Is Green, Alternate Energy really so green? (plastics, LED, buy)

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

As I've stated numerous times, solar panels harvest energy, you missed that as well. Harvest means collect. Solar panels harvest 100% of the energy striking them but can convert less than 20% of that energy into electricity (in most cases). What happens to the remaining 80%? It is radiated or through emission, converted to heat.

There is a vast difference to what happens to the energy converted to heat when it hits a solar panel as opposed to when it hit the ground. Surely you know that.

I hope you realize that something painted black will absorb energy and release it as heat more efficiently that something painted white. In case you don't understand that (I am not being sarcastic here) touch the ground next to where a solar panel is located and then place your hand on the solar panel, just be careful about the heat.
.....
The part you're misunderstanding and which is quite common is that when sunlight hits the ground, it is absorbed throughout a vastly larger surface which because of the way the materials behave, has little negative impact on the environment. Solar panels on the other hand, have little area and cannot retain the energy converted into heat, they release it. On a large scale, do you not see the negative effect?

Sorry, the thing YOU are misunderstanding is that whatever quantity of energy falls on a given area, whether it's shiny metal, dead black metal, water, plowed dirt, or baked clay, the same amount of energy winds up being radiated out into space, one way or another.

Yes, some materials can absorb more heat energy and are more conductive (meaning heat flows through them more quickly) so they feel hotter when you touch them and that heat energy flows back into your fingertips more readily, while other materials soak up energy more slowly and aren't as conductive so energy flows more slowly to your fingertips and they feel cooler to the touch.

Each of those materials absorbs heat and gives up that heat at different rates, but they all give all of it back over time. The sun goes down, and they cool off as they release energy, and it winds up going off into space... over 173,000 trillion watts worth per day. See my previous post on this.

Do you know what happens when you put solar PV panels on a residential roof top? It cools the house a bit, because the panels reflect more of the sunlight falling on them than roofing does and shading the roof, keeping that heat from ever penetrating the shell of the house. Sit in the shade under an umbrella in the Mojave Desert at midday and you can get a sunburned just from the light that reflects off the ground. Touch a masonry wall at night out in that same desert and the radiant heat it gives off feels quite warm, even when the night air has turned quite chill, because air gives up heat energy quite rapidly. "Common sense" often fails when examining real world energy situations because we ascribe false causes to things we experience when we don't understand the principles involved, like your bare foot example.

Large scale doesn't mean the pittance of examples we have now even though you might think the panel farms of today are vast, they are a drop in the bucket when it comes to meeting energy needs.

Again, as the MIT figures I previously posted show, mankind currently uses 14 terrawatts of energy, or an amount equal to 1/12,000th of the 173,000 terrawatts of energy that falls on earth from the sun and then it all radiates out to space. It is our use of the sun's energy that is only a drop in the bucket compared to what is available to us. Only 1.5% of the surface of earth could supply all of our current needs, running at only 2% efficiency.

Two words that probably should be retired from these discussions are "harvest" and "collect," because many people get the wrong impression of what is actually going on. We don't fill up buckets with energy, or remove anything from the world. What happens in a solar PV cell is simply an energy conversion, from sunlight, which is one form of energy, to electricity, which is another. Then we convert that electricity into electromagnetic energy to turn motors to do work, which convert the energy to heat again, and then it passes back into the atmosphere and radiates out to space. We neither create or destroy energy, we merely get work done by the process of transforming one form of energy to another. Then, eventually, sooner or later, it all gets radiated out to space.

[Scottay]

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

There is no perfect alternative energy source. It doesnt exist and it never has existed. We were born in a catch 22. We were born sick, and destined to crumble, fade, and die.

I bet you're a big hit at parties.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

Oh yeah..DO you care to explain how our "advanced civilization" is now the only civilization known to our time to have as epidemic high rates of obesity? Yeah. Back in the day measles was an epidemic. But you say things have changed and everything is all right now. But it is not. We still face countless, if not more epidemics than in the past. And even new epidemics that the ancients never even imagined would occur. Eat less chips is your solution? Doesnt seem to be working so well. Care to explain how easily your solutions is failing?

