Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Having a 'Better' Economist in Obama's Treasury Won't Cut It

By Rebekah and Stephen Hren, Huffington Post. Posted November 17, 2008.


We must restructure our economy from a foundation built on consumption to regeneration and maintenance.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


Something fundamental is wrong with our system of political economy, and we need to fix it. It's not just that we're spending more than we make in terms of money, it's that we've been consuming more than we produce on an ecological level as well. The overall long-term results are not surprising: we are using everything up and ruining whatever's left, including not just fossil fuels, topsoil, forests, water. and minerals, but many species and even our own climate. Having been bequeathed perhaps the most fabulous paradise in the entire universe, we are taking a giant crap on it and trying to figure out where to move to next. Maybe those folks making all those crazy crop circles can tell us where to go.

It needn't be this way, not at all. We humans have some amazing things going for us, things like intelligence, empathy, and opposable thumbs. Of course we're a little self-centered and prone to believing irrational things like it would be fun to be famous or that we can have an economy based on debt and never-ending growth on our tiny, little abused orb. Fortunately, with a few adjustments, we don't have to shove the whole thing in the disposal and depend on NASA to ship us off to greener pastures (a quaint little bubble on the moon, perhaps).

What's missing from our lives is maintenance, the daily attention and tender kindnesses that cause things to slowly get better rather than to slowly deteriorate. This is how the gardener makes the garden flower, how the shepherd makes the flock grow, how the parent raises a well-adapted child, and how the preacher or the community organizer makes our neighborhoods thrive. Instead of slowly sucking the life out of things, maintenance allows up to create more than we use up.

Of course, maintenance is kind of a pain in the ass. It imposes responsibilities on us, and requires us to actually do stuff. It is decidedly not convenient. The reward? Life slowly getting better rather than worse. A sense of accomplishment. And we leave a better world for our children, so when they come visit our final resting place, it's with a handful of wildflowers and not to hock a loogey on our tombstone.

We are in a political transition, but will the change be any deeper than swapping out one dude in a suit for another? In order for it to be so, we must restructure the foundation of our economy from one of consumption and convenience to one of regeneration and maintenance. Two changes would go a long way towards accomplishing this goal, although it will send the megacorporations into a tizzy. Both ideas are fundamentally in opposition to the current corporate modus operandi of "Privatize the gains, socialize the losses." And while these two ideas might make a few CEO's heads burst into flames with callow rage, they'll actually make the rest of our lives, and our children's lives, and our grandchildren's lives, better.

First, we need to force all companies into using Triple Bottom Line accounting, otherwise known as the three P's: People, Planet, and Profit. This is the first step towards ridding ourselves of our extractive (and hence ultimately doomed) economy towards a regenerative economy that actually makes our world a better place.

And second, we need to scrap the antiquated notion of Gross Domestic Product, which only measures material goods produced and ignores non-traded goods like environmental quality, resource depletion, leisure time, and financial independence, to name just a few. We need to change our focus from stuff to contentment. It's not enough to just kick all the neoconservatives out of of office. We also have to boot out all Neoclassical economists from positions of academia and political influence, including that misogynist dunderhead Larry Summers. These folks just plain ole got it wrong. They looked right while our ability to suck stuff out of the earth was constantly increasing, but now that those days are over they need to get out from behind the driver's seat before they take us over the final cliff: societal collapse. The discipline of Ecological Economics actually takes into account the real world rather some group of nerds' mathematical model of it, and we need to move in this direction posthaste.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, consumption

Stephen and Rebekah Hren are the authors of The Carbon-Free Home: 36 Remodeling Projects to Help Kick the Fossil-Fuel Habit from Chelsea Green. For more information about green living, the Hrens, or their book, visit chelseagreen.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The economy and the population can continue to expand, but not on earth.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 17, 2008 9:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Disclaimer: I own stock in Liftport, the space elevator company
[www.liftport.com] and in Spacedev [www.spacedev.com], which was intended to
be an asteroid mining company.

