Why try for professional excellence?
That sentence is the bridgework of the fortified position which is ultimately that PROPERTY IS BAD. OWNERSHIP IS BAD. PROPERTY IS GREED.
Is that the democratic party?
If so, they are unamerican.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." Thomas Jefferson
And I am sorry to tell you, so is what Barack Obama wants, as should have been clear from the hints and outright statements of his, AND of his scolding wife.
Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
"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.
72? Only if you cut wood and burn it, you fatuous moron. Who can AFFORD 72 degrees? Got any Arugula, Belgian Endives, fresh sage and Ribeye in your fridge, son? What reality is he in?
Here's what is leadership....we invest in entrepreneurial companies which invent energy technologies which replace fossil fuel for vehicle use, and those guys get filthy and disgustingly rich, own so much that later in their lives they feel they owe back, and endow engineering schools, and the govt gets the hell out of the way, and is involved in the business of govt- protecting the people, and making sure no one starves, or freezes, or is deprived of equal opportunity.
PLACING OUR OWNERSHIP AND WAY OF LIFE AT THE BASE OF APPROVAL OF OTHER PEOPLES, NATIONS AND CULTURES IS A DISGUSTING AND DEGRADING FAILURE AND A SURRENDER TO FEAR AND SUBMISSION TO LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN HUMANITY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.
What other nations think of us because we DO PRACTICE professional excellence, and
reward those who achieve it is none of my concern.
I had thought Barack Obama would be another J Carter level of AWFULNESS, but he is out to change America all right, into a place I won't like. A place held at other's 'liking' us.
THEY WILL NEVER LIKE US, BARRY.
CAN YOU REALLY COMPREHEND THEY WHY OF THAT?
Remember John Kerry's plan to have the UN 'ok' American military action?
The democrats DISLIKE the property ideals of the founding fathers, because they are afraid what others think of us.
Enter C3PO.
16 comments:
E, you're missing the point. It's not just "them". HE hates us too. He is not an American. He is one of "them" in his black liberation theory-shriveled heart, brother to the ones who are sorry they didn't bomb enough of New York, the ones who thunder "God DAMN America", the ones who strut around with their NOI fascist Fruit of Islam goon bodyguards, the resentful richbitch of a wife who whines about how "mean" we are. Surely no one at this point believes this man is "naive".
Oh, and you don't think what kind of car, how much food, and the temperature the house is set at applies to Barry and his peeps, do you? Like "going green" applies at the Albert Gore residence?
This is part of his plan to dismantle America, cut it up piecemeal and feed its substance to the Third World and its soul to the Islamists. And if there are enough leftarded morons in this country like those 80,000 idiots in Oregon yesterday, he'll get his chance.
I hereby propose cultivation of the conservative equivalent of Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS: Obama Derangement Syndrome, or ODS. As in ODIOUS.
Excellent post, Epa. You make me proud to be an American.
The world is a bit more complicated than you suggest. If your "property" is a cache of food that you hoard while your neighbors starve, then yes, that's bad. If your property is a power plant whose pollution afflicts thousands of children with asthma, that's bad. We can't just have unlimited private property rights; we must consider what is public property. The ultimate example here is the biosphere on which we all depend.
Obama's comments are being taken a bit out of context. He understands the need to reduce global carbon emissions, to prevent runaway climate change. To do this effectively, we must negotiate in good faith (for a successor to the Kyoto protocol). We can't do this unless we lead by example. When he says "expect that other countries are going to say OK" he means we can't expect them to say, "okay, we'll bear the economic costs of reducing our emissions, while you rich bastards drive your SUVs, eat four times as much meat as anyone else, and waste energy keeping your houses unnecessarily cold."
I'm all for having entrepreneurs invent new energy technologies, and get rewarded for them. (They should have been working on them since "awful" Carter gave us the message loud and clear.) But we have a problem with climate change now, that won't be solved with technology alone. We need to recognize that unending growth is impossible, and relentlessly increasing CO2 emissions will wreck the planet. There is a role for governments to play in preventing this.
Patrick,
How's that Global Warming shaping up for you?
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-warming-temporarily-halted.html
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/nbc-news-files-false-global-warming.html
The whole "Global Warming" issue is just a power-grab, in the guise of science, in order to fight against Western hegemony. Read my posts carefully, and realize the damage your side is doing. You fill the world with reasons why the greatest civilization on Earth ought to curtail its forward progress.
