There is an interesting issue that arises between two groups: one that believes they have the right to own land and another that does not. The group that ‘owns’ the lands will inherently grow and grow, pushing the ability to gain free energy form the sun onto smaller and less desirable pieces of land.
Now we live in a world where most land is owned, and most people live with the acceptance that this is the way it will be. Let’s consider the idea of not owning land, a house, or an apartment. What problems do you foresee? What problems does this idea eliminate? Would global transportation of goods, fuels and people continue? Is it possible to revert back to a non-ownership way of life?
As we have seen, solar power is the sustainable power source that nearly everyone on earth has access to. Energy form the sun can provide electric, power cars, and heat homes. Solar energy directly allows plants, and thus food, our most basic energy supply to grow. By owing the land we see the poor non-land owners, will always be indebted, or enslaved, to the land owners because they have no access to solar energy.
Free energy is a revolutionary idea. But without it in its simplest form, free food, it is hard to imagine a world without slavery, or debt.
Land ownership in North America began to change about 400 years ago. Did it change for the better? If so, do the ends justify the means?
I think land ownership is a terrible policy from an energy standpoint. Land ownership implies an end to nomadic living, and the start of civilization and agriculture. This means people are producing more energy than they are consuming (it takes less energy to get food when you don't have to hunt/gather it), whic leads to population growth. Population growth has proven to be an incredibly negative factor in our energy sustainability. Land ownership has essentially allowed us to overpopulate, and does not breed energy conscious or efficient practices. While I don't think this policy is acceptable given the energy crisis we are in now, I don't think a change is very likely to occur. People are set in their ways and have ingrained perceptions of how society functions and should function. We have lived in a society that values profit and ownership, and changing these ideals would require a complete change in social structure and functions. This change would be drastic and costly and I don't think it is feasible given the efforts most people are willing to make.
2 comments:
There is an interesting issue that arises between two groups: one that believes they have the right to own land and another that does not. The group that ‘owns’ the lands will inherently grow and grow, pushing the ability to gain free energy form the sun onto smaller and less desirable pieces of land.
Now we live in a world where most land is owned, and most people live with the acceptance that this is the way it will be. Let’s consider the idea of not owning land, a house, or an apartment. What problems do you foresee? What problems does this idea eliminate? Would global transportation of goods, fuels and people continue? Is it possible to revert back to a non-ownership way of life?
As we have seen, solar power is the sustainable power source that nearly everyone on earth has access to. Energy form the sun can provide electric, power cars, and heat homes. Solar energy directly allows plants, and thus food, our most basic energy supply to grow. By owing the land we see the poor non-land owners, will always be indebted, or enslaved, to the land owners because they have no access to solar energy.
Free energy is a revolutionary idea. But without it in its simplest form, free food, it is hard to imagine a world without slavery, or debt.
Land ownership in North America began to change about 400 years ago. Did it change for the better? If so, do the ends justify the means?
I think land ownership is a terrible policy from an energy standpoint. Land ownership implies an end to nomadic living, and the start of civilization and agriculture. This means people are producing more energy than they are consuming (it takes less energy to get food when you don't have to hunt/gather it), whic leads to population growth. Population growth has proven to be an incredibly negative factor in our energy sustainability. Land ownership has essentially allowed us to overpopulate, and does not breed energy conscious or efficient practices. While I don't think this policy is acceptable given the energy crisis we are in now, I don't think a change is very likely to occur. People are set in their ways and have ingrained perceptions of how society functions and should function. We have lived in a society that values profit and ownership, and changing these ideals would require a complete change in social structure and functions. This change would be drastic and costly and I don't think it is feasible given the efforts most people are willing to make.
Post a Comment