Aaaarrgghhh! Friggin’ SHEEP

ANTHONY WATTS proudly displays a new toy — an energy fetishist’s wet dream machine. See, in California, (and, sadly, elsewhere), instead of increasing supply of electricity to meet demand, the fucking green fascists are trying to throttle demand by means of intrusive regulation and distortion of the market. And all the people lap up that thin, runny crap as though it were salty brown gravy, handily forgetting that the whole purpose of electricity is to ease human existence. Chasing economy for its own sake is a perversion, and the tyrant wannabes pushing it on you deserve no better than the back of your hand — hard — to the chops.

Oh, come ON, Alger! Isn’t it a good thing to save energy?

No, Dolly, it’s not. Like everything else in life, it matters why. If the why is a perversion, or causes a degradation of the quality of life, rather than an enhancement, it can hardly be progress. Instead of conservation, think of it as starvation. Is it a good thing to starve a child? After all, you use less food!

But that’s different!

How? Because the victim is specifically a child instead of non-specifically “just people” — who may or may not be children?

How is there going to be a victim from using less power?

Now it’s my turn to go, “Oh, come ON, Dolly!” Surely you can’t be so naive! What’s the proper merchant response to an increase in demand?

Initially and temporarily, to increase prices.


To gauge demand.

To what end?

For the next step: to increase supply.

And this program of the greens is going to do that… how, exactly?


Er… It’s not?

Right. And why not?

Because the greens believe there is a limit to human expansion set by available resources.

And who first proposed these limits?


Correct. And was he right?


And how soon was he proven wrong?

Before his conjectures were even published.

And has there ever been a situation where this kind of thinking was borne out?


In fact, it’s been spectacularly wrong every time it’s been put forth, hasn’t it?


And when the ideas have been put into force, they have, in fact, caused considerable suffering and death, correct?

As in the Ukraine under Stalin, yes.

Whereas reliance on human ingenuity, the genius of the marketplace, and the abundance of nature has propelled the most prosperous societies in the history of civilization. Right?


Now. You’ve heard me on this before. When you turn a machine or other device against its design purpose, what is that?

A perversion.

Correct. And is it a perversion to make a machine consume less energy without increasing its efficiency?


And does the device Anthony Watts described make the machines in question more efficient? Does it help them do their designed jobs while using less energy?

We don’t know enough to tell. We’re up against the knowledge problem. We don’t have and cannot get sufficient data to make an informed choice. However, we must assume, because the machines were designed to consume energy in a standby state, that there was some reason for this, and that cutting off the power supply to a machine in standby will 1) probably damage the machine and B) prevent it from providing the service to human beings it was designed to provide.

Very good, Dolly. You may have a cheese Danish.

Oh, goody! My favorite!

::turns to the readers:: Remember, folks, don’t pursue energy savings for their own sake. Those savings are illusory and will end in human suffering. Enhanced efficiency is good. Simply throttling demand with no commensurate increase in efficiency is bad. Evil, in fact.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *