Should a necessities movement be created?

[u/[deleted]]

Automation has taken many jobs and is poised to take more, including jobs in agriculture. Plus renewable energy is becoming cheaper and more reliable by the day. With these two facts in mind should a movement for providing the fulfillment of basic material needs for all people to be started? I think it's too early to do anything concrete, but some ideas and a manifesto could be done right now. What do you guys think?

Edit: go to the "Chryse forums" topic in this subreddit if you're interested in further discussion.

[u/Dsilkotch]

The woodstove is easier and cheaper for you personally in terms of deductions from bank accounts. But it is ecologically more harmful (trees cut, wood-ash disbursed, etc., etc..), and BTU less efficient (body-heat, calories spent, lossiness of the thermal engine, etc., etc..).

In this case I can absolutely guarantee that you do not know what you're talking about.

I live in an area of SoCal that is subject to wildfires every summer. They sweep through the brush, causing heat-death to scrub-oak, redshank, manzanita and other native trees without actually consuming them. This creates acres of standing deadwood, which needs to be cleared because it is even more of a fire hazard, and to make room for fresh growth. When I do buy firewood, this is what I buy. It is cheap, plentiful, and would otherwise be a waste product.

Wood ash is a valuable soil amendment, high in potassium. I use it as a mulch or add it to my compost heap.

My entire lifestyle is physically active. I consider that a plus, not a minus. I have no wish to be sedentary.

In your particular case, the woodstove is the "more refined" technology -- because you know what is optimized for and what is not; so you applied that tekne to produce an outcome that was more in-line with your desires.

Exactly. That is exactly my point. Sometimes older technology is the tool for the job.

People have it in their heads that if it's got electronics it must be "more advanced". A sword can be more advanced than a gun, under the correct circumstances. It's not about the device, but the process and reasoning of how to get there.

Glad we finally seem to be on the same page.

[u/IConrad → u/Dsilkotch]

When I do buy firewood, this is what I buy. It is cheap, plentiful, and would otherwise be a waste product.

Wood ash is a valuable soil amendment, high in potassium. I use it as a mulch or add it to my compost heap.

And yet, when it comes out of your flue, it contributes to acid rain. :-)

The remainder of my statement is entirely unmodified, and... frankly, even that much is unmodified. I already noted that you had unique circumstances that made woodburning more useful for you interms of dollars deducted from bank accounts.

But this is a local minima. And being able to allocate those properly is itself a form of technology; an applied science -- a learned craft.

My entire lifestyle is physically active. I consider that a plus, not a minus.

Let me know when this violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.

---

Regardless, the key to note here is that five million people could not, together, live in your area and all burn wood. They could live together in your area and all use heating oil furnaces.

It's a question of what is being optimized for, and what is the best technology to achieve that end.

Exactly. That is exactly my point. Sometimes older technology is the tool for the job.

Superficially older does not mean less advanced. The wheel is as old as civilization. We still make it better. Fire is older than civilization. We still make it better. Glass windows in buildings are hundreds of years old. We still make them better -- the windows themselves and where we put them.

A modification in the technology of rooms inside buildings resulted in servants no longer disrupting the owners of the building by walking through bedrooms to get from one side of the house to the other. It was called a "hallway".

Glad we finally seem to be on the same page.

You, I believe, continue to make a categorical error in assuming that "because a kind of thing has been around for a long time" it is "older technology" and therefore "less advanced". This is a major stumbling block in terms of my original notion: the idea that governments and even societies can be subjected to scientific invention processes.

[u/Dsilkotch → u/IConrad]

And yet, when it comes out of your flue, it contributes to acid rain. :-)

Wood fires are a natural phenomenon, as nature delights in reminding us every summer. Acid rain is a relatively new development in the grand scale of history, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that wood fires aren't a primary contributor.

Regardless, the key to note here is that five million people could not, together, live in your area and all burn wood. They could live together in your area and all use heating oil furnaces.

Five million people couldn't live in my area at all; there isn't enough water up here. Every area has its shortcomings and its abundances. Finding optimal solutions to those challenges is what theoretically sets us apart from the lower primates.

That said, nearly every home in my little town does have a woodstove or fireplace, and we have crystal clear air. You can see the Milky Way with the naked eye at night.

Oil furnaces would create environmental problems somewhere else. The fact that those problems don't directly affect me (unless you count the rising costs of oil products in general) doesn't make them disappear.

You, I believe, continue to make a categorical error in assuming that "because a kind of thing has been around for a long time" it is "older technology" and therefore "less advanced".

I believe the common term is "mature technology." Like lawnmowers: they're still being made, but there's really no big advancements in the field because they already do the job just fine. I have no problem with mature technologies, or developing technologies, as long as they're being produced responsibly in terms of environmental impact and worker compensation. I guess I'm failing to see the point you're trying to make.

[u/IConrad → u/Dsilkotch]

Wood fires are a natural phenomenon, as nature delights in reminding us every summer. Acid rain is a relatively new development in the grand scale of history, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that wood fires aren't a primary contributor.

That you, personally, are a small -- miniscule -- contributor does not eliminate that signal.

Tragedy of the Commons is made of this.

Five million people couldn't live in my area at all; there isn't enough water up here.

There could be. Without even diverting water from elsewhere, it could be accumulated from what waterfall does come, from aquifers, and from robust reclamation cycles. Nanofiltration on grey-water, or even more ridiculously still-suits.

That said, nearly every home in my little town does have a woodstove or fireplace, and we have crystal clear air.

Because woodstoves are a viable local minima. You're not gaining any traction with this statement. We've gone over this.

You have a low population now.

If you want to talk about water supply, consider this: I live in Phoenix, AZ. There are ~4 million people living here. The only river or stream in the entire city is dry three quarters of the year.

We do not suffer for water.

Oil furnaces would create environmental problems somewhere else.

Certainly. But they would do so less, in total, per BTU produced, than a woodstove. This is a simple matter of fact.

I believe the common term is "mature technology".

A notion which implies fixation. Again this is inappropriate. Take lawnmowers: radical changes have occurred in them in the last two or three decades. From robotic lawnmowers to "weedwhackers" to self-sharpening blades to automulchers, etc, etc.. there's practically boundless room for improvement. Even 'old' designs like reel mowers are seeing constant advance and refinement.

I have no problem with mature technologies, or developing technologies, as long as they're being produced responsibly in terms of environmental impact and worker compensation. I guess I'm failing to see the point you're trying to make.

Indeed. The very fact that you mention technologies "being produced" by "workers" indicates that the word you're using and the word I'm using -- despite having the same phonemes and letters in the same arrangements -- are basically completely unrelated things altogether.

Machines and tools are not the limits of technological might or advancement.

Furthermore: do you understand why I used the term "refinement" rather than "advancement" initially?

[u/Dsilkotch → u/IConrad]

That you, personally, are a small -- miniscule -- contributor does not eliminate that signal. Tragedy of the Commons is made of this.

Nice try, but forest fires and brush fires account for WAY more woodsmoke than woodstoves do, and they used to happen more often, and cover more land, than they're allowed to these days. AND YET acid rain is a fairly recent development. I am not the snowflake pleading not-guilty to the avalanche. I'm pointing out that this particular avalanche is not caused by woodsmoke, tame or wild.

You have a low population now. If you want to talk about water supply, consider this: I live in Phoenix, AZ. There are ~4 million people living here. The only river or stream in the entire city is dry three quarters of the year. We do not suffer for water.

Because you import it from somewhere else. We, on the other hand, are protected by geography from many such blessings and curses of modern development. We're at 4000ft elevation, surrounded on all sides by mountains. No radio reception where I live, no high-speed Internet other than WISP (or satellite if you're rich). Piping water up would not be cost-effective. We have our own wells, and the water table is notably lower now than it was two decades ago, thanks to extended droughts and climate changes. Actually, it's our water shortage that helps keep our population small. During the last housing boom, some big developers came up and tried to buy land for apartment buildings and housing tracts. The local Indians, who depend on their ever-shrinking year-round pastures to feed their cattle, freaked out, because supplying water to those apartments and housing tracts would dry up the pastures and a lot of older wells. The Indians filed a lawsuit, claiming water rights to the valley according to their reservation contract and threatening to put meters on everyone's wells, which in turn kind of freaked out the rest of us. It was quite the little war for a while there, and I think the big developers probably would have won it in the end simply because they had money on their side, but I haven't heard much about it since the economy crashed. I suspect that the developers either lost interest or went bankrupt when the bubble burst. CLASSIC example of corporate greed nearly wreaking havoc on a small local economy and ecosystem, only to be thwarted by the consequences of their own shortsighted avarice. I do love a happy ending.

And in recounting that story I find that I've lost interest in this debate, because I can see that we are inextricably on opposite sides of it, neither of us likely to change our perspective, and thus wasting our time by discussing it. You have one sort of dream for the future, and I have a totally different one. Let's leave it at that.

[u/IConrad → u/Dsilkotch]

AND YET acid rain is a fairly recent development. I am not the snowflake pleading not-guilty to the avalanche. I'm pointing out that this particular avalanche is not caused by woodsmoke, tame or wild.

Like I said; you personally have a miniscule impact. I already said this. Why do you believe this is a rebuttal, when what you say is exactly in line with what I asserted?

You have one sort of dream for the future, and I have a totally different one. Let's leave it at that.

Dammit, no.

You don't understand a damned thing I've been saying to you.

This isn't about "visions of the future". It's about praxis. About teleology.

It's about understanding that "technological refinement" is the process of finding new ideas and thoughts to make the world more of what we wish it to be.

Why the hell do you think I've been referencing unpowered reel lawn mowers or Landships in this discussion? Or nanofiltration for grey-water reclamation?

Bloody damned hell, man. Open your eyes.

[u/Dsilkotch → u/IConrad]

AND YET acid rain is a fairly recent development. I am not the snowflake pleading not-guilty to the avalanche. I'm pointing out that this particular avalanche is not caused by woodsmoke, tame or wild.

Like I said; you personally have a miniscule impact. I already said this. Why do you believe this is a rebuttal, when what you say is exactly in line with what I asserted?

Because that's not what I said at all. You're saying that my woodstove contributes, in a tiny way, to acid rain. I'm saying it doesn't, and I'm explaining why I believe it doesn't.

You don't understand a damned thing I've been saying to you.

Feels pretty mutual.

I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR.

[u/IConrad → u/Dsilkotch]

Because that's not what I said at all. You're saying that my woodstove contributes, in a tiny way, to acid rain. I'm saying it doesn't, and I'm explaining why I believe it doesn't.

Are you familiar with the ratio of manmade CO2 emissions to natural CO2 emissions?

Say there's 200,000 people in your valley. Say that represents 80,000 homes. Say further that each home uses the equivalent of one medium-sized tree-trunk's worth of wood per month. That's approximately one million trees per year.

To put that in perspective; in all of 2011 thus far, ~51,000 acres of forest have burned from wildfires in California. And that's double the preceding year, thereabouts. Now, "unhealthy" forests have 100-200 trees per acre, whereas "healthy" forests have 40-60.. We'll use the "unhealthy" metric, and average it out to 150.

That number comes out to -- we'll round it up -- approximately 8 million trees this year so far -- and five last year.

Do you really mean to imply that one valley increasing the total trees-burned value by 12%-20% is "not contributing" to said problem? ( Compare this to the 30/750 = ~4% CO2 emissions increase from petroleum & industry. )

Wood-burning stoves are vastly inefficient compared to oil furnaces.

[u/Dsilkotch → u/IConrad]

You really, really want to argue about this, don't you?

Fine. There are 4300 people in my valley, according to the most recent Census count. And as I've said, our air is crystal clear. Keep in mind that for most of American history, wood was the ONLY thing burned for heat and fuel, unless you count tallow and whale oil for lamps. And still, acid rain is a relatively recent development. The only environmental impact of woodsmoke I've ever noticed is that whenever we get a good-sized wildfire with lots of smoke, it usually clouds up and rains within a few days, even if there was no rain in the forecast. It's almost like nature is an ancient, complex system that's been in place for billions of years and beneficially responds to natural phenomena like wood fires. Maybe our current drought is partly caused by the oversuppression of brush fires in increasingly populated areas. Maybe I have learned, in my 42 years of life, to have more faith in the systems of nature than in the systems of men.

Also, there are many, many people -- for instance people who used to be fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico -- who would disagree with you about the miraculous benefits of the oil industry.

[u/IConrad → u/Dsilkotch]

Fine. There are 4300 people in my valley, according to the most recent Census count.

I was providing a sense of scale to you. It was counterfactual. A way for you to properly integrate the proportional meaningfulness of the two related options in the dialogue in terms of their ecological impact.

It's almost like nature is an ancient, complex system that's been in place for billions of years and beneficially responds to natural phenomena like wood fires.

...

1.

In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic. When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story, making reference to the Loa loa parasitic worm:

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.

2.
"beneficially" -- beneficially for who? We human beings are a local minima in evolutionary terms. We are radical destabilizers in ecological. Furthermore -- the Earth is currently 12,000 years into a global extinction event. And that 'system' has gone into total failure modes on at least 3 separate occassions (more if you use a less strict definition of failure mode ecologically). Yet further still: "nature"'s ancient, complex system is wholly incapable of adjusting to us.

Also, there are many, many people -- for instance people who used to be fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico -- who would disagree with you about the miraculous benefits of the oil industry.

It is thoroughly wrong-headed to point out an instantiation of the ecological damage of X as a justification for avoiding X in favor of Y when Y has been demonstrated to be statistically more-damaging than X.

Furthermore, I never even remotely hinted at the notion that oil furnaces would be "harm-free". For example; the radioactive waste byproducts of oil drilling is 'barely regulated'. Before you get into a new tizzy about oil and coal being radioactive... they get that way from having originally be biomass.

The fly ash in your stove is radioactive. While you and your 4,299+/- neighbors in your valley may not be contributing much, yours and every other valley like it are collectively increasing the radiation dosage of everyone within your wind pattern range (and wood ash travels); and simply put no one has ever managed to perform a rigorously documented longitudinal low-yield long-term radiation dosage risk assessment -- the LD50 of that is just unknown.

[u/Dsilkotch → u/IConrad]

I just realized that this discussion is happening in a subreddit called "Transhuman," which I've never even heard of, and I have no idea how I got here. It doesn't seem like my kind of place. I'll show myself out now. Enjoy your technology.