Our solar system as a whole can support at least 10 times as many of us as the
earth alone can. It is just that at least 90% of them have to be someplace other
that Earth. As soon as we invent a way to make carbon nanotubes both long and
strong, we will be able to build the space elevator. A space elevator is like a
vertical railroad. Once we have space elevators, we can spread out into wide open
Space. The only sources of energy out there are solar and nuclear. Solar doesn't
work when you get as far from the sun as Jupiter is.

The Club of Rome and Thomas Malthus are "inside the 'box'", or
stuck on earth, thinkers. See http://www.liftport.com. The Space Elevator will
allow us to move into space in a big way. We might have to have a rule like: "If
you want to have more than one child, you have to move to Mars first". We need
colonies in space as a hedge against disasters on earth, such as giant asteroid
impacts, ecological collapse, super-wars, etc. anyway.

Space and the resources in space may as well be infinite. The sun always shines
on structures orbiting the sun. There are billions of other solar systems in this
galaxy alone that we could inhabit or infect. Let's have a positive attitude and
some creativity!

Space, the high and infinite frontier, is a new frontier and we HAVE to go there.
We can expand almost forever, or at least for millions of years, if we colonize our
whole galaxy. There is no moral dilemma and no environmental dilemma in
expanding into space. Take a look at the "Cosmological Forecast" at
jetpress.org/volume12/CosmologicalForecast.htm.
According to the Cosmological Forecast, for every century we delay the onset of
Galactic colonization, there will be 5 times 10 exponent 46 fewer human lifetimes
between now and the time the galaxy dies. That is 5 followed by 46 "0"s. Our
population explosion may be allowed to continue as long as it happens in space,
not on earth. [If we build a Dyson Sphere, the multiple for the solar system alone
is much larger.] Once we have filled the solar system, we can move on to the
Centauri Cluster. We should even take enough people off of the earth to reduce
the population of earth. Note that evolution will occur. Space is a harsh place
where stupidity will be rewarded with instant death.

Check out http://lifeboat.com. Some of us are working on surviving in space
while the rest of you undergo your ecological disaster. We can repopulate earth
much later.

We have to colonize space for another reason. In only 33,000 years, Proxima
Centauri, a red dwarf star, will enter our Oort Cloud, causing a period of "Heavy
Bombardment." Earth will be struck by giant impactors like the one that killed the
dinosaurs unless we humans are out there preventing it. We are the only possible
defenders Mother Earth can hope for. We have to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

36 Remodeling Projects Are Irrelevant
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 17, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no possible way to reduce our world output of CO2
noticeably by remodeling your house. Houses don't use enough
of the energy civilization uses. In fact, houses use very little of
the total energy that we use. Houses are a small wedge. We
need to reduce our CO2 output by 90%. Let's start with the
easiest and biggest wedge: burning coal to make electricity. We
can reduce this 40% wedge by 97% by converting all coal fired
power plants to nuclear. There is no other way to do it because
wind power never works on calm days and solar power never
works at night. All that is needed is a change of attitude on
nuclear power. It is NOT a political decision. It has nothing to
do with left versus right wing politics. It is an engineering
problem. It is not a safety problem. Nuclear is the safest and
coal is the deadliest. It is not an environmental problem.
Nuclear is the cleanest and nuclear fuel is recyclable. Coal is the
dirtiest and coal contains uranium. It is not a cost or building time
problem. Nuclear power is the cheapest per kilowatt hour and
nuclear reactors can be factory built. See:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finding truth on the web:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 17, 2008 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Google and the myth of universal knowledge"
by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007

Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no
distinction whatever between advertising and other
information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which
data were paid for by companies for their promotion and
which were not."
"92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the
results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five
years) consider that information from this source [Google]
is never biased in any way."

Jean-Noel Jeanneney goes on to say that the "NON-
SPONSORED" links ARE LISTED IN THE ORDER OF
THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest bidder. Companies
pay dollars to Google to get web sites other than their own
that lie in favor of the paying company to be at the top of
the "non-sponsored" list. Google search results in your
getting nothing but corporate propaganda.