Pastorius:
"Forward progress" towards what exactly?
It's a little absurd for you to bring up a study that says global warming may be temporarily delayed due to ocean currents, and ignore the study authors' statements that it does not in any way affect the long-term trend.
Global warming is happening. We can disagree about the precise extent to which it is anthropogenic, but it defies logic to argue humans are irrelevant. Six billion people place quite a burden on the planet. There is no disputing the fact that arctic sea ice is melting, as are glaciers across the globe. This will cause a positive feedback loop, since the light that was formerly reflected back into space by the bright white ice is now absorbed by the dark blue water.
Your speculation about a "power grab" makes no sense. Westerners are actually leading the efforts to fight global warming. Even such crazy liberals as Pat Robertson, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich say we need to act now to stop global warming. Are they trying to end Western hegemony?
As for your second link: guess what, the end of U.S. oil supplies is in sight. Output has been decreasing for over 30 years. Even Prudhoe Bay only arrested the decline briefly. Mexican oil output has now passed its peak as well, and their government admits they will likely stop exporting oil within a decade.
Ehrlich had the right idea; he was just a couple of decades off on the timing. See:
http://biolaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/ehrlich-simon-bet-update.html
We're not going to "run out" of anything, but we are going to be incapable of producing as much of most things as a growing economy demands, because the larger mines are being exhausted, and fewer smaller ones are being found to replace them.
I wonder if the guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island told those who advised against it, "stop impeding the progress of our civilization!"
Patrick,
We just had one of the harshest winters ever. I'm sure that's because of Global Warming.
In ten years, you and your friends will be telling us we're going into an ice age.
We're not running out of oil. Known reserves are greater now than they were 10-20 years ago.
We just found as much oil in the Rockies as exists in Saudi Arabia:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033
We found 2-3 times that amount in the Dakotas:
http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2008/05/north-dakota-montana-sitting-atop-vast.html
We will run out of oil eventually, but not soon. And, in the meantime, we will develop new energies. It's not a crisis as the people on your end of the spectrum like to frame almost every situation.
Surely you're not claiming that one cold winter disproves the theory of climate change?
I didn't claim we're running out of oil. But soon we won't be able to extract enough to meet the projected demand. The limit is the flow rate, not the reserves. (And anyway, the OPEC reserve numbers are hogwash, as they've all been inflated, to increase each country's quota.)
Oil shale is not oil. It's a rock. You have to mine it and cook it to get something like oil. It takes a huge amount of energy and water to do, and takes a large toll on the environment (as the article you provide mentions).
Global oil production has been flat for the past three years despite record high prices, and the high reserve numbers you allude to. This in itself should indicate that we're having trouble keeping up with demand. These prices are incentive enough to pump as much as possible; yet, supplies haven't increased.
The Bakken formation you reference isn't all it's cracked up to be, with only 1% of the oil recoverable with today's techonology (and at a very steep price). Given the complexity of the wells needed, it's hard to see how we'll get oil flowing at a high rate out of there (even assuming better technology is developed), despite the huge reserves.
In any case, even with some shale oil from the Rockies, and more drilling in the Dakotas, we'll still have a hard time keeping pace with the depletion of existing fields. As I mentioned in the last post, Mexican oil production is falling, fast. And the story is the same in most other non-OPEC countries, including Russia, Norway, and Britain. Even OPEC members are facing trouble: Indonesia shouldn't even be a member of OPEC, since they've become an importer of oil. The increases in Angola and Brazil can barely make up for these declines. And world demand is expected to grow by 40% in the next twenty years or so. That means we need to find the equivalent of another four Saudi Arabias! This is not going to happen.
Patrick,
Prices have not yet given indication that the levels are at permanent highs which they would need to be in order to make shale a reasonable project. However, there's a whole bunch of oil in Alaska which would be relatively easy to get at, but we're not doing so, are we?
And, why is that?
And, as long as we're talking about supply, why is it we haven't built any new refineries in what is it now, 25 years?
And, why have we not built nuclear power facilities?
The answer to all of the above (except for shale) is
The constant leftist battle against Western hegemony.
I would call it simple NIMBY, except for all of the other lies of the left.
Reread the post I provided which documents just a portion of the doomsday scenarios floated by the left over the past 35 years.
Why does the left do this?
Because it's an easy way to attack American productivity, which is a good way to destroy Western hegemony.
It's working well. Congratulations to you and your friends.
You're being coy with me. You really ought to just accept my congrats and go tell your friends that I said, "Uncle."
Pastorius,
You're not exactly responding to my posts. I did read the post you provided re the doomsday scenarios, and I thought I'd responded to it in my previous posts. Do you dispute that metal stocks are dwindling? Do you not agree that it's becoming difficult to meet demand for many commodities? I'm not preaching doom and gloom, I'm just saying the planet is finite, and we're approaching some limits.
I'm not convinced about the leftist desire to end Western hegemony and how it connects with global warming (or debates about resource depletion). Are Pat Robertson, John McCain, and longtime climate change skeptic Newt Gingrich all leftists trying to destroy Western hegemony? Because they are all working to fight global warming (though their proposed solutions vary).
ANWR can't solve our oil problems. The USGS estimates that developing the coastal plain could yield a maximum production rate of between 1.0 and 1.35 million barrels per day, or roughly 5% of current U.S. consumption. It's meaningful, but keep in mind our consumption continues to increase, while established fields like East Texas and Prudhoe Bay continue their long decline. That said, I think it's possible to do some environmentally responsible oil field development there. It just doesn't make sense if we're not also planning for the post-oil future.
Nuclear power has a host of problems, including high cost (they can't be built without huge government subsidies, which I'd guess you abhor), terrorism risk, and the little matter of what to do with all the nuclear waste. And, no one really wants one near them.
As for refineries... it's a tricky business. Currently refiners are having a tough time, and capacity utilization is way below the average of the last five years. That said, there are plenty of parties working on getting a new one built. Not surprisingly, though, no one really wants an oil refinery in their neighborhood.
Cheers
Ok, so you're not preaching doom and gloom. So, I will tell you what I think will happen, because this is the way things work, as far as I can see. Prices go up, making research and development of alternative technologies desirable. New technologies are brought on when their price becomes competitive with the price of the old technology.
That's what will happen.
In the meantime, a lot of people will whine, cry and complain and say the sky is falling, when in fact, the world is simply changing.
And, when it does change, the new technology will likely allow us to be even more productive, however, it will also bring with it some unexpected problems. And, of course, that will set the environmentalists atwitter again, preaching the doom and gloom that you are not preaching.
Anyway, I would recommend a book called
The Bottomless Well
by Huber and Mills
The only thing I can see that will stand in the way of human innovation is restrictive moral and/or government policy.
I believe we ought to let market factors play themselves out.
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of nuclear power. However, it is a technology which leftists destroyed in America, through their incessant fear-mongering. That's the only reason I brought it up.
The discussion you and I are having could get pretty complicated at this point. For instance, the iht article you linked to about refiners having trouble states that "The price of their raw material, oil, is rising because of strong global demand. At the same time, consumption of gasoline in the United States is falling as a result of slower economic growth and consumer efforts to conserve."
Ok, so here's what I find at EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo
"Consumption. Total petroleum consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum products averaged 20.7 million bbl/d in 2007, essentially unchanged from 2006 (U.S. Petroleum Products Consumption Growth). Based on projections of weak economic growth and record high crude oil and product prices, consumption is projected to decline by 190,000 bbl/d in 2008, a sharper drop than the 90,000 bbl/d decline projected in the previous Outlook. After accounting for projected increases in ethanol use, U.S. petroleum consumption is projected to fall by 330,000 bbl/d. In 2009, total petroleum and other liquid fuel consumption is projected to rise by 210,000 bbl/d. "
Now, here's a question: Is that good or bad. If consumption goes down, you say "refiners are having trouble." If consumption goes up, then we are running out of oil.
The facts seem to support the idea that Refiners are having trouble because of temporary market forces. the PPB of oil is high, and demand has gone down in the US commensurate with the climbing price plus the percentage of Ethanol. But, the decreasing demand for oil will bring the price per barrel down, and then refiners will once again be in a better position (i.e. "making obscene profits")
In my opinion, there is some argument to be made that the rise in the price of oil futures is a bubble situation. We shall see.
Certainly we know that there is uncertainty and instability in world markets. Money has moved out of the dollar, remained stable in the stock market and moved out of real estate. The money has to go somewhere. Some people are hedging their bets on inflation. Will they win?
Also, now that we have seen the effects of the Ethanol experiment, what do you think of it? Was it a good idea? Was it a smart way to wean ourselves off dependence on foreign oil? Or, was it just another pipe dream?
Might it be the case that oil is, simply, the most efficient form of oil we have at this point?
I believe that is the case.
It sounds like you and I may be more on the same page than I thought initially.
I refuse to whine as market forces do their work. When oil is too expensive, we will move into new technologies. But, as per usual we will not do so until the level of pain is motivational.
I don't think it's a good idea for government to decide to go into the energy business. I think we ought to leave that to the experts and to the people who are actually willing to put their own money on the line.
Pastorius,
Thanks for the pleasant conversation. Too often on the internet, people don't even try to see past their first impression, and would rather just shout as loudly as possible and try to pick apart some trivial misstatement. I myself have been guilty of it on occasion.
I agree with much of what you say. Prices will go up, alternative technologies will be developed and deployed, and they will help to blunt the effects of the high oil/metal/food prices.
My concern is that oil is a bit different. It's a primary energy source, and we haven't yet found anything remotely like it, which is so energy dense, so cheap to extract and transport. For that reason, I don't think we will necessarily become more productive. It's not so much a matter of inventing new technology, because oil itself isn't a technology, it's a primary resource. I think we're getting closer to the point where increasing complexity (in our economy and civilization generally) starts to have negative returns. (This happens eventually for every society or system.) We have built up so much infrastructure dependent on cheap energy that we cannot survive without it. Squeezing every last inefficiency out of the economy contributes to its instability, and its reliance on cheap energy. And, it's not as easy to gradually get less complex, as it was to get slowly more complex (as we've been doing for centuries).
I agree with you that restrictive moral and government policies are counterproductive. I've always thought the zeal for ethanol mandates, including by some in the environmentalist community (of which I consider myself a part), was misplaced. Ethanol has always had questionable energy economics, it seems like blatant pandering to corn belt states, corn requires ridiculous amounts of fertilizer, and the Gulf of Mexico already has a huge dead zone because of it. And for heaven's sake, Archer Daniels Midland doesn't need billions of taxpayer dollars.
Where we disagree, is that I don't think market forces alone are sufficient to solve the problem, because they don't give signals far enough in advance to allow for a smooth transition. It took decades to build our suburbs, but it will only take a few years for gas to get so expensive that classic suburban mode of development (huge tracts of single-family homes, that require driving for even the most basic needs) becomes recognized as an economic disaster. The lead time to develop alternative energy technologies may be too long for us to react in time, without some nudging from the government (though never towards any one specific solution!). Global warming is an externality that the economy can't easily address. The oil futures market itself is arguably sending a signal about future supplies, but it's still commonly talked about as just another bubble. Paul Krugman's recent op-ed discusses why that's likely not the case.
I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination on the issues with oil refineries. It seems to me there's a good case for building more, since the crude oil being extracted is on average getting to be lower quality (and requiring more refining). I agree that the problems they're having are temporary. But prices are probably going to be more volatile once we get to be largely supply-constrained, so I can see how investors would be reluctant to finance a new refinery, not knowing where the price or demand is going to be in 10 or 20 years' time.
I don't know if falling consumption is good or bad; it just reflects how much people will buy at the current prices. The conventional wisdom on this issue is really schizophrenic, since we supposedly want to reduce our consumption, but increase our production (to get off "foreign oil" -- a term I really loathe, since the oil market is global). But, the surest way to reduce our consumption is actually to reduce production.
I think we need to face up to the fact that the economy cannot grow forever. Billions of Chinese and Indians can't all drive cars and eat meat at the rate Americans do. There isn't enough oil, nickel, copper, wheat, corn, arable land, etc., for that to happen. The more we increase the amount of raw material we consume every day and every year, the harder it's going to be to adjust to a long-term sustainable level. New technology that allows us to temporarily make it through the current crisis -- say, by getting slightly better gas mileage -- will only make the inevitable adjustment harder. And we're really screwed if we think coal-to-liquids and CCS is going to save us.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying we need to reduce our standards of living and go back to the 15th century or anything. But we must accept that we live on a finite planet, and in such an environment, nothing can grow forever.
I am familiar with The Bottomless Well, and I think the authors make a few good points, and some real errors too. On the plus side, they recognize that more efficiency often leads to more energy use, rather than less. But this is a century-old observation knows as the Jevons paradox. So, hardly a revolutionary insight. I take issue with their "waste is good" and "we'll never run out of resources" claims. The authors think the planet has a limitless oil supply, but it's simply contradicted by the production history. If the supply is so infinite, we wouldn't see production declines in so many countries (see links in previous posts). Now, Huber and Mills may argue that tar sands and oil shale should also count, but as we've discussed, these are hardly the same thing. The current oil price, for all the talk about speculators and a "risk premium," reflects actual scarcity. The price has tripled since the book was written. I wonder what they think now? If oil is so available, why hasn't U.S. production increased substantially in response, rather than continue its 30-year decline? Another huge problem is their (commonly shared) tendency to talk about things in terms of years of supply at today's level of consumption. Since they advocate increasing consumption, this is playing a real trick, since a modest 3% annual growth rate means doubling in less than 25 years. And the authors advocate as much of an increase as possible! Honestly I'm astounded and disturbed by the many positive reviews of the book.
For metals, the situation is arguably worse than for energy. Human ingenuity cannot create a new element as conductive and ductile as copper, and there isn't enough to go around. For trace metals used in semiconductors and cell phones, we're in a similar bind.
Check out this piece in Forbes from Peter Huber (one of the Bottomless Well authors). It's just ludicrous. He says M. King Hubbert's peak oil theory was "junk science," but doesn't bother to mention that he correctly predicted what happened in the U.S.! Yes, his timing was off when predicting the peak for world production, but that was a much more difficult prediction, given the distance in the future. His critique of EROEI as a measure of energy's usefulness is equally inane. He's correct in that it's useful to burn energy in order to transform energy from say, coal to electricity, because electricity has many advantageous properties that coal lacks. But if it takes a barrel of oil to process a ton of shale into an equivalant barrel of oil, it's clearly not worth doing. Huber and his ilk continue to take the wrong lesson from "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." The relevant lesson here is that, despite the boy's previous lies, the wolf eventually comes. Hubbert and others have been repeatedly wrong on the ultimate date for peak world oil production, but it's looking increasingly likely they have the right idea.
We have certainly ventured into territory that's not easily traveled in this format (blog comments), which is more commonly used for angry demagoguery as in revereridesagain's first comment to this post. For that, I'm grateful!
Patrick,
Like I said, I had a feeling this conversation will quickly get very complicated.
You said: If oil is so available, why hasn't U.S. production increased substantially in response, rather than continue its 30-year decline?
I say: U.S. production won't increase, until investors are convinced the prices we see are relatively permanent.
You said: The authors (of the Bottomless Well) think the planet has a limitless oil supply, but it's simply contradicted by the production history.
I say: I don't think that's what they are saying. I think they are saying Energy itself is limitless. In other words, as we run out of oil, other forms of energy will become more affordable (in terms of doing the research and development). In my opinion, the future of energy lies in the kind of experimentation Craig Ventner is doing. I think energy molecules will be constructed and we will produce our energy that way. I think this is a new technology which will completely rehsape the way the world works, the same way the computer has completely reshaped the way the world works.
I know, it's pie in the sky. But then, twenty years ago, would we have believed where biotech is very obviously headed?
You said: metals, the situation is arguably worse than for energy. Human ingenuity cannot create a new element as conductive and ductile as copper, and there isn't enough to go around. For trace metals used in semiconductors and cell phones, we're in a similar bind.
I say: This is a subject I know nothing about. Interesting. I'll have to read more on that.
You say: Billions of Chinese and Indians can't all drive cars and eat meat at the rate Americans do.
I say: Hmm, are you sure? I understand the argument against meat consumption, given the way we grow food now. It takes a lot of farmed foods to feed the pigs, cows and chickens we eat. There's only so much farmed food.
But, the amount of food we can grow keeps growing, and will continue to grow, with genetic improvements. I used to work with a woman whose father made a living growing roses in the desert. I doubt that was possible 100 years ago.
Farmers are, of course, concerned about water supplies. Don't you think there are better ways to deal with water? I do. I'm not saying I know what they are. I am not a scientist, but I do believe we will come up with new solutions to the problems of water supplies.
Glad to hear you've read Huber. I would also recommend you read one of our IBA contributors, Al Fin. He writes his own blog on new technologies. I invited him to contribute here because I think the innovative quality of Western Civilization is one of the primary reasons we must win this war against the Jihads, at any cost.
Here's a link to Al Fin's website:
http://www.alfin2100.blogspot.com/
Al Fin discusses possible solutions to the various problems you bring up. There is no denying we are faced with problems. The question is, can we come up with solutions.
When I start to think problems are insurmountable, I look back over history and see that, as long as civilization is structured in an orderly way, with freedom for innovators, and the ability to pass knowledge along from generation to generation with limited interference from religious or government authorities, civilization continues to improve. Life keeps getting better for more and more people. Technology allows us to do things we only dreamed of previously.
I think that will continue on in the future. And, this blog, as unsophisticated as it is, is our share of the effort towards ensuring that our innovative and beautiful civilization continues on.
Do you write a blog, Patrick? How did you find us? Do you tend to agree with what we write about here?
Here's an example of how Al Fin's blog highlights the solutions of the future:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuels-are-part-of-solution-not.html
Yeah, we've created a dozen separate threads now. It's going to be hard to keep this going.
Re: The Bottomless Well and oil supply, the authors seem to have stated different things on different occasions about whether specific commodities are unlimited, or energy generally. I talked about oil specifically in the previous post, but regarding energy overall, there's still a problem. The shale in the Rockies may contain a lot of energy, but it's going to take a lot of energy (and water, and labor) to get at it. So, rather than other forms of energy getting more affordable as oil becomes more scarce, it seems to me the other forms will actually get more expensive. No one is harvesting corn using ethanol-powered tractors. Solar panel factories usually aren't themselves solar powered. And of course, the machines to mine and transport the materials that go into the panels don't run on solar. Solar power (and ethanol, and most other alternative energy) is heavily subsidized, in a way, by oil and other fossil fuels.
I'm not familiar with Venter's work on synthetic bacteria, but it seems interesting (and a long way off).
To a large extent, cheap oil has been behind the agricultural revolution as well. A wonderful article on the subject is The Oil We Eat, from Harper's.
Regarding water supplies, again, the solutions usually offered (desalination, potable reuse) are energy and capital intensive, compared to just not growing our population and economy to the point where we need more than we can just get from local rivers. Climate change isn't going to help matters.
I realize that the bet against technology has pretty long odds. So, I won't be surprised to see us go on for a while without any sort of Malthusian (or Diamondsian?) collapse. At some point we need to figure out precisely what we're struggling for. Personally, I want to spend time with my family and friends. I don't understand the need for 3000 square foot houses, 300 horsepower cars, or $5 lattes. Ever since Henry George we're been lamenting the fact that new technology doesn't make more people's lives fundamentally better. This is something we need to think about.
Though this blog defies easy categorization, I don't particular care for its general tenor. I'm an atheist, but I find the anti-Islam content offensive. I also don't think radical Islam is the greatest threat we (the U.S., or civilization generally) face. And as a left-leaning independent, I don't need to bother with pointless pro-Republican (or anti-Democrat) posts, like this, this, or this. I happened across this page while looking on google news for blog reaction to the recent large rally for Obama in Portland. I don't have a blog myself -- I barely have time to read everything I'd like to. Responding to blogs is pretty rare for me, too.
I'll have to spend some more time reading Al Fin before responding further.
As so often happens when I disagree with another thoughtful person, we can share our arguments, and we can provide the facts to support them, but ultimately, it comes down to what we believe about the world.
Ultimately, I believe the potential of the human mind is infinite, and I believe the resources with which we work are infinitely malleable. It is also clear that when we energy does not disappear, but just assumes different forms. Hence, I see no reason for concern about running out of energy. The question is, once it changes forms, how do we use it? And, back I go to the infinite creativity of the human mind.
That's the way I look at the world. Maybe I'm wrong.
When I look back at the catalogue of doom predictions, I find that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. But, as you pointed out, the point of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is not that the wolf does not eventually come, but that everyone gives up believing he will come, before he does finally arrive.
Most of my fellow Christians would agree with you. The wolf is at the door.
I disagree with my fellow Christians on that.
Once again, it comes down to what we believe about the world.
I doubt the question will be settled in our lifetime.
Thanks for the discussion.
Pastorius,
I, too, believe humans have a great capacity to innovate and adapt; that's why I work to raise awareness of these important issues.
Thanks for the pleasant discussion.
Post a Comment