What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
39 Comments
- TEDChris, on 07/13/2009, -6/+27I love Brand's pragmatism. He listens to science, looks at the new situation facing the world in the 21st century and adjusts his positions accordingly. As John Maynard Keynes remarked when accused of flip-flopping: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” This talk -- and his upcoming book "Whole Earth Discipline" -- lob a series of hand-grenades into environmentalist orthodoxy, but I suspect he will end up on the winning side of most of the arguments.
- Yazilliclick, on 07/14/2009, -0/+15Conclusions change as the set of facts available change. Also, things that were considered fact before can be proven wrong as our knowledge increases. Unless you seriously think that everything that everybody through time considered fact was true and is still true today?
- ZurMacht, on 07/14/2009, -4/+16Interesting presentation. I feel that the problem with environmentalism today is that it has become trendy, or fashionable. While this makes environmentalism much more popular, I think it also turns it into an ideological position people adapt without really knowing anything about environmentalism. People do things like buy organic food and recycle without really understanding what contributions their making. Of course, this is better than them not doing it in the first place, but problems arise when the "green movement" puts a stigma on things such as Nuclear Energy or GMOs. Or things which are not necessarily bad for the environment, or may even be preferable, though they are not the ideal alternative. Many people simply seem to be partaking in environmentalism simply because it makes them feel better, not because they actually care about any sort of difference they are making.
I think a good example of this is how very few people in the US (I believe less than 3%) are vegetarians, though it is, in almost all ways, extremely good for the environment. I don't have anything against anyone eating bacon (it's ***** delicious, after all), but don't pretend that you are helping the environment in an extraordinary way when you are consuming huge amounts of animal matter every week. It can take (depending on many different factors, obviously) as much as seven times the amount of resources to produce meat as opposed to some fruit or vegetables. - SirBruce, on 07/14/2009, -1/+9In an objective sense (if you believe in that), no, facts don't change. But the facts you *know*... or more precisely, the facts you *believe*... do change.
- radicaldementia, on 07/13/2009, -1/+8That's a very good point, but I think he and many others see nuclear as a sort-of transitional form of energy until true "green" forms like solar can become more practical. The sooner we can get off of fossil-fuels the better, and as long as we continue to develop more efficient solar and wind technologies, nuclear is by far the best option while that happens. This is a much better idea than trying to push solar when it is still not efficient enough and harming the environment even more just to build all the necessary cells.
- SirBruce, on 07/14/2009, -1/+8It's not "unsolved" other than the fact that, as you say, people bitch about having it near them. By using breeder reactors and storing currently non-economical waste in a place like Yucca Mountain, there's no problem.
- pubbie, on 07/14/2009, -0/+7"run out of fissionable nuclear material in under 20 years"[Citation needed]
- GaltShrugged, on 07/13/2009, -7/+13This is going to piss off the viros. Nuclear energy, genetic engineering. Oh man. He's a rebel.
- NinjaDolemite, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6dugg for "We are as gods, so we might as well be good at it."
- durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -0/+4
If everybody in the world lived in cities the density of Chicago, the whole of the human population can fit in less than 4% of the world's land mass. Cities the density of Paris? Less than 2%.
If we want to save the planet, we need to build up, not out. - Junkyarddawg, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4It was interesting seeing slums treated as anything but breeding grounds of disease, misery and crime.
Also, both from this talk and from the comments here, it's obvious that enviromentalism needs to define its goals: is the goal to preserve diversity and nature, or is the goal optimizing the carrying-capacity for humans? Two completely different issues, and at present environmentalism is almost exclusively aimed at optimizing the Earth to be able to support as many humans as possible. - eastwood24, on 07/13/2009, -2/+6Interesting position on nuclear energy. One concern I have is with the supply of raw materials availible in the earth to handle the increase reliance on nuclear energy. France is relatively quite reliant on nuclear for the domestic energy and had long ago depleted their own supply of uranium and now import mostly from Russia. Like oil, it's a finite resource, just wonder how much the world really has that can be accessed.
- CrankMyBlueSax, on 07/13/2009, -3/+7Thanks subby, fascinating talk.
- TEDChris, on 07/14/2009, -2/+6Sure facts change: In 1970 it was a fact that there was no scientific consensus that climate change would be a problem. Today it's a fact that there is such a consensus. That's what persuaded Brand to change his position.
- Koookie, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Facts expressed vaguely can change. Think something in the lines of "China is the largest country in the world by population" That can change, but if you are more precise and add "at 2009-07-14" to that, then the fact doesn't change.
- JohnWilsoniv, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3I don't know why everyone is calling this man unorthodox. These points are exactly what i learned taking Environmental Science.
The first chapter of my book made the distinction that environmental science was about supporting the planet because we cannot exist without it (the loss of one species always has bigger repercussions) and that environmentalism, etc was something different. - eastwood24, on 07/13/2009, -1/+4agreed. In terms of energy practicality, it's the most efficient alternative to dirty energy in most places. Although, I know first hand that here in the great plains of America (one of the continually windiest places on earth) wind power will easily be cost competitive once energy delivery systems are created.
- kaelyiesta, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Please stop with the divisive line drawing in the sand. Plenty of people care about the environment, thus will heed the advice of anyone who is probably in the know and has the interests of environment in mind. "viros", unless bound by dogma as you seem to be, will be just as open to these ideas as anyone.
- preppywhiteguy, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2The train through the Bangkok market was great!
- blapierre, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Two words:
Breeder Reactor - anillop, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2WTF is a Viro? Is it supposed to be an insulting term for a environmentalist?
- donotclickjim, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Did you catch that he was basically against organic farming? He's all for genetically engineered food. The organic movement is less about environmentalism as it is about health (or proclaimed health benefits) of the individual. While I like the idea about using less pesticides and chemicals that may cause cancer and other diseases and even treating animals more humanely I don't understand why the organic movement institutes fear of genetically modified foods when they have no scientific backing.
- SirBruce, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Uranium is not really a finite resource in the same way oil or coal is. You're talking millions of years worth of radioactive elements in the Earth's crust.
However, in the short-term it is constrained, basically because it's only mined in a few places. More importantly, nations have not pursued breeder reactors, which can basically extend the useful lifetime of radioactive materials by reusing nuclear waste products. If we want to get serious about nuclear fission power, we need to start being serious about breeder reactors as well as a central storage facility for nuclear waste. - brim4brim, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Apparently Ireland is considering Nuclear power. I don't think we are, there is no public debate on the issue anyway and with our planning laws, they'd require planning permission with people being allowed make objections about locations etc... so I don't think it is being seriously considered because of peoples objections and politicians not wanting to upset the voters in their electoral district.
Not that I'm against nuclear but I don't think it is being considered here. - hushermit, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2We are as gods and yet not. Pity man who ruins all by his ambitions.
- cfuse, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1I am in Australia. We have a crapload of unmined uranium. I read of one of the traditional land owners being offered a 4 billion dollar deal for approximately 220 billion in uranium on his lands. He declined. That was *one* deal, for *one* mine. You do the math.
- kaelyiesta, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983coh ...
I posted this above, but I think this is the most important misunderstanding about nuclear energy today. - kaelyiesta, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983coh ...
This article argues that nuclear energy can be more sustainable and less polluting than solar. All the arguments about mining uranium are made invalid by this form of breeder reactor. - ZurMacht, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1@Serif69
Of course it isn't reasonable to ask people to do act a certain way out of almost anything but self interest. Incidentally, I think almost everything we do is motivated by selfishness. I suppose I should of been more specific. My complaint is more along the lines of how people pretentiously believe they actually care about the environment when in fact they simply do things they do to satisfy themselves (like everything else). I guess you can apply this mentality to everything though, not just people parking in environmentalism.
@Cfuse
First of all, you don't necessarily know that people who are vegetarians partake in a "western lifestyle" (whatever that means, exactly). Secondly, even if one is, it is still better to be a vegetarian (environmentally speaking) than to not be one. Simply because one cannot live up to the ideal standard doesn't mean we shouldn't or can't attempt to change ourselves, or the way we live. Indeed, that was Stewart Brand's entire point about nuclear power.
@Donotclickjim
I did catch that; I just didn't want to imply that I am necessarily against organic farming. The reason being, I am strongly for GMOs (which of course would not fall under the “organic” category), but I am also for methods of farming (such as not using pesticides) which are considered “organic”. Some processes of organic farming are legitimately helpful to the environment. But, being against GMOs is largely unjustified, as Brand talked about in the presentation. - RossDuprey, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1send it into the sun
- MrTinker, on 07/14/2009, -3/+3Facts don't change. Convictions do.
- serif69, on 07/14/2009, -3/+3"Many people simply seem to be partaking in environmentalism simply because it makes them feel better, not because they actually care about any sort of difference they are making."
I thought that was the entire point of this "green" movement. Show me an environmentalist who says they truly care about the environment and I'll show you someone who is primarily looking out for human interest. There's nothing wrong with doing things for selfish reasons—especially to prolong our species—but to say it's to "help the environment" is dishonest. Helping the environment is helping yourself. Embrace that, and people will understand. - cfuse, on 07/14/2009, -2/+1I think the idea of being a vegetarian for ecological reasons whilst still participating in a western lifestyle is about as ridiculous as you can get. These are the same people that get a warm glow changing a CFL lightbulb powered by a dirty coal station. Pissing on a fire doesn't put it out.
- Richandler, on 07/13/2009, -3/+2Uranium is a lot more abundant than you think. The mere fact that it's believe their is more uranium in the ground in terms of power than there is coal should tell you something. Coal is not like oil, we aren't running out any time soon.
While I agree a lot with what he says on nuclear and food, but I have to say that proclaiming that here are a lot of unseen environmental disasters ahead is very unscientific. It's one of my main issues with the global warming agenda. There are no environmentalist predicted the huge hurricane season such as the one Katrina was a part of, yet they use the example as something we should fear from their predictions. We have yet to have a season even close to that one. Using a heat wave killing 35,000 is a horrible example, simple because heat kills people every day, particularly senior citizens especially lacking in water.
The idea of geoengineering also is something that can be extremely dangerous. Imagine attempting to cool the earth only for the earth to create two events which cool the earth naturally. That would be a man made natural disaster. - DavidNiven, on 07/14/2009, -10/+8Wow. An environmentalist who admits he was wrong about some things. How refreshing...and rare!
Now, will today's enviro-wackos call him a traitor and corporate turncoat in their typical knee-jerk reaction way? Probably some will. - AvangionQ, on 07/14/2009, -6/+3Switching from coal to nuclear would merely be a stopgap measure, as we would run out of fissionable nuclear material in under 20 years if we attempted this shift ... we have to focus on renewable energy sources -- solar is merely one of many, as wind, tidal and geothermal are just as viable ... if we put a micro-wind turbine on every rooftop, we'd have an energy surplus to spare -- and all it would take to accomplish that is a large scale public works project ...
- solargroupies, on 07/14/2009, -11/+5Compelling talk overall. It is astounding however that Mr. Brand ignores the unsolved catastrophic issue of radioactive waste that no one wants in their back yard that must be safely stored for 500,000 years!
- SloppyJoe, on 07/14/2009, -7/+1Most boring TED talk ever.
- chessthecat, on 07/14/2009, -17/+3Facts don't change. That's why they're facts. He's flip-flopping. Nuclear energy has always been an optimal solution to our energy problems. What facts have changed in that debate? It's easy to end up on the winning side of arguments when you wait long enough to figure out which is the winning side.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is