Interesting, definitely worthy of consideration in some other context, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please stick to the topic.

The same goes for energy sources. If we are a known nation that are known to consume as much energy that 1/4 of the world consumes in a single day, and at the same time, we are known for using that energy for some of the most wasteful and luxurious practices imaginable, than the tool for faster more easily obtained energy is not the solution for the nations ills.

Sorry, but the concept of "wasting" energy is related to energy which is generated from limited resources, like burning wood, coal, or oil. "Green" energy sources like solar and geothermal are endlessly renewable and are available in quantities that dwarf mankind's use of energy. If we can master the use of comparatively inexhaustible sources of energy then the idea of wasting energy becomes moot. Then, if energy is readily available to all, we can stop fighting wars over the limited oil resources of the Middle East, to name one of the obvious benefits. And if available energy is very plentiful, then it's also much easier to share the largess with those countries and populations which are currently underserved.

Green energy may solve some problems, but what about those that will turn green energy into the next catastrophe? The media never talks about the risk of global warming propitiating out of control because of green energy.

Wrong use of "propitiating" in a fundamentally false statement. The problem with global warming is not the use of energy per se, it's the release of CO2 and other polluting emissions into the atmosphere, which green energies do not do. Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere that would normally escape, which has a warming effect on the entire planetary system. But again, that is because it is adversely affecting an energy system that is 12,000 times bigger than what we humans use.

From there the effects of systems that emit CO2 cascade. The buildup of solar heat melts the icecaps and glaciers, releasing huge quantities of water, that contribute to raising sea levels, as well as contributing to further global warming by reducing the size of formerly reflective snow and ice areas. And as deep seas warm, they expand, which contributes even more to rising sea levels. Then on a separate track, as the seas absorb CO2 they become more acidic, and that changes growing conditions for countless organism, which affects food supplies... etc. And because the global solar heat pump moves all the water through the atmosphere, messing with its operation affects weather and growing conditions everywhere. This is a key reason why we MUST replace CO2 emitting systems with green systems which do not emit CO2.

P.S. I told my professor all of this and some. He had no choice but to grade countless of my papers with grades 90 or above because there is no way the truth we all know can be denied. Just ask for the records.

OK, sure... what country are you in? And what is the school? Who is this professor? And what subject is this boob teaching, anyway? Musical theater? I'm really curious, because what you post here is so devoid of factual information, so badly written, and so badly reasoned, that I'm really curious who would give you more than a minimally passing grade for the quality of what you've written here. It's worth maybe a grade of 65, tops. Seriously.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by tariqblaze
There is no perfect alternative energy source. It doesnt exist and it never has existed. We were born in a catch 22. We were born sick, and destined to crumble, fade, and die.

Originally Posted by Scottay

I bet you're a big hit at parties.

Kudos for the funniest and most apt comment I've read in a long time! Bravo!

[tariqblaze]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Interesting, definitely worthy of consideration in some other context, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please stick to the topic.



Sorry, but the concept of "wasting" energy is related to energy which is generated from limited resources, like burning wood, coal, or oil. "Green" energy sources like solar and geothermal are endlessly renewable and are available in quantities that dwarf mankind's use of energy. If we can master the use of comparatively inexhaustible sources of energy then the idea of wasting energy becomes moot. Then, if energy is readily available to all, we can stop fighting wars over the limited oil resources of the Middle East, to name one of the obvious benefits. And if available energy is very plentiful, then it's also much easier to share the largess with those countries and populations which are currently underserved.



Wrong use of "propitiating" in a fundamentally false statement. The problem with global warming is not the use of energy per se, it's the release of CO2 and other polluting emissions into the atmosphere, which green energies do not do. Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere that would normally escape, which has a warming effect on the entire planetary system. But again, that is because it is adversely affecting an energy system that is 12,000 times bigger than what we humans use.

