There is an interesting blog on smart-planet that I want to comment.
Also I have added a model on some economical interrelations. Insight from this model is that looking at the happiness we gain from products and the economical forces alone, conventional products seem to be more useful than sustainable products. That would explain a lot. I am looking forward to your comments and continued modeling on more aspects of a comparison of conventional products with sustainable ones. Currently I use a more sophisticated model as a preparation for my upcoming book. In that model the complexity of this topic adds up to more than one million loops. This model includes more than just jobs and products and thus comes to another conclusion.
Here is the link to the blog:http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy- ... ag=nl.e660
Here is my comment on the blog and the posts in that blog:
"Reading many of your comments I really consider to look for a doomstead. The article is well written and of course only one perspective of a bigger puzzle of our increasingly complex world. I, too, miss some important interconnections and some hope. But even more important is a lot of your conservative response to it.
Do you really think that uranium and other nuclear technologies are a solution? The world is running out of uranium, too. You don't need to point to its costs or the follow-up costs and its threats or even to the Iran. It is simply logical and not a matter of interpretation. Also, nuclear energy prevents alternative energy sources from developing. Modern western countries have a potential to save 75 percent of their energy consumption with today's technology. It is a complex system that prevents the change and part of the system is the manipulation of people we later have to call conservative if not simple minded.
Do you really think that promoting the exploitation of your own oil resources is a solution? They are not endless! Every school child learns this. You just postpone the need for action to a day when it is too expensive to change. Sure, for a short moment a change seems to be expensive, threatening competitiveness. But there is a chance for new businesses and new social values. And even conservative studies proof that energy costs from oil, coal, gas and nuclear sources will very soon go up and overtake even today's costs of alternative energy. If prices are up, few people can afford to build passive houses or buy electric cars ran by photovoltaic energy. It is pure ratio to change now and it is emotion and the lack of understanding not to.
By the way, when Obama took responsibility (conservative politicians speak of coming to power) and announced an initiative to push long term change to alternative technologies I feared the total loss of competitive advantage for European countries and Japan. Good for them, that conservative forces in the US prevented any major change in the US.
Currently China is investing in alternative technologies and is strategically securing crucial resources world wide. I don't like the Chinese government but they follow successfully a long term strategy, something that the US and Europe are not able to.
The world is complicated and complex and even the progressive folks are seldom systems thinkers but just dreamers. The reductionist thinking, however, is the biggest threat to our children's future. Obviously the US is loosing power so the world doesn't have to care about this country that votes two times for the same internationally heavily disputed - some say simple minded - president.
We need articles like this one that explain some of the crucial interconnections. By the way, there is an even more severe peak: peak phosphate
Another remark from outside US: many people without health insurance are against Obama's health insurance just because they don't grasp that it is for them and just because they hope that being against Obama would lead to a better America?! The guys against the financial markets are not protesting that the money of the non-working people is lost. It is the pensions of the working people that is lost. I know a number of high ranked and successful bankers - some of them have no idea what they are doing, others know that they are surfing a systems that just widens the gap between the poor and the rich because few people including politicians understand that system.
Growth is fueled by money from lending that depends on the perspective of growth. That system works as long as interests are reasonable and the amount of lending is connected to the real economy - not necessarily connected to energy consumption. But with increased productivity and the wish to maximize the amount of money of a few people, a financial economy developed that at the beginning fueled the real economy. Later it lead to a system that letted people invest in what I call creative financial products rather than in real businesses. The system is so complicated that it hides the threats of its collapse as many people and whole countries increase their debts while few people increase their wealth.
At the same time: Our debts is China's profit. And now, as they are reinvesting in the world some reinforcing feedback loops lead to a severe shift of power.
OWS is an example for people who start to criticize this system. In Europe, too, we see first examples of people protesting the system that tries to secure power at the cost of the society.
The tea party, on the other hand, is something that Europe's media and all middle and high brow people in the world are laughing about. A movement like this is for sure only possible in the US.
Voting republican in the US is another example for a complicated system. Most intelligent people are voting for the democrats. Those who are not, are securing their interests that are not for the society. The mass of people, like in any other country, is voting for someone they believe in, not for something they understand. So a simple message is something they can believe in. And if living conditions get worse they have even more hope that a return to a simple system will improve their lives as well. The new challenges to the US need complicated solutions that only a few people understand. Obama came up with a range of solutions and it was the biggest fear of the republicans that these solutions would have worked and that their lobbyist would loose competitive advantages. So they make front against Obama and as most of Obama's solutions are blocked the people want a change and hope again. You cannot tell voters for the republicans that their politics is stupid. They are simply believers and changing a believe would threaten our personality that is defined by what we believe in. Few people would admit that the party they were supporting is the cause of all the mess they are in now and that it is their own fault. Well, so probably the republicans will come to power and the dynamics of the world will worsen the situation in the US. In six years, then, a democrat will regain responsibility again. Then the US will have lost six important years and the big potential of its current president.
So, any proposals for a doom stead?"