Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Buckminster Fuller and Attractive Alternatives

So Barack gave his "Carter Speech" as someone suggested, telling us to eat less, drive less, keep our thermostats at 72.

How 70's. If only he'd read a bit of Buckminster Fuller, who understood economic incentives even if his predictions were sometimes a bit off. People move through greed. While Fuller lamented that our actions were often 90 degrees off of our self-interest, he worked with that reality, only hoping that maybe we might line up to it. His point? Real solutions must engage people's greed, not just their best wishes. An environmental solution must combine ethics with cost effectiveness. Fuller's main role was to develop breakthrough technologies to be available and implementable when a crisis hit making it attractive. Lightweight structures, efficient materials, and so on.

Someone blogged, "If we are to survive, we the developed world will need to learn to live more simply." Fat chance.

You can tell people not to waste, but you can't tell them not to consume. Unfortunately, a lot of people want to return to not-too-distant Marxism/Sovietism/Maoism, when one type of soda or corn flakes was sufficient, marketing/advertising was only parasitic, and the great masses could be united to tromp through the streets performing patriotic duties of flower planting. If that's how you plan on running in November, let me know - I'll get my Intrade bets in now while the odds are widest.

If you actually want a strategy that encourages conservation, find ways that save people money while keeping their comfort level near the same, give people attractive substitutes that are more efficient. Find ways that encourage companies to develop more efficient solutions. And improve marketing, don't stifle it - more effective communication of information creates better choices.

[And yes, please click that l'il ol' Recommend button now]


Comments (185)

Congrats, Desi!

I knew you'd come around.

As we know from history, the most effective way for people to lower consumption is let the price of gas rise. That means no "gas tax holiday".

I'm glad you see one of the primary reasons why Hillary and McCain's plan was ill-conceived.

You, and everyone else who thinks that simply lowering consumption is going to solve anything, are just plain short-sighted.

What we need is an active move away from the entire combustion-based energy infrastructure of the 20th century. This is something which requires adoption at the national policy level. We cannot conserve, hybrid, or CFL our way out of the current combination of messes we find ourselves in relative to energy without such a move.

To think we can is simply wrong.

Grouch:

Did I say it would solve everything.

Yes, lowering consumption (e.g. conserving or "telling them not to waste" -- the point of the blog) is insufficient to solve the problem.

But it is necessary.

avatar
lowering consumption (e.g. conserving or "telling them not to waste" -- the point of the blog) is insufficient to solve the problem.

This is an unhelpful muddle of terminology.

"Lowering consumption," "conserving," "telling them not to waste," are not all the same thing.

If we had the text of Obama's speech, then we could address his specifics instead of guessing.

You miss the point. The drive to efficiency and development of real alternatives will happen in some large part because of the pressure that significantly higher prices for our main source of energy brings.

If solar, wind, ethanol are much more expensive than gasoline then they go nowhere. If gas is much more expensive than they will flourish.

Just look at Europe for goodness sake. Gas cost them something like $8/gallon with something like $5-6 as taxes.

Did you even read or hear the speech? Or rather, have you been unable to find out what Obama has been saying in this speeches the last 17 months? This reads like you tossed off over a line that has right-wingers baying at the moon without context.

Considered me amused.

Consider me amused that you're still around here after exposing your ignorance of Toni Morrison and what she meant when she said some people thought of Clinton as the first black President. I thought you'd be too embarrassed to show your face on a Clinton thread after that. A black avatar calling Morrison a moron? Who you kidding?

Wow, I hope that was supposed to be ironic. Toni ain't Keats.

avatar

fabooj thinks Toni Morrison is a moron, but not because Morrison ain't Keats. It's because Morrison called Bill Clinton the "first black president."

Missed the thread, but I'm with Billy. How dare a black person criticize another black person? It's not right, and fabooj should admit that she's really a white person in disguise. Billy please continue with your delightful ad hominem attacks. They're really raising the level of discourse here. I was obviously wrong to suggest that your contributions have become vapid and derogatory.

Genghis, shame on you. A poster with a white avatar criticizing another poster with a white avatar? The hypocrisy of it is stunning.

Make up your mind, please. Are you going to be white, or not?

I'm multi-hued

Hey, at least Billy isn't capitalizing 'black'!

The real quandary for me is being a white guy with a black avatar. I mean, who can I criticize? It's so confusing. Genghis, Alex, pick me up on this.

Warning! Warning! Pile on in progress!!

Billy keeps everyone honest. I mean, really.

*yawn*

Apparently the directorate got you here.

zz

How about you go complain about another OP that attacks a single poster. As if.

Butter doesn't melt in your mouth either, does it?

Nah, I used to be a BG fan, but he has lost his cred. He crossed the gadfly/asshole line. I'll leave him alone if he posts constructively or cleverly, but when he's just being a dick, he deserves what people give him. Live by the sword and all that. Not that he cares in any case.

avatar

Toni Morrison lost all credibility too.

has a good job with benefits though.

Here's the think, Bee. Four or five times zero is still zero. Alex makes one. The rest of them add up to zero. So it's really just one on one. Me and Alex. Two ends of the spectrum. I appreciate your concern, but the rest of that little clique is beneath contempt.

You're all alone, Alex. Take your best hold, kid.

The real quandary for me is being a white guy with a black avatar.

Now you know how Obama feels

Genghis, you just won my "Favorite Comment of the Day" (besides my own in another thread).

I didn't even know that there was a competition. Nor that you could nominate your own comment.

Cheers 2 that!!!

You'll have to clarify, Billy. Is it your point that people who are occasionally wrong should feel embarrassment, while people like you eventually become become inured to it?

The black avatar knows what I'm talking about.

Yeah you're bad, Billy.

She posted at 11:14 am.

You're a joke.

It put down its turdblossoms and looked at its little watch. She posted at 11:14 am, it said. That was let me see it was well it was a long time ago, it said and picked its turdblossoms up again.

You're the ultimate Rick Roll.

It thought about it long and hard. It put down its turdblossoms and stomped its little foot. You're the ultimate Rick Roll, it said, tossing its head. There, it thought. It picked up its turdblossoms and started humming to itself again.

Left my own edit near the cathedral.

avatar

The world would be a far better place had Bucky's ideas been followed. Too bad most cities bad his geodesic dome. I tried to get a permit once and couldn't.

As I said before, Desidero is running for President of Burning Man with his hero worship of Fuller and Beuyer and alchemy.

Check out his reference of Buckmeister Fuller.

Richard Buckminster “Bucky” Fuller (July 12, 1895 – July 1, 1983)[1] was an American architect, author, designer, futurist, inventor, and visionary. He was the second president of Mensa.[2] He lends his name to a family of complex Carbon structures called Buckminsterfullerene also known as Bucky Balls.

Fuller was a frequent flier, often crossing time zones. He famously wore three watches; one for the current zone, one for the zone he had departed, and one for the zone he was going to.

He experimented with polyphasic sleep, which he called Dymaxion sleep, and claimed that for two years he was able to sleep only two hours a day.

Fuller documented his life every 15 minutes from 1915 to 1983, leaving 80 meters (270 feet) of journals. He called this the Dymaxion Chronofile. That is said to be the most documented human life in history.

He is quoted with saying "I think that we are clinging to a great many piano tops."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller#Quirks

avatar

I think you would find Bucky a great read for many of the perils we all face. Desidero's reasons aside, he was a very important thinker in our history. We would live in a more sane world had his ideas held sway. Just suggesting that you read a bit of his works before you paint such a great thinker with a bad brush that might keep others from reading him.

avatar

I'm getting the feeling that a most of posters here don't really want to deal with ideas. Too bad. Buckminster Fuller seems the perfect thinker for politics these days. I would add Robert Kaplan.

I won't want to become bitter and cling to my piano top.

*wouldn't*

It put down it's flowers, corrected it's spelling, then picked up it's flowers again. "There," it said in a tiny voice.

It corrected its use of apostrophes and put the lotion back in the basket.

My compliments.

haha...turdblossom humor.

Is that what those flowers are? Oh. It gives itself turdblossoms! How funny.

We call it "mulch" down South.

Well, yeah Billy,

Turdblossoms are what I come up holding when I pick your brain.

avatar

That sounds like something George Bush would say.

Compared to the exchange of turdblossoms -- which should be the echo chamber logo, by the way -- Bush is practically eloquent.

Stick to the presumptuous poesy, Billy. It's far more passive-aggressive -- your specialty -- and irritating -- your raison d'etre. When you switch to normal prose, however snide, clever, and impudent, you come across as just another dick.

Just a suggestion.

Jesus. Another personal troll. And I'm running out of troll food, warm milk and old shirts for them to sleep on.

You ran out long ago, young fella.

But seriously, I can't speak for Our Lord and Savior, but there is no intent to troll on my part. To this toothless wonder you became a source of amusement, a piñata, a bauble way back when your avatar was still a soft, fat boy with a facial fist implant.

Billy and Tooth the same person?

Damn, you figured us out.

I think Billy is the third or fourth person I have been accused of channelling.

Do your research before speculating would be my advice; but suit yourself. If you don't mind making an ass of yourself, I don't mind snickering at you.

Tooth, or Tank if you prefer-- It only makes sense in the "multitude of personalities" theory of the grassy knoll set, that someone who had run out of worthy opponents would create another to keep up the energy. Didn't mean to offend.

avatar

It's getting claustrophobic in here.

i

c

a

n

t

b

r

e

a

t

h

Knowledge will not make you bitter. But ignorance will make you dull.

Yeah,

And Dymaxion sleep will make you say things like, "I think that we are clinging to a great many piano tops."

avatar

Here's what our next president said:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

We can't eat as much as we want? Now that's a fuckin' genius talking.

Are we positive he actually graduated from Harvard?

Yes. But only as a lawyer.

You make me wonder whether you are deliberately or intentionally obtuse. (This time, I'm posting as Tankard rather than Billy.)

avatar

It's deliberate, not intentional.

Good one. Obviously I meant "unintentional," and you nailed me. Congratulations.

Hello, Cypher. I put something special up for the TPM turnups at my diary. Been thinking about things you said. Hard reality. Reality nevertheless. Politics fading fast.

Fuller says that reality should always be written in quotes. Such as "Reality".

Why he said that depends would probably depend on the time zone he was in.

avatar

You can call him "Bucky."

ZZ not sleeping or jiving, just takes an entry to remove my picture from posts. Like I said, I'm gone. Gotta a family to support. Has to do with work and not being "outed." Regards to all.

I'm getting the feeling that a most of posters here don't really want to deal with ideas.

You're being a bit harsh, it's not a hard and fast rule. I generally get the impression that it works like this: it's ok if either Obama or Hillary brings it up. If it's outside of the context of Obama vs. Hillary, it's boring, that "savvy psuedo-sophisticate" stuff, I believe it was recently called elsewhere on the site? Within the framing of Obama vs. Hillary, one always can muster up an opinion fer or agin, it doesn't matter if you know anything about the topic, that's what you are supposed to do here, you support your candidate, that's what this site is all about?

Omigosh except what happens if it's true that the primary will not last forever and ever, then one can no longer put everything and everyone into Obama or Hillary folders....what to do what to do, we can't talk about ideas, nooooo that would be pseudo-sophisticate. Wait, what nasty thing did the McCain camp do today? What stupid thing did he say? Quick, find something....then we can talk...and since everyone will be the same side it will be easy and fun to gang up on any GOP trolls that wander by and chase them away, especially if they are interested in hijacking discussions into that savvy pseudo-sophisticate kind of stuff and off of the McCain vs. Obama daily framing...it will be ok, it will be easy, actually, all you have to do is check what Obama's campaign said we should talk about today.

:-)

It is called ELECTION central.

It is called ELECTION central.

Actually, NOT AT ALL; I am sorry, but you are wrong, you are lost in this poorly designed cybersapce, you don't know where you are, you are not in TPM Election Central.

You are in the Reader Posts section of Talking Points Memo website,
hosted by TPM Cafe.
This is it's url:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/

Election Central, on the other hand, is in another location:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
and it has election news written by staff and comments by readers.

All Reader Blogs are hosted on TPMCafe:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/
which is supposedly a place to discuss, oh, ideas and things like that.
(When you write a blog, the instructions say: When first posted, each piece also appears in the sidebar of TPMCafe under "Recent Posts."
and as a bonus to bloggers, you get to chose whether a link will also appear in sidebar at either the Muckraker or Election Central sites, one of those, not both, and only if it gets voted up to Recommended by TPMCafe users who have the complete listing of Reader Blogs on their menu. (See how it says "Cafe" first above Desidero's title?)