From there the effects of systems that emit CO2 cascade. The buildup of solar heat melts the icecaps and glaciers, releasing huge quantities of water, that contribute to raising sea levels, as well as contributing to further global warming by reducing the size of formerly reflective snow and ice areas. And as deep seas warm, they expand, which contributes even more to rising sea levels. Then on a separate track, as the seas absorb CO2 they become more acidic, and that changes growing conditions for countless organism, which affects food supplies... etc. And because the global solar heat pump moves all the water through the atmosphere, messing with its operation affects weather and growing conditions everywhere. This is a key reason why we MUST replace CO2 emitting systems with green systems which do not emit CO2.



OK, sure... what country are you in? And what is the school? Who is this professor? And what subject is this boob teaching, anyway? Musical theater? I'm really curious, because what you post here is so devoid of factual information, so badly written, and so badly reasoned, that I'm really curious who would give you more than a minimally passing grade for the quality of what you've written here. It's worth maybe a grade of 65, tops. Seriously.

First of all dude...I wasn't even talking to you. Please mind your own business. I have replied to several of your comments and statements which did not to this day receive a reply. I have been waiting for days for you to reply to my factual points made that you slyly, like a politician would do, avoid and refuse to answer. Cunning little squirrel answer the question, mind your business and speak only when being spoken to. This post was not directed to you because your insignificant mind cant handle the words I was giving to mr Twinbrook. Again reply to the post directed to you.



Second off, since you refuse to reply to me. I will repeat a few of the things you said, but only a few because you have already proven yourself to be the most redundant poster on this thread.

Originally Posted by OpenD

Interesting, definitely worthy of consideration in some other context, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Please stick to the topic.

It has everything to do with the thread. This thread indicates that going back to the stone ages for some people would be the best option. Other rebuttals to the stone age comment go something like, "the stone age was flawed but our time now is perfect". But given the current statistics on diseases, sickness, obesity, and other epidemics, this is far from the truth and the stone age has benefits in their time over issues of our time. There are pros and cons of both. The statement that we are now advanced today over yesterday is not entirely true. That is why it is extremely relevant to clarify this because it has everything to do with the green energy issue.

Sorry, but the concept of "wasting" energy is related to energy which is generated from limited resources, like burning wood, coal, or oil. "Green" energy sources like solar and geothermal are endlessly renewable and are available in quantities that dwarf mankind's use of energy. If we can master the use of comparatively inexhaustible sources of energy then the idea of wasting energy becomes moot. Then, if energy is readily available to all, we can stop fighting wars over the limited oil resources of the Middle East, to name one of the obvious benefits. And if available energy is very plentiful, then it's also much easier to share the largess with those countries and populations which are currently undeserved.

Again dont reply to a post that wasnt directed at you. I know how insignificant your thinking is and I would have never said such words to you because you are over analytical to the point of ignorance. Again speak only when being spoken to and stop butting into others peoples energy. Get it? Probably over your head.

But since you must butt in and inquire, wasting energy does very much apply to green energy sources. Green energy sources are made using fossil fuels, so to make these green energy sources, manufacturing, production, and distribution, fossil fuels must be used therefore while making an alternative, energy is still being wasted. You say IF WE CAN MASTER the use of comparatively inexhaustible sources of energy but the key word here is if. You have no idea how this is possible do you? Does anyone? I have never even heard it be addressed, by anyone. I have continued to ask you for a working model where this technology is mastered and there is 0 environmental impact in the production of green energy, but you refuse to do any such act. Please mind your business and take your concerns elsewhere. You are not relevant in this discussion.

Wrong use of "propitiating" in a fundamentally false statement. The problem with global warming is not the use of energy per se, it's the release of CO2 and other polluting emissions into the atmosphere, which green energies do not do. Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere that would normally escape, which has a warming effect on the entire planetary system. But again, that is because it is adversely affecting an energy system that is 12,000 times bigger than what we humans use.

