (even retro-fits for OTR trucks should boost mileage dramatically, and provide a transition cushion).

Then, on the Supply side, diversification! With reduced demand, a transition to renewable sources (solar, wind, geothermal, wave, hydro-electric, some biomass) will be easy and painless. A transition to high efficiency should reduce demand by a factor of 4 or greater, and thus supply from renewables to meet that demand will be quite easy to do.

 

I know, but it will still help a little and we need a tiny bit of help where we can get it. It's enough to have a slight impact, plus billions will be WON'T be sent overseas to hostile nations. The short term solution is oil from America, while we get off oil.

The solution is simple, but people are too dumb to do it and our government is too stupid.

Oh and we have a ton of energy source's in America. The largest amount of Coal, we can use wind energy and nuclear power. We have the options that are viable.

Chuck, this is an interesting take of the current state of affairs because you've approached it from an angle that I (as an insane Adam Smith Capitalist) have difficulty arguing with. By framing the problem as one of RISK as opposed to making it a moral or environmental one, you remind me of the Capitalist's response to taking on too much risk - diversification!

 

So I agree we should begin by diversifying our sources of energy right now, even if I don't believe in something akin to "peak oil" theory. The problem I see is infrastructure. So we can agree that oil is primarily used to fuel our cars. We pump gas at any one of hundreds of thousands of gas stations spread across the country. Whatever a new type of car runs on will need (presumably) a new infrastructure.

YES! Actually, I think Adam Smith was correct for his time; given the tariff barriers in his day,, the vast resources yet untapped, and the level of commerce, it was only logical! And perhaps getting an honest broker is a challenge we may never fully see come to fruition; I'm just optimistic that Governments can once again function to act as arbiters of fair play; a long shot, but one I'm willing to put hope in.. It takes a little revolution and a lot of pressure from the citizenry to get us there, though.

 

Jay, I have to agree - risk management is just better for everyone - and that makes the economy improve as well! If we're healthier, we're more productive, and health issues become less of a drag on the economy (and life in general!). So, I see a brighter future, if we make the right choices.

 

Diversification - I agree 100% on that idea! All the eggs not in one basket insures some will hatch and grow.. I've thought about the infrastructure problem too. It's just a matter of creating either fuels that can be delivered with the existing infrastructure, or easily modified to suit the requirements. Dispensing electricity form filling stations shouldn't be all that difficult a switch to make - just add the beefed-up cables and transformers. Solar roofs, parking lot covers, building covers, etc. should provide much of the source, as well as wind, hydro, geothermal where available - regionally balanced based on available sources. And, a number of autos will know doubt still operate with internal combustion systems. Given that engine efficiency should double or triple (from the current 25% to more like 65%-75%), and drag efficiency should double as well, the concept of using biofuels and hydrogen (from excess electric generation) in IC engine systems will be quite viable and competitive with electric autos. I find the irony quite humorous: in 1900, there were equal numbers of cars running on batteries, gasoline, and kerosene (steam)! We may be coming full circle, in some senses..:laugh3:

 

But even this isn't certain... take a look at Tesla's announcement:

Nikkoli Tesla?:P

Yes, they did a program segment on PBS recently on this auto as well. Quite promising, and even if production doesn't go as high as expected, it should set the standard for the rest of the industry.. (and these babies are fast!! Plus, good aerodynamics..)

 

http://www.teslamotors.com/

 

The CEO says that within four years such cars will be under 30,000 dollars. Assuming these things catch on... and people buy them due to the low cost per "gallon" of electricity relative to gasoline... imagine the strain it would put on the electric grid! We'd need a few more nuclear power plants to say the least.

 

Here's a great quote from their website:

Yes, if they reach their production goals, that's what I've heard as well! Maybe not too much strain, if efficiency is ramped up with cooling and heating systems in buildings/homes, and solar is installed in all those roofs and lots! It's really just a matter of change. In some ways, one could compare it to going from Steam engines to Diesel Electric Locomotives. The efficiency improvements meant less loss of energy, and more value for the fuel cost. I know I've already changed one home from using 5 fill-ups of propane a season, to requiring only one; with a little added solar it could be reduced to perhaps 1/3 per year. So, if an improvement in efficiency of that magnitude is possible, then we need to focus on that issue, and supply becomes less worrisome.;)

The US government could put the billions of dollars wasted on the war on drugs and other corrupt waste programs and fund solar, nuclear, wind and coal power and alternatives to Oil. Our government's corruption might just be the end of America as we know it. With the Euro beating the dollar and it's only going to get stronger as the USD falls. Oil producing nations will start to switch over more and more to the Euro, crippling the American economy more and sadly causing our government to get more involved in the Middle East and more war and violence.

The US government could put the billions of dollars wasted on the war on drugs and other corrupt waste programs and fund solar, nuclear, wind and coal power and alternatives to Oil. Our government's corruption might just be the end of America as we know it. With the Euro beating the dollar and it's only going to get stronger as the USD falls. Oil producing nations will start to switch over more and more to the Euro, crippling the American economy more and sadly causing our government to get more involved in the Middle East and more war and violence.

 

The problem with our government is that it spends taxpayer dollars as if they're tossing around bails of hay. Nothing our government does is prefaced on efficiency or prioritization.

 

The reason for this is that everything is framed as an emotional/moralistic debate in politics. It's the rich versus the poor, the Terrorists (read: Arabs) versus the Americans, the old geezers versus those young whippersnappers.

 

People need to become more aware of when they're being strung along by these ridiculous cliches and vote for a third party. What frightens the Republicans and Democrats more than anything is the fear they will lose a significant % of their vote to third party candidates. And with the parties so close, now's the time to take advantage of that and "throw your vote away" on someone who won't get elected!

I've tossed bales of hay, and it's worse than that!:laugh3: Actually, it's too much influence pedaling (which is really influence buying). The selling of political rhetoric is not the main problem - they seldom do what they say; they do what their investors tell them!

Basically, yes, it does appear that way, but there is some truth in that - 3rd party candidates do dilute one party or the other somewhat, though there is cross-over voting, and they often get some non-voters to vote.

What I see as a solution, which might not materialize without a strong demand for change, is a systems of checks and balances on the campaign process itself. I would like to see a citizen's review board oversee the process, and be able to set the format & questions for the debate. A panel that checks any bad and completely false advertisements, and a limit on the campaign season. Cap the money they can raise too!! (no loopholes!). Break up some of the media monopolies - a free press is the check and balance on political power, and when the press becomes lopsided, we no longer have the process allowing voters the right to see both sides on equal footing (and I have had firsthand experience with this close at hand - two local papers with definite ownership bias as part of a chain affecting reporting)

The US government could put the billions of dollars wasted on the war on drugs and other corrupt waste programs and fund solar, nuclear, wind and coal power and alternatives to Oil. Our government's corruption might just be the end of America as we know it. With the Euro beating the dollar and it's only going to get stronger as the USD falls. Oil producing nations will start to switch over more and more to the Euro, crippling the American economy more and sadly causing our government to get more involved in the Middle East and more war and violence.

:thumbsup:Right on! Plus, the military budget could be trimmed, especially in the areas of research and development of technologies that only create another arm's race, and spend more on what's really needed by our service men and women. And we should be taxing corporations, not letting them flee the country tax-free by putting up a mailbox and a file in the Bahamas, and claiming they're headquartered somewhere else!;)

But, back on topic, if we had representatives (be they congressional, state, or local) that truly worked on our behalf, then many things would improve almost automatically, as they would be doing what's best for the citizens. This holds equally well for trade policy - ethical leaders would want a trade policy that reflects common-sense values, and this would make us better trading partners with the developing parts of the globe. And in many ways, being fair to those in other regions of the globe reduces the threat from terrorism, as poverty and unfairness breeds resentment and hopelessness; changing that equation reduces the chance of seeing radicalization take hold in those parts of the globe, and ultimately makes for a more peaceful and prosperous world.

:thumbsup:Right on! Plus, the military budget could be trimmed, especially in the areas of research and development of technologies that only create another arm's race, and spend more on what's really needed by our service men and women. And we should be taxing corporations, not letting them flee the country tax-free by putting up a mailbox and a file in the Bahamas, and claiming they're headquartered somewhere else!;)

 

Wrong, we need to keep research and developement, but cut the size by 60-70%, pull out of every nation and keep a advanced, well trained Small military.

 

We are about to re-deploy the fourth fleet to patrol south America, talk about a waste of billions. http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=36606

 

The billions spent on the "war on drugs" is facist but by government reports, not working. We've made the drug problem worse, and the war causes drug lord and criminal groups to gain billions of dollars. When we could tax legal drugs, thus making billions instead of wasting billions on something that is not working.Then we would have less people in jail, and save millions more on that.

Nuclear-tipped bunker-busting weapons??:( They're not essential, and if ever they were used, they leave a lasting legacy of nuclear fallout that's very harmful to the civilian population (that's us!).

Once upon a time, I had the pleasure to see some of the research done using taxpayer dollars at the University in Madison (the so-called Star Wars defense programs). Now, spending trillions on things that are never going to work, vs. putting that into R&D for let's say, malaria drugs, or experiments in new solar cell designs, battery technology development, or aid and diplomacy, development and investment in nations struggling with poverty and disease - we'd be much better off. I have to differ on that one - R&D, but of the kind, even military, that is specific for things which are both effective and reduce hazards. Why not robotic equipment to hammer-drill into bunkers using conventional explosives? Better to not create a bigger deadly mess in the end..

Nuclear-tipped bunker-busting weapons??:( They're not essential, and if ever they were used, they leave a lasting legacy of nuclear fallout that's very harmful to the civilian population (that's us!).

Once upon a time, I had the pleasure to see some of the research done using taxpayer dollars at the University in Madison (the so-called Star Wars defense programs). Now, spending trillions on things that are never going to work, vs. putting that into R&D for let's say, malaria drugs, or experiments in new solar cell designs, battery technology development, or aid and diplomacy, development and investment in nations struggling with poverty and disease - we'd be much better off. I have to differ on that one - R&D, but of the kind, even military, that is specific for things which are both effective and reduce hazards. Why not robotic equipment to hammer-drill into bunkers using conventional explosives? Better to not create a bigger deadly mess in the end..

 

Well of course not things like nuke bunker busters, but realistic legal weapons. We also are developing a lot of non lethal weapons. I'm saying within reason we should keep developing good technology. But specially nothing illegal like nukes or bio-weapons.

 

But the best efficient aircrafts, vehicles, guns, armor, stuff like that.

 

As far as hammers to drill into bunkers, that doesn't make sense, it wouldn't be as effective and take longer. We can't stop at every bunker in war and drill it, when we could fly by and take 20 out in a few seconds. It would in fact waste more money to drill it I believe.

 

The reason there are less civilian casualties in war is because of billions spent on technology. So bottom line would be within reason, nothing insane like nukes.

The following is a paid advertisement, approved by Saffire (i.e. Insane Libertarian Nutjob):

 

1. Nukes are fantastic. Load up on them. Every country should have nukes, because the moment they get them, they're free to govern as they see fit (read: sovereignty!). Having nukes raises the "cost" of going to war for both countries to unacceptable levels - mutually assured destruction. This is a good thing.

 

2. Energy independence should be our #1 priority. Forget going to Mars or the "war on drugs". Figure out a way to incorporate solar panels in asphalt, so that every highway/parking lot/rooftop is covered in them. As Chuck said, battery tech is also key. We need to get beyond lithium ion and into carbon nanofiber as our battery material of choice. Scientists: cut their sleep time to just 4 hours a night to accelerate production! I want this stuff now.