Andrew Golis, May 8:

....Second, we've removed Recent Posts from TPM Election Central and TPMmuckraker. The idea here is to make sure that the community is focused here at TPMCafe and that only the very best content gets cross-posted over to the news blogs. The more we can create a coherent community that is discussing and promoting the best posts, the better we'll serve those other blogs.

So, the ten most recommended posts of the last 24 hours will now live here at TPMCafe with the 25 most recent posts below. And the ten most recommended tagged as TPM Election Central and TPMmuckraker respectively will live in the sidebars of those sites....

I hope you can find your way back to Election Central.

P.S, Did you know that the following is the home page of the website?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Believe it or not, it is not Election Central, either.

That's a cruel mirror you're holding up to us. Honest. But cruel. Forget about it, man. These people won't see themselves in that mirror. You're wasting your time.

How did they miss the geodesic dome from that writeup? He patented it.

It was mentioned in the article, and that the greatest example of it's use is at Disney World.

But I didn't include that.

How's this for knowledge. Flower thing learns about Bucky in the Wiki. Then explains what she "left out" in her crib notes to the masses.

I left out the part about Disney World as a compliment to him!

You don't get nuance.

avatar

Who "you"? You?

If you actually want a strategy that encourages conservation, find ways that save people money while keeping their comfort level near the same, give people attractive substitutes that are more efficient. Find ways that encourage companies to develop more efficient solutions. And improve marketing, don't stifle it - more effective communication of information creates better choices.

Conservation always saves you money. It's also called efficiency.

The primary incentive for improving efficiency is the cost of inputs (and the possibility of finding, suing, discovering lower cost inputs) and competition (against those who are already more efficient. For example, as gas prices increase, people look for ways to make money by developing alternatives that cost less. Artificially raising energy prices even more, would create stronger incentives. See Europe where gas taxes are frequently more than 100% the price of the gas itself.

Subsidies work in the same way only they cost the government money, and it is harder to figure out what should be subsidized.

Examples, from this campaign abound. For sure Obama has prompted the idea of developing alternative energy with investments in technology, subsidies, and policies to make using more dirty fuel more expensive--cap and trade (which is a form of tax), higher CAFE standards, and no gas tax holiday.

No, efficiency is "doing more with less", as Bucky referred to it. Conservation is frequently "doing less with less".

avatar

Not sure what you have in mind when you are referring to "conservation" here, Desidero.

Aren't you referring to reduction by doing "less with less"? Reduction isn't necessarily conservation, however.

Desidero is actually following a commonly misquoted attribute to Fuller when the correct attribution is to Robert Browning: "Less is more".

avatar

Sorry, Robert Browning is over my head.

Didn't he invent shotguns?

avatar

Heckuva job, Browning!

Words games are not very interesting.

So are you advocating doing more with less or doing less with less? I took it your post was about efficiency and I think it is clear that there are certainly policy proposals in this election that provide incentives to promote efficiency or conservation (some people will respond to higher energy process but finding a way to more with less and others will do less with less.)

I took it that Fuller's point was partly to exploit greed, which is what incentives are all about (as opposed to commands or prohibitions).

I took your point about conversation being a kind of efficiency, to be more of a philosophical point. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I took it as meaning something like this: I take the boat from New York to London, instead of the plane. On the surface it is conservation without efficiency; however, it is ultimately more efficient for all, because that conserved energy can be used in a more rational way (i.e. used to create alternative energy infrastructure, build rail, etc.).

It takes me a month by water and that's efficiency? If I'm a hippie backpacking through Europe it might be a good start, but if I'm a businessperson trying to sell a product to 12 customers in a week, I need the plane. The "conservation" I'm doing taking the boat is conserving me out of a job, lowering productivity.

Doing more with less means being more productive with less expenditure - energy, time, capital.

The reason China has all our manufacturing is that they're doing more with less - economies of scale. But this isn't the final step. People talk about country living for "conserving", but the resources to sustain one person in the country are much higher than those required in the city, unless you cut way back on activity. You can also "conserve your energy" by sleeping - very low resource consumption.

It takes a few seconds by video phone.

Give people their time back.

There you go - the payoff. I'm working on some telepresence ideas myself - how to make an effective "being there" reality to a conference, seeing your lifesize mates there across the table from you rather than puny screen-and-speaker versions so you can better communicate.

But it took a lot of travel to China to get these video phones and telepresence equipment made. Sometimes people only see the resources consumed and don't see the final payoffs. My objection to the offshoring complaints is they worry too much about our jobs sent to China when I personally don't want to be soldering circuit boards, I want to be coming up with new higher level ways of using technology.

The reason China has all the manufacturing is because they pay their workers so little. They are not as productive as American workers (or workers + technology), but they surely have a comparative advantage in manufacturing labor. That is not to say they won't develop comparative advantages in technology or something else someday and then outsource the labor to Vietnam or Bangladesh or something.

There is a good argument that productivity and pay are tightly correlated around the world, and any disequilibriums disappear relatively quickly, which might mean a decade depending.

Well, this isn't my point, I was simply trying to understand what Economides was saying. But, for the sake of argument, I think here the point would be that, while your productivity was reduced by The Boat, our collective productivity as a society, perhaps was increased. Perhaps that jet fuel was used to build alternative energy infrastructure-- like pennies in the nuclear power plant jar.

avatar

A mandatory cap and trade policy with a government greenhouse emissions auction would generate $70 billion dollars in the first year if I remember correctly. $15 to $20 billion of that could be used to ameliorate higher heating, electrical and transportation costs to the poor thru existing agencies that assist them now. The rest would go to R&D and tax carrots to industry to adopt green tech.

That's Obama's position and I believe about every Dem candidate's position except for Kucinich. It's also McCain's position but he speaketh with forked tongue and little enforcement. Kucinich favored a hard carbon tax as does Gore does now. Gore may be right, cap and trade may not work fast enough, but I also believe this is one of the big reasons he chose not to run this year. What's politically viable to say when you're a candidate and what you have the freedom to promote when you're not are often two different things. Al Gore likes his freedom these days.

Personally I think if you make an offer to a business to take away money if they do X and give them money to do Y they'll have a hard time explaining to stockholders why making less money doing X is a good way to manage their investment.

"Kaplan, over his career, appears to have become someone who is too fond of war. "It could be said," he has written, "that occasional small wars and occupations are good for us." He's expanded on this topic: those "occasional wars" are "evidence of humanity." This is because "peaceful times are also superficial times."" -- David Lipsky[3]

"This is breathtaking. Here is a serious writer in 2005 admiring the Indian wars, which in their brutality brought about the end of an entire American civilization." -- David Rieff in The New Republic

"Kaplan offers no vision, no strategy, nothing beyond accurate descriptions of the current state of warfare inside the Gap. He is the global war on terror's best sideline reporter, but he's the wrong source to cite on how to run the entire franchise." -- Thomas P. M. Barnett

"Kaplan’s real and growingly evident problem is not his Parkinson’s grip on history, or that he is a bonehead or a warmonger, but rather that he is an incompetent thinker and a miserable writer." - Tom Bissell[6]

"When Ulug Beg slurps as he eats Kaplan calls him “crude” and wonders if Ulug Beg’s manners might be explained this way: “Could these be pre-Byzantine Turks? Could this be what Turks might have been somewhat like before the great Seljuk and Osmanli migrations to Anatolia”? The Seljuks migrated to Anatolia around 900 years ago. That Kaplan does not understand how offensive such eugenic explanations are for one young man’s eating habits is appalling. That he does not recognize the basic implausibility of such an explanation is beyond reason." - Tom Bissell[7]

“Kaplan places him where he himself would like to stand, with the realists of this world against the idealists, with the tough-minded pagans of antiquity against the soft-minded strand of Christianity and its offshoots that too often shape modern thought and policy in the West.” - Donald Kagan[8]

“Just about every historical event or political philosopher he discusses he gets at least half-wrong.” - Donald Kagan

"Robert Kaplan set himself up to be the Kipling of the Empire that wasn't." - Thomas Grossman

"“Nobody except the ultra-right wing jingoists like Kaplan is comparing atrocities by various countries. What honest people are saying, is that we should pay attention to our own crimes, and stop committing them. … the just cause for people like Kaplan i