From there the effects of systems that emit CO2 cascade. The buildup of solar heat melts the icecaps and glaciers, releasing huge quantities of water, that contribute to raising sea levels, as well as contributing to further global warming by reducing the size of formerly reflective snow and ice areas. And as deep seas warm, they expand, which contributes even more to rising sea levels. Then on a separate track, as the seas absorb CO2 they become more acidic, and that changes growing conditions for countless organism, which affects food supplies... etc. And because the global solar heat pump moves all the water through the atmosphere, messing with its operation affects weather and growing conditions everywhere. This is a key reason why we MUST replace CO2 emitting systems with green systems which do not emit CO2.

Again, you point out issues that have already been rebutted by me yet you refuse to answer those points but instead you continue to restate the same issue over and over and over and over. The most redundant poster I have seen in a long time. Right now, and Ill repeat this again because you seem to be slightly slow in your mental functioning, green energy sources are produced and manufactured with CO2 production methods. Until all ends are closed, moving to a green system that does not emit co2 will still indirectly emit co2 if all ends are not closed and issues are swept under the rug and not addressed. Green energy still altogether in one way or another is co2 energy at the same time.


Also the word I was actually looking for is perpetuate or spiral out of control. Thanks for clearing that mishap up. Other than that mind your business.

OK, sure... what country are you in? And what is the school? Who is this professor? And what subject is this boob teaching, anyway? Musical theater? I'm really curious, because what you post here is so devoid of factual information, so badly written, and so badly reasoned, that I'm really curious who would give you more than a minimally passing grade for the quality of what you've written here. It's worth maybe a grade of 65, tops. Seriously.

Possibly your jokes would be funny, but you have proven yourself to be redundant and its just not cute anymore. Reply to the rebuttals directed towards you or just go somewhere else. You are wasting CO2 and youre just boring me now. Take care in your life. Goodbye.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

First of all dude...I wasn't even talking to you. Please mind your own business.

Sorry, that isn't how public forums like this work. You may have started the thread, but you don't own it, you don't control it, and anyone can comment about anything.

Second off, since you refuse to reply to me. I will repeat a few of the things you said, but only a few because you have already proven yourself to be the most redundant poster on this thread.

Really? Do I really need to point out all the posts where you repeated yourself within the same message?

Other rebuttals to the stone age comment go something like, "the stone age was flawed but our time now is perfect". But given the current statistics on diseases, sickness, obesity, and other epidemics, this is far from the truth and the stone age has benefits in their time over issues of our time.

Again, nobody said that our time is perfect. You keep bringing up that same straw man argument again and again and again. It's a redundant error. You can stop doing that now.

But before I move on, please list all the benefits you see that Stone Age people had over us. I mean, other than never running out of coat hangers.

Again dont reply to a post that wasnt directed at you.

Again, sorry to disappoint you, but that's not how it works here. If you want to address someone privately, use the Direct Message feature.

I know how insignificant your thinking is and I would have never said such words to you because you are over analytical to the point of ignorance.

Then how come I keep posting factual material that is easily verifiable, while you keep meandering around posting made up stuff and changing the subject?

Again speak only when being spoken to and stop butting into others peoples energy. Get it? Probably over your head.

It's a public forum that you don't control. Sorry! So this country you're from, there's no Constitutional Freedom of Speech there, I take it, since you seem so unfamiliar with the concept. Oh, and probably not a democracy either, since you keep drifting towards dictatorship, like forcing people to eat more healthy diets.

But since you must butt in and inquire, wasting energy does very much apply to green energy sources. Green energy sources are made using fossil fuels, so to make these green energy sources, manufacturing, production, and distribution, fossil fuels must be used therefore while making an alternative, energy is still being wasted.

Not necessarily. At the very beginning, partially, because hydroelectric power is not available everywhere. But as more and more renewable energy becomes available, then more and more renewable energy equipment can be produced using more and more renewable energy. It's a time proven process we called "bootstrapping," and it can be very effective at replacing an old technology with a new one.

Take wind power, for example. When the very first wind turbines were erected in California in the 1980s, I used to fly over the first windfarms in Tehachapi Pass and look down from my small plane and marvel at what seemed like such an exotic, futuristic sight. Today I live just 25 miles or so from the very southernmost tip of the Big Island, where a second generation wind farm is feeding clean energy into our power grid, as part of the 40%+ of our electricity that is already supplied by renewable sources. In two years we expect to hit 50%., and so on. Denmark already has 25% of its power supplied by wind turbines. And guess what, they build wind turbines in Denmark, using that green power!

