Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

No that is oversimplifying, even though there is alot to be said in regard to positive thinking versus negative thinking. But the argument is hinged largely on whether or not technology is a solution to the Malthusian Catastrophe, all other natural catastorphes aside (meteors, floods, earthquakes, etc.)

I think what you are referring to Dave is the fact that many people use the technology argument to justify mindless hedonism and disregard for the envoronment? To that extent we agree that there is a flaw in the culture of consumption and the reliance on technology as the solution?

There is a third group that believes that the world will end soon ("Left Behind", Millenialists) and that we don't need to worry about the environment because of it. That is what I was alluding to with the James Watt thing.

OK, good to have a topic for this. I am an Objectivist (Ayn Rand philosophy - books by Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged', 'The Fountainhead', Virtue of Selfishness, and many others).

We have had many socialist/communist systems for many centuries. They have never lead to the improvements in the human condition that capitalism does.

When you talk about limited resources, please remember that people were sure New York City would soon be baried in horse crap (no one conceived of the auto replacing horses). I had my own philosophy (unnamed) before I went to work at Bell Telephone Laboratories at the age of 26. That is where I heard of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It amazed me how close I was to that on my own with no knowledge that it existed. I am clearly a cornucopia person based on my observations of current and past examples of how things have and do work.

Just to make my it more complicated, I choose to lead a similar life style to those who believe quite differently. I live on a 4 hectare(10acre) property and raise as much food as I can myself and I am always striving to be more self reliant (what can I say, I am a controls engineer and a control freak...it is my nature). My system tolerates all other systems (unless they use force or otherwise compeal compliance to their 'rules'). I am a capitalist...we do not ever outlaw any form of collectivism you want to have. On the other hand collectivism always outlaws (or enslaves capitalism with taxes to support collectivism). Capitalism is freedom to be capitalist or collectivist as you wish and change daily. Collectism means taking from some and giving to others with 'social engineering'. Well that is just enslaving those you take from. Charity should be voluntary and not a tax you go to jail for not paying. I guess I believe in the good of mankind and that there would be much giving without force. The collectivist seems to think charity should be at the force of the gun. My signature line shows what I think governments role is (and so did the founding fathers of the USA). We are very far from that now.

I do not restrain my use for natural gas because I have good uses for it, I pay what it costs, and like horse crap in New York, I expect technology to solve our problems.

Are you not all amased at how far we have come in 300 years (due almost exclusively to technology, which only thrives in capitalism? Kings did not live as well as the lowest income workers of today. Famines were common until the industrial revolution, then things took off and people had the luxury to worry how many hours children were worked. Good, but first they have to not starve as they always had before.

The only socialism that works is one that allows heavily taxed capitalism to continue and feed all the socialist programs. It is like a vampire drawing just enough blood to keep the victim alive.

My AP systems highest goal is to use minimum energy and to pass the ideas along to others. I leave a medium footprint on the earth and do not feel guilty. Objectivism is all about being rational and holding life as the highest value. That leads me to my life style. Objectivism is based on provable facts not mysticism or conjecture, therefore I am also an atheist. I will and always have changed my opinion instantly based on provable facts. Show me the facts and you can convert me from any opinion I have, even if held all my life.

Long winded am I not? But these are the philosophical underpinnings that rule my values, happyness, goals, and my life. Why would that be simple or short?

I hope we have a fun and lively talk here. This is a forum of above average people with big ideas. I love that environment!

Thanks for moving this discussion to another topic.

First to answer Doug's question:



The bubble system is simple yet contains complex thermodynamics. I'll try to give you a brief answer to your questions without giving you a whole encyclopedia entry on the topic. And understand that I'm speaking from theory not experience -- I've been lurking on the solaroof group for at least 4 years.

The bubble solution is essentially water-clear -- in fact it is at least 85% water. When bubbles are filling the cavity, it produces about 50% shade (somewhat more or less depending on the thickness of the bubbles) This can be an advantage for certain crops that need lower light levels -- or in the event that the daytime cooling system is not sufficient to keep the greenhouse temperatures low. ( Many greenhouses in the US use shade cloth, retractable curtains, or even paint to block some light from their greenhouses -- primarily to reduce the costs of ventilating and cooling. Retractable curtains being the most expensive but giving the ability to adjust and also conserve energy at night. I see bubbles as a novel replacement for retractable energy curtains.)

When the bubbles are no longer needed, they can be removed in minutes (depending on the bubble generator). Richard Nelson's bubble generator uses a washdown motor driving a fan, a pump with a nozzle and a screen. when bubbles are required, but the pump and the fan are energized. Bubble solution sprays from the nozzle, wets the screen and then is inflated by the fan and propelled into the bubble cavity. Bubbles reportedly remain for 4 to 6 hours under normal conditions. (the ones that pop drip down and create a sheet of warmer water that trickles down the inside layer of the cavity) When bubbles are no longer required, the fan is energized without the pump -- bubbles are sucked from a lower portion of the cavity and "popped" by the fan and the screen. The "deflated" bubble solution simply runs down the inner layer of the cavity.

When the sun rises and the greenhouse gets hot, the bubble solution can be pumped up to the top of the greenhouse and either sprayed or dripped such that it sheets down the inner layer of the cavity -- thus turning the whole greenhouse into a huge solar collector -- which does two things cools the greenhouse (extracting heat from the top of the greenhouse where it would tend to be the warmest) and warms up the bubble solution. With a sufficient mass of bubble solution, a large amount of heat could be stored -- perhaps enough to keep the greenhouse warm overnight.

(Richard Nelson owned 3 or 4 patents on the process and worked with several companies to bring it to market or produce with it -- apparently he was cheated out of any benefit from his innovations by lawyers, universities and corporations.)

And now to comment on the topic at the topic at hand. My world view leans toward Malthus but perhaps in a unique way. I was raised as an "end time" Christian and when I went to school, I learned the usual drivel about the population explosion and peak oil. So whether I look to my upbringing or my schooling, I expect that very likely something cataclismic will happen to the human race -- whether it be "God's judment for sin" or the outcome of man's choices. And likely anything that happens will be interpreted differently by people of differing world views -- and used as leverage by politicians, preachers, and policymakers alike, to further agendas. Nuclear war isn't totally out of the question. Massive volcanic eruptions could create an ice age. Solar flares could overheat the earth and disrupt or destroy electrical and electronic devices (and therefore disrupting the infrastructure of the modern world) A comet or asteroid could hit the earth. Or polar ice caps could melt and flood the coastal areas. Or perhaps an epidemic like the black death...

So I guess I still believe that the Biblical prophecy "the elements will melt with a fervent heat" will be fulfilled one way or another -- whether the heat is thermal or the heat of greed. Greed certainly has devasted many parts of the planet. But I hope to be one of those who "are alive and remain" whatever happens. And I intend to help anyone who comes to me in need. I am not envisioning myself as a hero that will "save the world" but I want to be a survivor. And if die trying, but manage to impart to my children the importance of thinking for themselves, taking reponsibility for their actions, dicernment, and appetite for truth, I will not have failed.

yea I read that (James Watt).... interestingly I did not know that about James Watt being a conservative Christian, almost fundamentalist. That is pretty radical if you think about it. As a non-believer, I have a hard time with justifying the over consumption of resources or the principle of emminent domain under God.

ems, we sure have different backgrounds (no religion in mine) but our conclusions are similar. Very interesting. I am sure we differ on some things, but I think we could be good neighbors and friends.

I consume, but I do not waste! I could live in the woods with zero impact and be happy. On the other hand, I love technology & knowledge. Being able to buy computers for the price of a dinner in some restaraunts is so great. I appreciate that now our great (yes, I mean great), industrial complex makes nails dirt cheap when they used to be made on an anvil and cost a fortune. There are so many examples, like 2 gigabyte flash memories for $25.00 Wow! It amazes me. Can we find bad and immoral industrialists...yes, plenty. But many must be doing something right. As I said before, ideas are the most valuable thing and should be protected by patents (and so often are not, due to underhanded use of big money). But what vaue are ideas until they are implemented. Great business men have and do that. A hero of mine is J.J. Hill, the great railroad developer. He was born very poor in Ontario. He worked hard ever day of his life he never rested. He treated his customers well and brought great properity to the Northwestern USA. His story is one of honor, intergrity, and brilliant business.

Frankly, I'm more interested in Truth than in religion. I judge people by their actions more than their philosophies. I believe strongly in conservation but I find most environmental agendas distasteful

To respond to the above posts...

Even in a capitalist system there are rules designed to affect outcome. These rules must favor and protect those who hold power, or else there will be nobody to make smart decisions to protect those in power from the self evident truths (The Federalist). Therefore there is no such thing as a truly free socio-economic system. Those with resources will always controll those without, it is the scourge of man that absolute power corrupts absolutely. My opinion is that capatitalism is the least tyranical of all the methods that have been tried throughout history, which is why it has lasted so long. But it is on it's way out too as the Chinese are proving to us. In order for Capatalism to survive, there must always be someone to sell to (you and me), and a steady supply of cheap labor (them). This too shall come to pass as the labor pool in China dries up and becomes educated while experiencing a higher standard of living and demands union wages. The difference is there will be nowhere left for the venture capatilist to go on the planet to exploit cheap labor and a plateau will have been reached. It may take a century, but this is inevitable. At one point we must arrive at a median wage, a median lifestyle, and a median society...it is a universal law.

Relgion is perhaps the greatest attempt to counter this oscillation. Unfortunately all religious teachings are open to interpretation, and you end up with everything from waged war in the name of God, to utter complacency. Some monastic societies have been fairly succesful at applying religion to an ascetic life, but perhaps they were too rigid? Sometimes I think the Amish are the closet modern example of balancing technology with monasticism, albiet with fire and brimstone? Hmmmm

There will always be haves and have nots. Some will have more because of inheritance, some because of intelligence, some because of hard work and frugality, and some because of dumb luck.

I think the biggest danger of religion is that people turn truths into dogma and quit thinking creatively.

A good example of this is a discussion I had with my wife.
"Sugar is bad for you" she said.
"You would die without sugar."
"How's that?"
"Most food is broken down into glucose and then ATP to drive life processes."
"Well that's a different kind of sugar."
"Sucrose is made up of one glucose molecule and and fructose. Food labels measure all types of sugar."
"Whatever. I still think sugar is bad."

Sounds like some conversations I've had with the missus.

I just heard an interview on NPR with this guy from New York City...http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/

Hi,



In every respect.......HEAR! HEAR!

Gary

ems Your wife and mine could have a good time discussing what a pain we are. But somehow they love us anyway

I think my ideal world is where you are born to logical parents that teach you to think for yourself. Then they give you a safe and nurturing environment to develop in. Wish that had been my life! Oh well. Then you are in a world where you were free to make your own way whatever way you saw fit as long as your freedom does not take away someone elses. The government would be there to protect you and your freedom and individual rights with military to repel foreign invaders, police to deal with those that violate individual rights and courts to uphold contracts between people. Nobody has a right to a job, or a right to a 'decent wage', or a right to free medicine, or...... But you have freedom, protection from wrong doers, and a chance to make a good life for yourself. I also think a majority of people are generous and voluntary giving would handle true charity requirements. People do not have a right to breed like rabbits in a barren land, then damand others support them while they have more babies. If your freedom is used to make bad decisions, then the problems you create are yours to solve. It would be a grand way to live. Our founding fathers in the USA came as close to these principles as anyone has. They were well schooled in John Locke and others who were boldly suggesting this level of freedom when it had never occurred before. Since then we have slowly, and now more rapidly, drifted to the government handout being an answer to every problem and people feeling that laws that treat adults like children are correct.

I stand on my own two feet, I control my life and act responsibly, and I expect others to act responsibly. No one owes me a job. If someone has work I can do and we agree on a price, I work for them. I do not 'deserve a fair wage'. Whatever that is. Somebody wants something done and I am willing to do it for what we agree on...that is all. On the other hand, if I am hiring, I offer a wage and it is take it or leave it. If it is 'too low', then move on and if I can not get it done for that, so be it. Those are not hard concepts to me.

So keep your eminent domain, zoning, building code, public schools, etc. Everything can be done without a gun to the head by government. The government should never initiate force. It should only use force against an initiator of force. We have been so accustom to government being into everything, people have a hard time believing it could work better with free enterprise. As already mentioned the pie will not split up evenly. That seems proper to me.

"Law is sublimated violence."

Here in Alaska, they have been working on a "code of ethics" for lawmakers -- and trying to put it into law -- the reaction to public outcry when the FBI revealed that a goodly number of Alaskan lawmakers were getting huge contributions from corporations -- in return for favorable legistation.

I suppose that is capitalism gone awry.

Doug I tend to agree about the fact that nobody is born with the right to a decent wage or free handout. Nor is everyone entitled to certain priveleges above and beyond thier natural born rights (such as freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of press, etc. etc.) which the government seems to want to expand for them, such as easily obtained driver's licenses, subsistence/housing, decent education, and free healthcare and meals at school. OK.....

But the problem is competition for resources. As the world population becomes more dense and more taxing on the natural global balance and we see a shift in climate, economics, political policy (particularly foriegn policy and free trade), and start to feel that pressure as many of us already are, do you propose simply scrapping for what's left? Move one's family closer to the Canadian border to escape the swarm of immigrants? Move farther out into the country to help put some distance between reality and the pursuit of hedonism? Where does action and avoidance intersect?

John Locke lived, as our forefathers did, in a world where the increased pressure on land ownership became the bane of existence in 18th Century England and the priveleged land owners felt the government was the evil empire intent on stripping them of thier status. Fortunately, for Locke's liberal thinkers, there was an option.... North America. So they migrated away from the pressure only to have it rear it's ugly head 2 centuries later.

There is no longer a New World to flee to, continents unexplored. The world is increasingly more populated and encroachment is causing the same unpleasantness it did in 18th Century England when Locke formed his ideas about inalienable property rights and natural laws of man. I believe this philosophy needs some revamping as Malthus so grimly predicted, the Malthus Catastrophy does not wait until land entitlement is figured out in the legal system of John Locke. How do we learn to share resources as the planet gets closer to its threshold?