Suggestion: Get a degree in science so that you can figure
it out for yourself. While you are working on the degree,
use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar. On Google
Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the .edu
domain. George W. Bush messed up as many government
web sites as he could get away with, but your chances are
still clearly better than going to the richest propagandist
.com or .org.

Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About
Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a
truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a
former anti-nuclear activist.
Page 184: The New York Times wrote 120 articles per
year on automobile accidents covering 50,000 deaths and
200 articles per year on nuclear power plant accidents
covering ZERO deaths. TV news coverage uses
inflammatory language regardless of the fact that nobody
died and nobody was injured by accidents at nuclear power
plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Theory of Economics and Monetary Policy is Needed ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 18, 2008 12:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Karl Marx, Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keyes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz and Arthur Laffer all have a fatal flaw in their analysis... They are all what are now called Cornucopians, that is, their theories all rely on unlimited resources and energy while failing to quantify pollution and global warming (unmeasurable externalities).

And because they fail to recognize that the earth is finite they rely on a monetary system designed in the age of colonies to exploit natural resources ad infinitum. This monetary system is fractional reserve banking and survives only through geometric resource extraction and pollution.

What we know today is that the world is finite and that to survive as a species on this planet our numbers will have to be reduced and reduced dramatically.

Enabling and facilitating a sustainable economy will require a new economic and monetary system revolving around a diminishing population and diminishing production, results impossible to achieve using what I call "Archaic" Economics and Monetary Policies without catastrophic results.

New theories of economics and monetary policy must be evolved and implemented to reflect our new paradigm of reality. The finite world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In response to inhabiting outer space....
Posted by: using on Nov 18, 2008 1:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting...but it is important to note: that we cannot live as if we have already invented it..and it is plausable possibility. While you might dream and work at making it a possibility...and iron out the kinks of survival outside of our atmosphere .......we are in trouble HERE AND NOW..and that is where our money, our energy and our consoldiated efforts must be directed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The courage to face our present and prepare for the the future
Posted by: using on Nov 18, 2008 2:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an important article. The authors had the courage to take a stand and make specific hard core recommendations for change. Their courage has the potential to direct attention to specific needs for change and open up a much needed dialogue for problem solving out of our box.
However, I do have to caution, we are in deep trouble...so, stay in the here and now....current benifits that will blossom into a positive future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Resource-based economy instead of monetary-based economy
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 18, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this article leaves out is that the private central bankers of the world including the Federal Reserve Bank need to be shutdown.
The current monetary system is a debt based system which keeps all people in debt their entire lives. Consequently, they have little time or energy to speak out against the "powers that be".
This article touches on some of the themes set forth in the movie "Zeitgeist Addendum". This movie can be found on the home page of my website which is www.911insidejob.net.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Malthusian Trap?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Nov 18, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need change, but no one or group of individuals will bring it. The most likely solution will come in the form of the Malthusian catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe.

Simply, we just run out of food and room to grow food upon.

We can thank the Roman Catholic church, and nearly every other religion for the meme of "be fruitful and multiple." We have multiplied to the verge of catastrophe.

The few millions of survivors will, no doubt, start the idiocy again, just like people are driving again once the gas prices have come down.

Humans are not followers of reason but emotion, therefore, we are doomed by our instincts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's take a position
Posted by: Rob_Dietz on Nov 18, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Th authors are right on the mark. We need to step outside of the growth paradigm. The G20 leaders are doing what they can to keep the economy growing even though it's becoming more and more obvious by the day that additional growth costs more than it's worth. What can we do? First, take a position on economic growth and the steady state economy. Sign the CASSE position. We need to rally around a straightforward position on growth and get it to the people running this crazy system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good article, but you forget one thing........
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 18, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many Americans refuse to believe that they must also change their ways. Spending on frivolous nonsense did not, will not, and can not make up for the "lack and emptiness" that many people feel! In order for the fundamental changes needed to be made by our "government", the people must understand that the days of conspicuous consumption are over! Not only strings, mooring lines need to be attached to the bailout money, and definitely there needs to be over-site, by people that are not invested financially or otherwise!

Education must be placed not just on the schools, but to re-educate Americans on the necessity of changing their ways not just for future generations, but for the lives that are currently being lived! It will take a whole village, not just to raise our children, but to educate ourselves! These "economists" need to start living in the real world vs the world of mathematical formulas and theories!

People don't always conform to the "theories" and calculations that are presupposed for them! Of course there are some things that will continue to be such as avarice, cheating, stealing, lying bu these can be mitigated as long as more people realize that they have a stake in the pot also! Either we all swim together or we sink together!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peter "The Great" Orszag...
Posted by: TJColatrella on Nov 18, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am disappointed that President elect Obama does not have a place at the table for Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag..

Formerly of The Brookings Institute and one of the most progressive brilliant economic geniuses of our age...who is the most solution oriented of all economists in America with more hands on experience than many more academic or already compromised advisers, who do have President elect Obama's ear..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good Article
Posted by: tommy_slothrop on Nov 18, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although the best part was the title.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

12 trillion dollar rip-off
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 18, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were just about to unearth a two trillion dollar rip-off when 9-11 happened. Then there was the wars, with a trillion in up front costs and another two in future obligations and economic losses. The tax cuts gave us deficits and debt that will cost us several trillion dollars in interest before we pay it off, if we ever do. Four trillion in economic bailout money that will still leave us with a severely recessed economy. Ten trillion here, ten trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. And what did it buy for us? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It would be easy to blame this on the Republicans, but the Democrats are poised to continue the hemmorraging at a slightly reduced rate. How much money can they steal from us before the people notice some of their money missing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First we must have a monetary paradigm shift
Posted by: klumberg on Nov 18, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without changing from a debt-based monetary system, to a sane monetary policy where the Treasury prints money interest free and, We the People, through the United States Government, control our money supply we will continue down this same destructive path. Earlier posters were correct in pointing out the folly of fractional reserve banking. Usury (interest) is the root cause of most societal problems in the United States today as well as the cause of this worldwide financial crisis. Together we can change this very quickly by implementing sane monetary policy. Here's one plan: American Monetary Act

Please call your representatives and President-elect Obama and advocate for sane monetary policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A man with a plan
Posted by: solrev on Nov 18, 2008 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God told me in Genesis that I had dominion over the creation, however my survival would not be easy. I would have to use the sweat of my brow to survive and that is the true battle of Armageddon. If I survive fine if I do not survive fine, free will sure was a dirty trick. To tend and keep the garden has always been job one for us Christian revolutionaries.

That philosophy works for me better than Triple Bottom Line accounting or Ecological Economics.

Some times I think you progressives speak too good and say nothing. When do we get beyond philosophy and direction and create a plan. During the campaign Palin defined an American patriot as one who wraps themselves in body bags and salutes the American flag. She got a lot of support because no one offered a different definition. Step one of my plan is to define an American patriot as one who fights to ensure the entitlements of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and provides for the common defense and promotes the general welfare. Have that debate and step two may become easy. Do not have that debate and we will continue to fight over the scraps. The only plan Obama had was how to get elected defining problems, he would throw money at, and now he does not have any money to throw. He needs a little help. Define America and the actions required for change become easy. We could come out of this mess with universal healthcare but no one is calling for that automotive bailout because there are not any American patriots. Better find some quick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Religion is a SCAM. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Get Ron Paul Now!
Posted by: The Underboss on Nov 18, 2008 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only man with a strong and healthy fiscal plan is Ron Paul. Obama can learn from him.

Ron Paul Provides Solutions

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Spread The Wealth"
Posted by: Gomeraman on Nov 18, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Thanks for one of the finest articles I've ever read on Alternet.

As a 40 year student of the Bible studying to show myself approved I salute your thoughtfulness in writing this article.

As Charter members of Satan's Counterfeit Christianity and his most valuable employees the Republicans/Evangelicals/Pharisees have got it all wrong through deception (Rev.12:9).