But let's look at a worst case situation, mining the ores and refining the metals and fabricating the equipment and transporting it to the site and operating it for its useful life and decommissioning it and finally hauling it away for recycling... how much energy does that all use? That's called the "energy budget payback" figure, and it is calculated and published for each of the major systems manufactured by leading companies like Vesta and GE.

Industry figures vary a bit, largely depending on the size of the units (larger systems are more energy efficient) but typical numbers for systems in the 2 MW size are in the range of 4 - 6 months. In other words, within a period of typical use, all of the energy expended on a wind turbine in its entire life cycle will be paid back by the energy it generates in about 4 - 6 months. And the financial payback figure is about 3 years. So using a conservative estimate that a modern wind turbine will be productive for more than 20 years, that means the fossil fuel consumption for, say, 6 months will be followed by 19 1/2 years of absolutely clean, non polluting energy production. And for financial backers, the money they pay in for the first 3 years will then be paid back for the next 17, giving more than a 5 1/2 times gross return on their investment. It's all quite viable, and in fact in 2006 the EU reported that wind power had achieved price parity with fossil fuel sources, a remarkable achievement for such a young industry. And of course, it does that without generating any CO2 or other pollutant emissions.

You say IF WE CAN MASTER the use of comparatively inexhaustible sources of energy but the key word here is if. You have no idea how this is possible do you? Does anyone? I have never even heard it be addressed, by anyone.

I've been participating in discussions on the topic since the 1970s. I suspect that may have been before your parents were born. In any case, you must be hanging out in the wrong places, and listening to the wrong people if you think this is a new or unexplored topic. But then, you also seem very young and immature, so it may actually be new to you.

Please mind your business and take your concerns elsewhere. You are not relevant in this discussion.

Ha! Just another one of your attempted insults which seems quite comical when you misuse common English expressions, as you did again here. So tell me, what country are you from? Inquiring minds want to know.

Again, you point out issues that have already been rebutted by me yet you refuse to answer those points but instead you continue to restate the same issue over and over and over and over. The most redundant poster I have seen in a long time.

What, in the entire two weeks you've been posting here? How extraordinary!

Also the word I was actually looking for is perpetuate or spiral out of control. Thanks for clearing that mishap up. Other than that mind your business.

Just to poke a little of the wind out of your silly arrogance, I like to highlight that you use a lot of words that you don't quite get right... especially big words that you likely found in a Dictionary or Thesaurus... but since you don't exactly understand how they are to be used properly, your writing becomes clunky, opaque, and hard to understand. And then there are the simple idiomatic expressions that you would never get wrong if English was your native tongue, like the second sentence in you paragraph above. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think your English is pretty good for someone who has apparently only been studying it for a couple of years, but there are abundant giveaways that you still have a lot of work to do on your language lessons. Of course, if your teacher is not a native English speaker either, that would help explain you being awarded undeservedly high marks for such obviously flawed writing.

Possibly your jokes would be funny, but you have proven yourself to be redundant and its just not cute anymore.

Do you realize that this is the fourth time you've used the word "redundant" in this single post? I hate to tell you, but these repeated comments have become quite... yep... redundant. Oh, that is a correct use of the word.

Reply to the rebuttals directed towards you or just go somewhere else. You are wasting CO2 and youre just boring me now.

Well, sorry, but pleasing you is not a priority of mine. My commitment is to the truth, which is largely missing in what you've been posting about green energy.

[tariqblaze]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Sorry, that isn't how public forums like this work. You may have started the thread, but you don't own it, you don't control it, and anyone can comment about anything.

You can reply to whoever. But your the only exception. I dont want to talk to you unless it is about my points directed to you. So in your case, you dont have the rights the other forumers have. I have revoked your pass and threw the book at your head. Speak only when spoken to. In public and in private. That is the way the world works, not just on a public forum.

But before I move on, please list all the benefits you see that Stone Age people had over us. I mean, other than never running out of coat hangers.

They weren't as obese, Aids was probably not even known, morality was never so low, they didnt pollute their environment as much as we did, if at all. The environment was in MUCH better condition than it is now. Terrorist activity was virtually unheard about. Global warming was not an issue. Mass random murders were virtually non-existent. Many issues all escalating because of advancements in knowledge and innovation. Um...should I continue? People were not as lazy, they walked everywhere. Our medicine may be better today which grants us longer lives, but I can almost assure you that they may have died younger from various ailments, but when they did die, they were much happier than we are today and lived much shorter but much more fulfilling lives.
Quality over quantity. Short and sweet over long and bitter.


Oh yeah...Suicide wasnt even really known and mental illness was barely seen. Why? Because people were slower, less intelligent (book wise at least), weaker, but were definitely much happier without all the worldly advancements. I can go on and on and on.

It is about priority. Pick your poison. You want faster cars. At what expense? You want to live longer? At what expense? I rather die from indoor home cooking poisoning from fire, but at least people died by cooking with fire were happy. Our society needed to replace that fire cooking, so what happened? Cigarettes were invented. Because that natural high was lost when gas stoves were invented. Either way our society is dying from what we innovate with or what we dont innovate with. Why make a fuss over either? Anything you innovate to reduce the ill of one tool, it will just be replaced with another. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it just transfers to another source.

Oh, and probably not a democracy either, since you keep drifting towards dictatorship, like forcing people to eat more healthy diets.

People are free to do what they want. I am only educating the public on what they have been misled away from.

But let's look at a worst case situation, mining the ores and refining the metals and fabricating the equipment and transporting it to the site and operating it for its useful life and decommissioning it and finally hauling it away for recycling... how much energy does that all use? That's called the "energy budget payback" figure, and it is calculated and published for each of the major systems manufactured by leading companies like Vesta and GE.

Your a very slow learner arent you. You continue to miss the point? Im glad you finally admitted that in the worst case scenario, there is still potential for severe poisoning in the air to health systems, infants, babies and others. Paid back in 4-6 months? How many people will become sick in that time period? Now multiply that by the needs of the world wide population. The numbers multiplies due to the fact that many of these machines will be in production because the entire world will be making the switch.

Even if green energy is being used in the production of the materials, what alternative materials will they use for the devices? How will they produce a 0% environmental impacting glass or metal substance for the materials for the devices? What green energy methods could help curve the massive demand for these devices? What will replace the iron production for the turbines which is already a major pollutant and environmental disruption in local areas?


More importantly. When these devices are a mainstay in the country, who will mandate their recycling? Who will enforce people to recycle, as we see nothing like that is mandated now. What makes you think that green energy devices wont face the same fate as all other energy devices? Landfilled, wasting space, especially if they are very popular. Landfills will become even 10 times more congested because at least with natural gas, a lot of energy is produced for a little space. With green energy, a little energy is produced for a lot of space.

What working model has been produced where a green energy device can produce as much energy as a coal or gas device or more? Where are your numbers on that and who is working on these models? What are the tangible models and plans for the devices, not just, "we could" or "we are working on that". I want real schematics.

You claimed that we put them all in the desert. How much expense is that to have that equipment travel those distances? Who pays for the natural environmental disruption of having energy connections run great distances through the desert into the land? We are talking great environmental disruption distances to fulfill the energy needs just for this country alone.

[jhlcomp]

This is just one tiny illustration of my going Green. Back in 2007 I wanted to do my part, albeit, small .... So I bought a Prius. Still love the car mind you but just how green are those batteries? Right? Then the cost factor. Sure I saved money on gas but that didn't 't offset the extra tires I had to purchase plus the extended warranty. Lucky I had it, because the main battery (several thousand dollars) died. So going green ... Well we are still a ways from getting there.

Now, if you are living off the grid and have a way to convert all waste matter ( kitchen and bathroom) into reusable energy or water for plants ... That's a different story .

