02-19-2012, 10:44 PM
You look at any country in the world...the higher the energy consumption, the higher their standard of living.
J Marston's point about standard of living not being the same as quality of life is true, and to the extent that Santorum's extended quote in the OP may have implied so, that would be a fallacy. But, to be clear, the bolded sentence above is the only part Trouble quoted when he said, "True", so it's not evident that he was implying that the quality of life is related to higher energy consumption.
It seems that the usual meaning of "standard of living" is very much like the one in Wikipedia: "Standard of living refers to the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area." So it would seem to be an empirical issue - do the levels of wealth, comfort,, material goods and necessities correlate with a higher standard of living? To say that is the case in every country may be a bit of an overgeneralization, but I think it is largely the empirically true that they do correlate.
But, as some here have pointed out, correlation does not imply causation. I do believe, though, that there is a cause and effect relationship between energy use and the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities. (I can explain that farther if anyone would like me to.) So, I think that, other than a little bit of overgeneralizing, the bolded quote Trouble referenced and said is true, is true.
But, back to the whole extended quote in the OP - there are problems with what Santorum is saying. The implicit implication is that we must continue to burn fossil fuels to retain a "high" standard of living. I see no reason to assume that is true. There are alternative sources of energy that can be used to "power" a high standard of living. Because of that, the issue of maintenance of a high standard of living is different from the issue of whether or not using fossil fuels as a major source of energy to retain a high standard of living will cause man-made global warming that will adversely affect future generations.
There is no doubt that human activity that may improve the standard of living for some time can have devastating impact on the environment for future generations; for example, deforestation:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deforestation
J Marston's point about standard of living not being the same as quality of life is true, and to the extent that Santorum's extended quote in the OP may have implied so, that would be a fallacy. But, to be clear, the bolded sentence above is the only part Trouble quoted when he said, "True", so it's not evident that he was implying that the quality of life is related to higher energy consumption.
It seems that the usual meaning of "standard of living" is very much like the one in Wikipedia: "Standard of living refers to the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area." So it would seem to be an empirical issue - do the levels of wealth, comfort,, material goods and necessities correlate with a higher standard of living? To say that is the case in every country may be a bit of an overgeneralization, but I think it is largely the empirically true that they do correlate.
But, as some here have pointed out, correlation does not imply causation. I do believe, though, that there is a cause and effect relationship between energy use and the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities. (I can explain that farther if anyone would like me to.) So, I think that, other than a little bit of overgeneralizing, the bolded quote Trouble referenced and said is true, is true.
But, back to the whole extended quote in the OP - there are problems with what Santorum is saying. The implicit implication is that we must continue to burn fossil fuels to retain a "high" standard of living. I see no reason to assume that is true. There are alternative sources of energy that can be used to "power" a high standard of living. Because of that, the issue of maintenance of a high standard of living is different from the issue of whether or not using fossil fuels as a major source of energy to retain a high standard of living will cause man-made global warming that will adversely affect future generations.
There is no doubt that human activity that may improve the standard of living for some time can have devastating impact on the environment for future generations; for example, deforestation:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deforestation
Ancient and medieval times
In ancient Greece, regional analyses of historic erosion and alluviation demonstrate that massive erosion follows eforestation, by about 500-1,000 years the introduction of farming in the various regions of Greece, ranging from the later Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age.[6] The thousand years following the middle of the first millennium BC saw substantial instances soil erosion in numerous locales. The historic siltation of ports along certain coasts of Europe (Bruge) and the coasts of the Black Sea and southern coasts Asia Minor (e.g Tulcea, Clarus, and the ports of Ephesus, Priene and Miletus, where harbours were reduced in use or abandoned because of the silt deposited by the Danube and Meander Rivers) and in coastal Syria during the last centuries BC.
By the end of the Middle Ages in Europe, there were severe shortages of food, fuel and building materials since most of the primordial forests had been cleared.[7] Transition to a coal burning economy and cultivation of potatoes and maize allowed continuity of the already large European population to survive. Easter Island has suffered from an ecodisaster, aggravated by agriculture and deforestation. The disappearance of the island's palm trees slightly predates and suggests correlation with the significant decline of its civilization starting at least as early as the 1600s AD; the societal collapse of that period can be linked to deforestation and over-exploitation of other resources.
