Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Meaning it's not necessarily as green as proponents might like to think as well?
    Plant-based plastics not necessarily greener than oil-based relatives, researchers find
    No one said anything about it being "green" which is why I didn't lump it in with "green alternatives". I was making the point that we have domestic alternatives to foreign fossil oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I don't think I said nor implied it was. That bears no relation to the subject I brought up.
    Then the subject you brought up would be completely unrelated to the forum topic or you needed to give more clarification in exactly what part of that subject you brought up you were actually trying to allude too.

    Or were you trying to make a case against shifting agricultural resources away from food production toward bio-fuels? If that was the subject you were trying to bring up that's a bit different. There actually is a lot of research going into trying to produce these bio-fuels without adversely effecting the current food production.
  2. #42  
    whats the cost of making a phony war in Iraq, defending the Saudis, and sacrificing thousands of young americans ??

    How many trillions of debt and waste have come from this imperative to defend oil resources ??

    How much more productive would those dollars be for america if they were used instead to make the nation self sufficient using current and attainable green technologies ?

    If instead of exporting trillions to buy oil and defend oil dictators, the money went to researching and producing solar, wind, and alternate fuel technologies, how many more americans would have jobs, how much lower would our trade and budget deficits be, and ultimately how much stronger would america then become ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I think your hypothetical is going a bit off the rails. If your example country is in such dire straights, then how are they going to even make war to take other's resources?
    I don't think it's off the rails. In fact, I think in the future this would be a very real possibility. If the population continues to rise, demand for resources will as well, food and water included. Plus, if you believe in global climate change, the food/water problem could come much quicker than the oil shortages. Regardless, I really haven't seen a response to the question on here, which seems to happen in these forums. If the given situations arise, would a war be justified? Pretty simple question that is getting dodged.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    whats the cost of making a phony war in Iraq, defending the Saudis, and sacrificing thousands of young americans ??

    How many trillions of debt and waste have come from this imperative to defend oil resources ??

    How much more productive would those dollars be for america if they were used instead to make the nation self sufficient using current and attainable green technologies ?

    If instead of exporting trillions to buy oil and defend oil dictators, the money went to researching and producing solar, wind, and alternate fuel technologies, how many more americans would have jobs, how much lower would our trade and budget deficits be, and ultimately how much stronger would america then become ??
    Dude, really? It's really a simple question of ethics. Please don't muck it up with a political rant. The question is a simple one and uses two examples. One in which our future society is on the verge of collapse, both economically and physically, because of a shortage of oil. Try to assume that either it will be impossible to sustain using green technologies, or that our society just didn't invest in the technology, and ended up in the hypothesized situation. The other example has to do with a food/water shortage as described above.
    I am NOT looking for a political discussion about the current war. I am NOT looking to bash one political party or another. It is a simple question with complicated ethical consequences. War or no war. If no war, tell me why, and consider the consequences of not going to war. If you would support the war, tell me why, and consider the consequences of the war.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Dude, really? It's really a simple question of ethics.
    Dude, you could have made this a simple yes/no poll, you know...

    Ehtics? Hmmm. OK, would you kill another man's child if your kid was in need of a heart transplant. Don't argue feasibility.
    Yes, I would.

    Would I invade the Middle East to save the US economy? No, I wouldn't.
    Would living in the US change my mind. Probably not.
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    Dude, you could have made this a simple yes/no poll, you know...

    Ehtics? Hmmm. OK, would you kill another man's child if your kid was in need of a heart transplant. Don't argue feasibility.
    Yes, I would.

    Would I invade the Middle East to save the US economy? No, I wouldn't.
    Would living in the US change my mind. Probably not.
    Thank you for answering the question. And I was looking for a discussion on the arguments for and against such a war, not a simple yes/no answer.