[tariqblaze]

Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get. Technological innovation is nice and cool to have, but it is not a necessity. We can survive with the bare minimum, contrary to what the energy companies and the politicians want us to believe. We dont need their devices, their innovations, their alternatives. People were fine before, people are fine today, and people will be fine tomorrow without it. All we need is the source of truth. That is it!


Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
Sometimes with money, it corrupts a person. He has too much of it, learns too much, and then thinks of himself as divine.



Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
Some of the most kind, sweet natured, tender, humblest people are the poorest. They might not make it to live long, but I guarantee you when they do go, they go with dignity and in peace. As opposed to the rich ones in Beverly Hills who are miserable and cannot bare to breath another breath; they pull the trigger.



Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
Sometimes a mans wealth is actually his test. And as we see, most people never pass that test. The most beautiful crime known to man is shown to him in the form of ease, convenience, and luxury. The attraction to money is one of the roots to all evil. A moderate amount is just enough but too much can destroy.



Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
Our technology has failed us, and our solution is to make more technology. How many people would doctors kill before medical innovation was devised. How many people die today as opposed to yesterday from medical innovation mishaps? Did it help or did it only worsen the problem? See how many people die a year from adverse affects of medicine. The top causes of death today is from medicine. People may have died of diseases yesterday but medicine was far from the top causes. Add to the fact that many of our top causes of death is due entirely to our own technological innovations.




Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
How is it that animals never innovate in their species and they still are thriving as they was since their original ancestors? Why are we the only creatures that need more than what we were created with and still our natural dispositions dont suffice us? We look down at digging ditches because we are too busy scamming on wall street and oppressing in our banks?



Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
Why is it that the more we innovate, the more arrogant and spoiled we become? Need a phone because it is faster. Last time I checked fast is not a necessity. Life is a necessity but a fast life I assure you is not a need but a luxury. We forgot what really is most important to us. Our civilization has become greed-lusted with knowledge, technology, innovation, and convenience to the point that we will have no other way.



Technological innovation is like money. The more you make, the more problems you get.
The only thing we need is life, food, drink, clothing and shelter. This is the bare necessities. Sure it would be fine to have a little more but if we cant have it this way, that is cool too. Living a longer, healthier life is something that rich people can obtain. But if we cant live that long, that is ok too. Poor people statistically speaking die much earlier than rich people and are more unhealthy.


Some poor people are poor not because they are stupid and dumb, but because they once had wealth and realized wealth can corrupt people. Many poor people were once rich but gave up their riches because they knew if they had kept the money, it would have destroyed them or corrupted them entirely. They chose to live a poor life because they knew the power of the wealth they held was just too great for some men to hold. So they decided to live well below their means, very simple. A simple life can be even more rewarding than a technological life of luxury. Sometimes, the best things in life are free, simple and not advanced.


Is that your wish? To live in a rich nation full of wealth and riches even knowing what this power does to people? If you think you can bear it than do what you wish. But for those that are honest with themselves and know this is not the life for them, let them know there is another way. Not the life of alternative innovation, but one that returns our civilization back to the simple life. Advanced technology renounced all in favor for simple tools like an axe or a chisel, and simple means.

Let them know there is another way.

[Eddyline]

Originally Posted by jhlcomp

This is just one tiny illustration of my going Green. Back in 2007 I wanted to do my part, albeit, small .... So I bought a Prius. Still love the car mind you but just how green are those batteries? Right? Then the cost factor. Sure I saved money on gas but that didn't 't offset the extra tires I had to purchase plus the extended warranty. Lucky I had it, because the main battery (several thousand dollars) died. So going green ... Well we are still a ways from getting there.

Now, if you are living off the grid and have a way to convert all waste matter ( kitchen and bathroom) into reusable energy or water for plants ... That's a different story .

I have a 2004 Prius, that I bought new, coming up on 100,000. Very happy with the car and did not buy an extended warranty and have not had any issues under standard warranty. Just read that the battery failure rate for the Prius was under 2%. What is this about extra tires? I have gotten 40k+, on my third set at 100k.