"Lay Not Up Treasures For Yourselves"
"The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil"

Jesus Commanded Us to Remember (care for)
1) the poor
2) the widows
3) the orphans/homeless
Does this seem to fit with the Republican/Evangelical/Pharisees vomit as being spewed from the Pulpits by Dobson, Osteen, Robertson (assassinate Hugo Chavez) and all the other Ministerial employees of their Father Satan.

To Joe the (deceived & greedy) Idiot plumber:
"SPREAD THE WEALTH" In Jesus Name

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait, Hufpo actually got something right?! Holy Chickpeas, cybo-man!
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 18, 2008 12:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every now and again, I see really brilliant stuff on Alternet and sometimes even on Hufpo. This is a double double!

Best. Article. Ever.

Now, how do we get the "we just have to push him" folks to actually.... push their guy to do stuff. Stuff that matters. Stuff that counts, instead of the Amerikaaner bullshit craptasm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is a SCAM.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 18, 2008 11:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability
and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be
required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when
would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in
1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in
Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he
visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high
school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The
correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until
50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who
told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean
Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played
the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers.
By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel
story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first
time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever
he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text
by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion:
There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to
know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or
did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have
been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like
animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the
consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there
is no such critter as "god.". Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from
religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because
the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The
origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy
which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one
time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of
course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis,
iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is caused by any one or more of about half a dozen mental illnesses.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 18, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth about religion can be found in these books and others:

"The Neuropsychological bases of god beliefs" Dr. Michael A. Persinger MD,
psychiatrist 1987 "Religious people are just like my temporal lobe patients"

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" Julian
Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976 "Religious people are just like
schizophrenic patients"

"The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice" Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D.,
Robert Michels, M.D. W. B. Saunders Co. 1971 "Religiosity is a common
symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"

"The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. "Religion is caused by a kind of
computer virus that infects the living computer, the human brain."

"The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer, 2004 "Morality and Ethics
are now in the jurisdiction of Science and greatly improved thereby."

Many books in the new science called "Sociobiology": Morals and ethics are
instinctive and they evolved.

"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. Scientific proof that god does
not exist.

"The God Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper 1996. "The USA is anomolusly
religious because many early founder groups were religiously insane and fleeing
prosecution in Europe. Religion is a genetic disorder."

"The Accidental Mind" by David J. Linden, 2007 Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Religion is caused by the extreme klugeyness of the "designed"
by evolution brain. In particular, the narrative creation system cannot be turned
off. It generates false narratives that are believed by the generating person. This is
seen in experiments done in the laboratory. This book has the best explanation of
resistance to evolution: "There has also been an assumption that if one accepts the
idea that life developed without divine intervention, it necessarily follows that all
aspects of religious thought must be rejected. Those who take this line of
argument to extremes argue that when religious thought is rejected moral and
social codes will degenerate and "the law of the jungle" will be all that is left. It is
imagined by religious fundamentalists that those who do not share their particular
religious faith are incapable of leading moral lives." These suppositions are not
true many times over. Linden later mentions that the creationists [intelligent
design advocates] are exactly 180 degrees wrong rather than just a little wrong.
Being exactly wrong, they are unable to unlearn their error. See Sociobiology or
Sciobio.

"Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism" edited by Petto &
Godfrey, 2007. The ID and creationist crowd are trying to do away with science.
They see science as a "godless religion." Science is a process, not a religion.

"Manufacturing Belief" by Lewis Wolpert
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

"The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", by Daniel Dennett
Let's do scientific research on religion and find out what causes it.

"Origins of the Modern Mind" by Merlin Donald 1991 "So what did you expect
from a brain that is based on the Chimpanzee brain?

"Atheism, A Case Against God" by George Smith

"God is not Great; how religion poisons everything" by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is easy to shut down coal fired power plants. Just make them follow the same rules that nuclear power plants have to obey.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 18, 2008 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every
element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where
you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur,
Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial
grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial
grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the
whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze
it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out
of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to
reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that nuclear fuel should not be wasted in Yucca Mountain.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 18, 2008 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The
army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons
effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor.
Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
Pittsburghlive

It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I
never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.
See:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
Factory made nuclear reactors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement