>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
>profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
>humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
>market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
>at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
>that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
>encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
>the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
>energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.
It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent
people in Russia
took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on
a better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get
in the way, why not do
what was done recently to the Yukos guy?
It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people
need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to mandate
such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."
DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks)
has discovered how
it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by simply
starving all competent
or high-potential alternatives. Space solar power is not on their
list for funding.
Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics
of trying to find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear
stochastic world understand how
the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for planners to
understand, or for
the political process to handle. It is simply a lot more efficient to
WORK WITH NATURE,
as they say in classical medicine, rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get
great advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really
understood that.
I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on
serious possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you
will know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot
more hope to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.
In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels
is a legitimate factor in making
the future decision, as are consumer preferences. The market tells us
real information much better
than any other way to get the information. We will probably be able
to improve on market information later,
ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to have it first.
I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR
global progress on plug-in hybrids either.
Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels
over time, different in different market segments
and in different parts of the world. One meataxe solution developed
in Washington or Beijing would not fit the whole
world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and
growing SO quickly, we cannot
afford a less than optimal strategy which does not mobilize ALL WE
HAVE to make our world safer.
Best of luck,
Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment