"Just imagine for a moment that the human race really faces extinction. Set
aside all the arguments to the contrary and contemplate humanity's end. Imagine
climate change even worse than the direst predictions, and society is in a
If we find a climate change solution, is it predicated on profitability? How
can specific options be off the table because they are too expensive? Too
expensive compared to what? Extinction!
Will Lockett wrote a fascinating article recently about the prospects of
geothermal energy as the ultimate energy source.
Will’s article makes it clear that the U.S., with 5 terawatts (TW) of potential
geothermal power, has the geothermal resources to power the world.
I don’t know if geothermal is the ultimate answer to our environmental
problems, but it will serve as an example. What if geothermal was the ultimate
answer to our energy dilemma? What if we could tap into geothermal, bulk up the
global electrical grid, run everything off clean electricity and quit fossil
fuels cold turkey? What if that particular solution could walk humanity back
from the brink of extinction?
Would we go for it? Or would some claim that the answer to our pending
extinction is too expensive? There’s just no way to make a profit from it, so
the ultimate solution is unattainable. It’s simply off the table because it’s
I can understand how some solutions are simply impossible because they are
beyond the range of our technological ability. For example, if it was
physically impossible to drill deep enough to tap into the geothermal resources
because of some natural law or scientific principle.
But to claim a potential solution to save humanity is off the table because
it’s not profitable is mind-boggling. Money, profit, and capitalism are
constructs of man. We made all that stuff up. How can we be limited by a
construct of our own making?"
*** Xanni ***
Chief Scientist, Xanadu
Partner, Glass Wings
Manager, Serious Cybernetics