    Your two arguments are incredibly interesting to me. My absolute first reaction would be that it would be harder to live with myself when it comes to killing one child to save my own, than it would be to back a war for resources. Simply because I'm closer to the situation, so it's much more personal and intimate. Is one better than the other? Is it really that different? Destroying/killing the other to save the same? Obviously your relationship with your son is infinitely more important than your relationship with your country, but if our economy went, and our infrastructure collapsed, you could be watching millions of your countrymen suffer, starve, and die. It could possibly happen within your family and to yourself. Why then would you not support a war? Using your imagination, it isn't difficult to imagine that situation. Hell look at how $4-$5/gallon for gas affected the country. Increase that 3, 4, 10 fold and see what happens.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  7. #47  
    to quote our infamous VP, it's a three letter word WALL-E.

    Just build a ship so we can all float around chatting in forums. =P
    I see pandas.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Thank you for answering the question. And I was looking for a discussion on the arguments for and against such a war, not a simple yes/no answer.

    Your two arguments are incredibly interesting to me. My absolute first reaction would be that it would be harder to live with myself when it comes to killing one child to save my own, than it would be to back a war for resources. Simply because I'm closer to the situation, so it's much more personal and intimate. Is one better than the other? Is it really that different? Destroying/killing the other to save the same? Obviously your relationship with your son is infinitely more important than your relationship with your country, but if our economy went, and our infrastructure collapsed, you could be watching millions of your countrymen suffer, starve, and die. It could possibly happen within your family and to yourself. Why then would you not support a war? Using your imagination, it isn't difficult to imagine that situation. Hell look at how $4-$5/gallon for gas affected the country. Increase that 3, 4, 10 fold and see what happens.
    I spent some time in Thailand when gas prices all of a sudden doubled. About the same time food prices in India went skyhigh if I remember correctly. People just couldn't afford to buy gas anymore. Everyone was terribly relaxed though. Buddhists...

    We need to add a Blame factor to your theory. You already grazed that a few posts back, but that's something that could drastically change things. Oil producing countries quadrupling oil prices needlessly, fully aware of global consequences. That may be a scenario that would result in a huge amount of bodybags.
  9.    #49  
    Ah the life of a monk... =)
    So would you support a war if the oil countries increase the cost of oil 10 fold?
    Also, here's a tough question: how would you kill your friend's son to get his heart to you son?
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Ah the life of a monk... =)
    So would you support a war if the oil countries increase the cost of oil 10 fold?
    Also, here's a tough question: how would you kill your friend's son to get his heart to you son?
    Depends on the US president and how many oil buddies he has I guess.
    I'm one of those people who believe newspapers are fiction and we're all puppets. I would have no trouble believing the huge price increase is a figment of someone's propaganda machine to enable an oil war.

    I would wipe out an entire village and all my friends, their kids and other relatives. Daughter though.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I think your hypothetical is going a bit off the rails. If your example country is in such dire straights, then how are they going to even make war to take other's resources?
    Define 'war'. 'War' is not only about tanks and aircraft carriers. Take his hypothetical about food. That was specifically why I brought up corn and Mexico. As ethanol production from corn increases, it generally decreases the available supply of corn used for food which causes the price to go up. When your country has a large import base of corn as food, that is going to create pressure for food supply. People need to either increase their available funds (sometimes through illicit means such as the drug trade), or they need to relocate where they can increase their access/available funds (sometimes through illicit means such as illegal immigration).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    No one said anything about it being "green" which is why I didn't lump it in with "green alternatives". I was making the point that we have domestic alternatives to foreign fossil oil.
    And in the process missing the point that the OP was really going for.
    Then the subject you brought up would be completely unrelated to the forum topic or you needed to give more clarification in exactly what part of that subject you brought up you were actually trying to allude too.
    It should have been clear given the portion of the post which I quoted. It was about resources other than oil. Mexico is our second largest importer of corn, and a bit more poor compared to Japan. There's real pressure there if corn prices go up.
    Or were you trying to make a case against shifting agricultural resources away from food production toward bio-fuels?
    No, I was following in the spirit of the OP and his follow-ups. Trying to look at things from a different perspective.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post

    It should have been clear given the portion of the post which I quoted.
    I thought so too but you seemed to think the answer was related to something else??

    Here's the summary of the back and forth I see:
    • You ask, what are the effects on corn production as food.
    • I say, corn isn't the most efficient, there are better options.
    • You say, that's not the point.
    • I ask, was the point about redirecting ag resources away from food production? Researchers are trying to develop methods to avoid that.
    • You say, no it's about food production.

    ???
    So now I'm confused by your statements. My point was that there is a lot of research going into bio-fuels to try to avoid a detrimental effect on food production.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    And in the process missing the point that the OP was really going for.
    Actually no, I addressed a point, he had more than one. That's why I said that we didn't need to go to war over oil to supplement "green" alternatives because we have oil alternatives even though they aren't "green" alternatives.

    His other points I've been addressing more in separate posts such as countries that aren't able to get enough food or water are probably not likely to have the resources to wage war either. I'm talking in a modern world in which things like "tanks and aircraft carriers" are major factors.
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I thought so too but you seemed to think the answer was related to something else??

    Here's the summary of the back and forth I see:
    • You ask, what are the effects on corn production as food.
    • I say, corn isn't the most efficient, there are better options.
    • You say, that's not the point.
    • I ask, was the point about redirecting ag resources away from food production? Researchers are trying to develop methods to avoid that.
    • You say, no it's about food production.

    ???
    So now I'm confused by your statements. My point was that there is a lot of research going into bio-fuels to try to avoid a detrimental effect on food production.



    Actually no, I addressed a point, he had more than one. That's why I said that we didn't need to go to war over oil to supplement "green" alternatives because we have oil alternatives even though they aren't "green" alternatives.

    His other points I've been addressing more in separate posts such as countries that aren't able to get enough food or water are probably not likely to have the resources to wage war either. I'm talking in a modern world in which things like "tanks and aircraft carriers" are major factors.
    Are you saying that the alternatives to oil will be enough to completely replace it? That bio-fuels will be enough to power our cars, possibly with the help of electric hybrid engines? That with this need for electricity to help fuel our cars, we will be able to sustain the demand from an ever increasing population? If so, then I guess you can refuse to answer the first scenario based on the idea that it will not be a problem, although I did state as one of the assumptions that no breakthroughs in alternative fuels are developed.
    But why so quick to dismiss the food/water argument? If global climate change, whether man-made, and natural earth cycle, or any other number of factors, is true, then the food/water producing capabilities of an industrialized nation could be severely affected in a very short amount of time. True, starving African nations are not very able to attack, say, China, Germany, or the US to change their situation. However, say the climate changes so drastically that a country like China finds itself with a billion people without any domestic way to feed them. They begin to import massive amounts of food, which skyrockets the cost of a barrel of wheat, and still it's not enough. Demand from other affected countries increases as well, and soon demand greatly outstrips supply. In this scenario, many industrialized countries will be affected, and the possibility of one country attacking another if the latter country is able to produce its own food supply while the former is being bled dry trying to import any food it can. Would a war be justified then? Or if you lived in the first country and were starving, would you back it? Over-simplified? Of course. But an over-simplified example of a situation that could happen.
    Would you attack your neighbor if you and your family were starving, and their food was the only way for you to survive?
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  15. #55  
    Right now the alternatives wouldn't be a complete replacement in that we couldn't just swap one for the other. However the alternatives would be a viable option in the scenario you presented of a fossil oil supply being choked off by the country holding the reserves. It would require changing habits but would be a preferable alternative to just sending all that money out of the country or going to war.

    If that whole global warming thing does that then people are going to die regardless of the cause until the population reaches a level supportable by the environment. However, would I support murdering people even over food? No. Would I attack or steal from my neighbor if he refused to share? No. Would I share my means of survival with my "neighbor"? I'd have to consider those bridges on a case by case basis.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Right now the alternatives wouldn't be a complete replacement in that we couldn't just swap one for the other. However the alternatives would be a viable option in the scenario you presented of a fossil oil supply being choked off by the country holding the reserves. It would require changing habits but would be a preferable alternative to just sending all that money out of the country or going to war.

    If that whole global warming thing does that then people are going to die regardless of the cause until the population reaches a level supportable by the environment. However, would I support murdering people even over food? No. Would I attack or steal from my neighbor if he refused to share? No. Would I share my means of survival with my "neighbor"? I'd have to consider those bridges on a case by case basis.
    Of course it would be preferable, but that's not the question.

    Let me summarize your response if I can to make sure that I understand. No war for oil, even if viable options to replace it and keep our economy and way of life going aren't available. Allow the country to decay to the point where our alternatives can support us, and work from there. Close?
    As with food/water, I can see that your argument is that if such a crisis were to occur, a country would not be justified in going to war, and instead should let its citizens die in order to bring the world's population into balance with the food supply and nature. Reading any Daniel Quinn by chance? =)
    As for attacking your neighbor to get his food and feed your family, I have to say that I hope you're my neighbor. If the shoe were on the other foot, I would do everything I could to make sure I and/or my family survived. If the only option were starvation or taking my neighbor's food, well, I can say I'll miss him.
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I thought so too but you seemed to think the answer was related to something else??

    Here's the summary of the back and forth I see:
    • You ask, what are the effects on corn production as food.
    • No. That was not what was said. The OP mentioned China having some sort of food shortage and whether that might justify their using some sort of method to acquire it against the will of those who had it. We are directly dealing with some unintended consequences in just that vein.

    [*]I say, corn isn't the most efficient, there are better options.[*]You say, that's not the point.
    Because it's not. Whether corn is the most efficient bio-fuel is irrelevant to the discussion. The thrust of the OP's questioning, while directly dealing with oil originally, was more about when 'war' is justified, if ever (at least that's what I drew from it).
    [*]I ask, was the point about redirecting ag resources away from food production? Researchers are trying to develop methods to avoid that.[*]You say, no it's about food production.
    ???
    No, it was never about food production. It's also not only about the US. If Mexico cannot get corn at sufficiently affordable pricing for their people, what actions are they justified in taking?
    So now I'm confused by your statements. My point was that there is a lot of research going into bio-fuels to try to avoid a detrimental effect on food production.
    I gathered that.
    Actually no, I addressed a point, he had more than one. That's why I said that we didn't need to go to war over oil to supplement "green" alternatives because we have oil alternatives even though they aren't "green" alternatives.
    Except he wasn't just referring to the US.
    His other points I've been addressing more in separate posts such as countries that aren't able to get enough food or water are probably not likely to have the resources to wage war either. I'm talking in a modern world in which things like "tanks and aircraft carriers" are major factors.
    As are suicide bombers in much smaller boats. As I said, it depends on how one defines 'war'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #58  
    If anything, this thread highlights the problem. We, people, want simple answers. The problem is the world is much more complex than that. The simple question: Would you support a war for oil? The answer(s) hoped for is/are yes/no. But life is not that simple. There are huge interactions of a vast quantity of variables.

    My answer: I don't think we'll ever have to make that choice (for or against a war to acquire more oil). Here's why. Oil is not going to suddenly stop. All the media want you to think that one day, probably sometime soon, you are going to wake up and the huge headline is going to be: We Ran OUT! World Panic! .... and so on. But in reality, there's lots of oil out there, it's just harder to get out of the ground. So the cost of it is going to increase more and more over time simply because it costs more to pull out of the ground. Also there's the possibility that it will increase because whomever has it doesn't want our dollar bills anymore (they can't buy anything with dollars so they want euros or yen or take your pick).

