Well if we had cheap abundant energy from fusion lets say, and I hope one day we will.
Yes I can foresee some problems, would you bother to turn off the lights, the tv or a hundred other appliances, would you conserve the energy.
Hmm I don't think so, humans are greedy lazy and careless and all this extra energy being used could cause real global warming, I hope it would never come to that, but it is a possibility.
He must have said it before anyone ever heard of the Demographic Transition. The lesson from the demographic transition is that the most effective way to control population is to make people prosperous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic...
And not all energy sources release greenhouse gases. Cheap, abundant energy would be good.
I believe that Paul Ehrlich believed that overpopulation would result in massive death and suffering. We don't have to agree with him to believe that his intentions were good.
Depends on its ability to be easily weaponized. Cheap abundant energy that is not weaponizable would be very good for the world. Of course, we already have the ability to destroy the planet many times over with nuclear weapons, so that pandora's box has already been opened. So cheap abundant energy would be good.
To the "Asker" Sagebrush: "Greenies" are bad people. They tell us things we don't want to hear and that we therefore do not believe.
To Simon M.: Anyone who has another opinion than yours deserves the full load of scorn and insults, thereby enhancing equality and quality.
In and of itself, no.
But if energy comes from a source that causes environmental damage, making it cheap and having an effectively unlimited supply encourages its over-use. If the energy is, instead, at least a little expensive, or in obviously finite supply, then people will *think* about the energy they use, and thus avoid causing unnecessary environmental damage.
They dont want other poor countries to grow .
Kinda like racism
Your an idiot child, so you tell me
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
One of the chief proponents of environmental issues made this statement. I know he is just a butterfly expert but he is a close associate of Al Gore and Jimmy Hansen. And his agenda of making energy scarce and expensive is working.
So what do you say?