 

3. Pot for everyone. This is obligatory, but it would also help to mellow people out, man.

 

4. Change the laws so that corporations/individuals may only give money to a single candidate. Once your candidate drops out or loses, you aren't allowed to switch or give money to the others. A list will be made public of contributors for each campaign. You can give as much money as you want! All other campaign finance laws will be suspended. You hear that John McCain and Gaylord Feingold?!

 

5. Enact an amendment that requires Congress to rescind two laws for every one new law they pass, until the year 2050. Christmas tree amendments need not apply.

As for #1 I don't agree. India and Pakistan both had nukes but still fought. Everyone having nukes only increases the odd's of a crazy person getting into office somewhere and using them.

As for #1 I don't agree. India and Pakistan both had nukes but still fought. Everyone having nukes only increases the odd's of a crazy person getting into office somewhere and using them.

 

There's a whole raft of literature about whether nuclear proliferation is a good thing or a bad thing. I've read most of it (because I took a class on international relations my senior year in college) and there are many very smart people who think both ways. I just happen to fall on the sexy side. :D

 

Anyway, if you're interested read anything by Ken Waltz. He's a genius on this stuff.

Hmm.. Well, George wanted to use the nuclear bunker-busting missiles!:shocked2: So much for what happens when crazy people get into office!

The idea I had was for a robotic lander to land on top of a bunker. It could be equipped with weapons to deter anyone from disabling it, and as it sat there, would be designed to quickly drill and set charges into the bunker's hardened concrete dome. Either that, or perhaps a series of hard steel-tipped, explosive driven points could be dropped onto hardened bunkers to chip away at them, and make them vulnerable to conventional bombs.

But really, I think warfare is extremely dehumanizing and ugly - something to be avoided through better policy choices, diplomacy, and containment. Sell Democracy (by setting a good example) through peaceful means to the youth in those troubled nations - they'll make the change happen in time!

Having nuclear means a great deal of processing, and quite a bit of nuclear waste, even if they are never used. That presents a challenge, in and of itself. If we're lowering risk, the radioactive handling equipment, heavy metal wastes, and dusts from depleted Uranium shells may do as much harm in cancer deaths and birth defects as the original weaponry did on the battlefield!

Perhaps you're correct Jay - we haven't had a major war with another nuclear power, and yes Pakistan and India fought, but skirmishes in Cashmere, Utter Pradesh(?) and elsewhere isn't full-scale war; a simmering border dispute, and no nuclear weapons used.

Yes to Energy Independence!!! But hey, scientists need sleep too! They work better on a good night's rest.;) We really need to incentivise efficiency, where the 'low hanging fruit' are to be gotten. But on the other side of the coin, I have to agree as well - we should be way ahead in solar panel production, as well as wind turbines, geothermal plants, etc.

Nuclear proliferation: some are for, some against..- hmm.. well, one thing that does make me wonder is, what happens when a country with nuclear weaponry suddenly falls apart (as did the former Soviet Union), and then there's all those suitcase nuclear bombs, of which not all could be accounted for! And some of the nukes wound up in countries that were cash-strapped. Gives one reason to pause..

Chuck:

 

I have no doubt that someday, as unfortunate as it is, there will be another nuclear attack on innocent civilians - and the casualties will be heavy. Odds are it will come from terrorists, though, not a government. And the only place to get a nuke (as of now) is from a government/former government. But that might not be the case for much longer, as technology progresses.

 

I agree with you that there are other effective ways to prevent war. There's a whole study of foreign policy which I don't have high regard for, as it is unnecessarily complex and based on the personalities of the leadership involved in negotiations. I prefer a country to take an isolationist approach, using military only for protection and making no alliances or enemies. That would never actually happen though, because having a standing army is far too tempting... for use in other areas besides defense.

Jay,

It seems a likelihood, given the amount of waste in poorly guarded situations, etc. - hopefully not a thermonuclear device, but even that is an unfortunate possibility. Yes, I agree. Technology is a lot like containing water - no leak-proof planets exist as of yet - so even the technology for mining and refining nuclear isotopes is really.. well, it's only a matter of time before some aberrant group does the unthinkable. Uranium is everywhere in small quantities, and isolating the isotopes isn't all that difficult- thankfully, it hasn't already happened with unstable groups!

Washington cautioned us against having a standing army; basically, though, disbanding the US Army in times of peace will never happen - I agree! Eisenhower thought the military-industrial complex was a frightening danger in and of itself, and I would like to see our Defense budget cut in half, especially for the pork-barrel projects! (a good start). Yes, isolationist policies were one of our approaches in past years; I think in one sense I do agree - there seems to be a tendency to use military intervention all too quickly in instances where we should use caution, just because it is part of past policies, and and all too easily used as a "solution". I think it should be used as the last, most grave option only, and more money on prevention through diplomacy, containment, and encouragements should be first! Protection is necessary, but in some senses, acting too late has consequences as well (as was the case during WWII). Had we waited to defend only the contiguous US, we would have almost certainly lost the war! But in the immediate future, I think we will be looking at small actions, and hopefully better prevention through peaceful means. We're too intertwined I think to go the isolationist route today; I like the idea of saying to heck with dangerous entanglements, but today's world doesn't afford much room for that. Promoting healthy economic growth, fair policy, & fair market practices will help out our image more than all the PR we're putting out currently, as I see it. Either way, it's a wild world out there in some ways!! Hope for the best possible outcomes, and keep working towards sensible solutions.;)

While I personally agree with what organizations like Make Trade Fair are trying to do, I do not fully support them. From what I've learned, almost every single political opinion has a counter-opinion that makes just as much sense. You might call me easily-influenced, but perhaps it's my love for all people and my inability to think I'm right all the time that makes me appreciate both sides. So I can see both why Make Trade Fair is good and bad.

In my opinion, I like to focus more on organizations that deal directly with aid, rather than fooling with politics. I believe there will always be political problems, and there will never be any situation where everybody is happy and content. So I prefer to support organizations that give aid directly to those in need. I like to send food to people in developing countries, and those caught in the middle of war or genocide. You can argue about politics all you want, but that won't help an innocent child who goes to bed without dinner. If you can put food in the mouths of these people who have none, you will not only brighten there day, but you will ensure they live to see another day.

So do what you please and follow whatever road you think will help the most, but I believe direct aid can help so much more than fighting a political battle that may never be won.

Hmm.. Well, I do agree on giving to aid organizations (which I donate to as funds permit), as that's the best immediate way to help those in need. But getting elected officials here in this, the so-called "wealthiest" nation on earth to give some of the budget to foreign aid is a good thing. They're not all the same, and checking out where they stand does make a difference! First and foremost, people in Africa's poorest regions need the preventive measures so they can lead full, productive lives. Helping them with mosquito netting, vaccinations, etc. will do a great deal to prevent the health crises they face, and allow them to join the work force instead of having to spend inordinate amounts of time caring for their ill family members will greatly increase their productivity. Also, balancing the trade agreements, which requires the political will, can greatly strengthen their economies, and allow them the chance to get out of severe debt, repair and rebuild their infrastructures, and then thrive as trading partners! Poverty can be a drain on the human capacity and will to improve, and I'm all in favor of getting better people elected so that the poor have hope and a way out of poverty.

Did anyone else see the last installment of 60-Minutes? There's a big debate about ending the penny here in the US; it's costing nearly 2-cents to make each penny, adding up to 10-billion dollars.

I thought about the global impact on the environment - copper and zinc usually occur together (our pennies are zinc-core, copper plated coins); it would be better to use no pennies, or to replace the penny with a common crustal element (iron or aluminum alloys), so as to minimize the use of elements which are rare and very risky to retrieve. A green economy is an economy which is healthy in all senses of the word.