    But I digress. As oil becomes rarer, it will become more expensive. As it does people will move away from oil based consumption. Maybe it will be too expensive for Sally to drive her car, so she switches to electric based public transport, but Bill can afford it so he doesn't until 2 years from now when he realizes he can move to an electric car. But each of us will make economic decisions at a micro level that will add up to a macro level change that is spread across years. And 10 years after our oil consumption has dropped to 20% of what it peaked at, someone will write an article that realizes 'Hey, we aren't dependent on oil anymore!'.
    Author of Exch-Calc, Dog Years, Cat Years and all future creations of Pre-zy Software. Available in the Application Catalog.
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken M View Post
    If anything, this thread highlights the problem. We, people, want simple answers. The problem is the world is much more complex than that. The simple question: Would you support a war for oil? The answer(s) hoped for is/are yes/no. But life is not that simple. There are huge interactions of a vast quantity of variables.

    My answer: I don't think we'll ever have to make that choice (for or against a war to acquire more oil). Here's why. Oil is not going to suddenly stop. All the media want you to think that one day, probably sometime soon, you are going to wake up and the huge headline is going to be: We Ran OUT! World Panic! .... and so on. But in reality, there's lots of oil out there, it's just harder to get out of the ground. So the cost of it is going to increase more and more over time simply because it costs more to pull out of the ground. Also there's the possibility that it will increase because whomever has it doesn't want our dollar bills anymore (they can't buy anything with dollars so they want euros or yen or take your pick).

    But I digress. As oil becomes rarer, it will become more expensive. As it does people will move away from oil based consumption. Maybe it will be too expensive for Sally to drive her car, so she switches to electric based public transport, but Bill can afford it so he doesn't until 2 years from now when he realizes he can move to an electric car. But each of us will make economic decisions at a micro level that will add up to a macro level change that is spread across years. And 10 years after our oil consumption has dropped to 20% of what it peaked at, someone will write an article that realizes 'Hey, we aren't dependent on oil anymore!'.
    Obviously it's not a yes/no simple question. But I do think you're wrong about how quickly an oil crisis can, and in my opinion will, sneak up on us. True, there is a huge amount of oil left in the world. There is also exponential growth in nations who are becoming more and more industrialized. India, for example will soon have ridiculously inexpensive vehicles that many of its citizens, who were unable to in the past, will be able to purchase. And any significant chunk of a billion people is going to have an effect. Also, as there may be a ton of oil that is available, only harder to get. However, try getting to that oil without environmentalists throwing themselves in front of you to stop it.
    The competition for the world's resources is just going to get more intense in the future, as countries like India, China, etc, vie for position in the increasing intertwined world economy. It would be great if it were as simple as changing a few habits and switching over to green, clean, and readily available alternative technologies, but it's not. I drive 20 miles each way to work, daily. A nice commute, as it takes about 30 mins. However, double the cost of gas and I'm hurting. Quadruple it and I'm in serious trouble. And I'm obviously not the only one.
    I honestly do think we're heading for intense conflict over the world resources, particularly oil, and conflict can easily tip over to war. And to be honest, if I chose to stay in this society, I'd have to back us in the war. The winner(s) are going to be the dominant forces in the world, and the rest will be left behind until alternative fuels can catch up, which is a very long way off.
    And even if you refuse to argue the oil point, there are still other resources to mull over, including food and water, that could become a problem much sooner and much more suddenly, leading to conflict and perhaps even war. The question is, who would you back in such a conflict. Is there a right side? And if you think there is, what if you were on the other side?
    I don't understand the purpose of the line, I don't need to drink to have fun. Great, no one does. But why start a fire with flint and sticks when they've invented the lighter?

    Let's all give thanks to the app that started it all.
    http://forums.precentral.net/homebre...ebrew-app.html
  20. #60  
    So basically what you're saying is you have no problem with backing an oil war to protect your way of living, making sure you can drive 40 miles a day, even if it means killing a lot of innocent people in the process, and possibly pushing the rest of the world back to the Dark Ages?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions