Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    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?
    My example of my commute was to show that people who can't afford gas are just fine by changing their habits. It will seriously affect our economy from the individual on up.
    When it comes to war, if it is between the US keeping our status in the world compared to other emerging countries, or falling far behind while they are able to dominate the worldwide economy, which would you rather have? And don't kid yourself. If the choice is war or economic collapse, you can bet China will do what it can to keep its economy and worldwide status on track.
    I'm not for war. I'm not too thrilled that my sister and her son lived for a year without her husband because he was in Iraq. I would love a world of peace. But I do think it's a strong possibility in our future that conflict over resources will hit us. Oil may not be the only factor, but you can bet it will be a main one.
    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
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    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?
    Not exactly. The country doesn't need to decay to the point that alternate sources can support it rather people would need to put in actual effort to change their life styles and adapt the infrastructure to those alternate sources. As far as oil goes the question is do you want to spend money on adapting or money and lives on killing? I'd go with adapting.

    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    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? =)
    It's a "no win" scenario. The alternative is if you invade another country because of scare food and water you have your own soldiers dieing, their soldiers dieing and once you take the country you have to kill off the non-combatant inhabitants somehow or you'll be right back in the place you started, without enough food or water. Either way people are going to die, one option is just a more violent than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    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.
    Just remember, I said I wouldn't attack my "neighbor" to steal his food. If my neighbor attacked me I'd stab him in the face without a second thought. Don't mistake not wanting to murder someone for their food for not intending to kill to defend myself if attacked.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Not exactly. The country doesn't need to decay to the point that alternate sources can support it rather people would need to put in actual effort to change their life styles and adapt the infrastructure to those alternate sources. As far as oil goes the question is do you want to spend money on adapting or money and lives on killing? I'd go with adapting.



    It's a "no win" scenario. The alternative is if you invade another country because of scare food and water you have your own soldiers dieing, their soldiers dieing and once you take the country you have to kill off the non-combatant inhabitants somehow or you'll be right back in the place you started, without enough food or water. Either way people are going to die, one option is just a more violent than the other.



    Just remember, I said I wouldn't attack my "neighbor" to steal his food. If my neighbor attacked me I'd stab him in the face without a second thought. Don't mistake not wanting to murder someone for their food for not intending to kill to defend myself if attacked.
    Stab him in the face.
    The reason I brought this topic up was it was an interesting discussion here at work that we got into, and it revealed that a lot of people simply think on the surface, but don't take it any further. It's easy to say "Yeah, of course I'm against war." Really, given the choice, what sane person isn't. However, we're not talking about a simple change in lifestyles or habits. We're looking at, really, a complete transformation of our infrastructure and our economic foundation. I am all for researching alternative energies and alternative manufacturing techniques and processes. However, right now we are competing with, say, China. Our bureaucracy and international laws prevent us from making many deals with countries when it comes to oil trade that China can easily make. They can say, "Look, we don't care about how you conduct your business. We don't need to interfere in your affairs. We are going to supply you with money and in return, you will supply us with oil rights." It's really that simple for them. We, on the other hand, would need to go into countries with oil, but also human rights violations and persecution, and demand that they stop. How would we look otherwise? Not to mention that China now holds the majority stock in the country's debt, and we are being pushed into a corner. If we are forced out nearly completely and our economy can't keep up, you can bet that the gov't is going to do something about it. And it isn't going to simply be investing in alternative energies. Especially when those alternatives are much more expensive to implement than the traditional system.
    I am 100% for our investing in alternatives to petroleum. I can't stand looking at the Middle Eastern countries getting rich off of oil and, oil, and yet repressing its citizens and breeding terrorism. It sucks, and I feel like the world is really on their leash. There's a reason it's the most volatile region on the planet right now, and it's not solely religion. And unfortunately for us, when it comes to competition for the oil, it's not a level playing field. That's why I do see conflict in the future. And frankly, I don't think people have really tried to imagine the scenario where an oil shortage does actually occur, and we aren't in energy heaven with unlimited alternatives. Throw yourself into that world, and see what you think.
    And when it comes to an absolute me and my family vs you and yours, in the food example, I obviously don't think that you would refuse to defend yourself if I tried to take it from you. It is your only way to survive. Unfortunately, it would be my only way as well, and given the choice of attacking you or watching my family die, for me it's a no brainer.
    BTW...I do hope your alternative bio-plastic manufacturing becomes a legitimate reality. Otherwise, We might not be able to get our webOS phones for much longer. =)
    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. #64  
    War is rarely (if ever) justified. Fighting for that oil just means we will burn through all of that oil quicker. What we need to do is spend those resources developing real alternatives to oil. Going for the oil just speeds up how quickly we would burn through it.


    My Themes:CLICK HERE
  5.    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeisnowonfire View Post
    War is rarely (if ever) justified.
    Tell that to Pearl Harbor. Europe in '39. Or 1940's Jews.
    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
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by morrison0880 View Post
    Tell that to Pearl Harbor. Europe in '39. Or 1940's Jews.
    I said rarely. You are citing those as examples, but none of those were over oil. I should have been more specific when I made that statement.


    My Themes:CLICK HERE
  7.    #67  
    "Rarely (if ever)". Just making sure idealism doesn't creep its way into the conversation. =)
    And as I said, the question was based on a hypothetical situation where the oild shortage was happening, and alternatives were not available, or able to come close to meeting our energy needs. OF COURSE we should look into alternatives. That's not up for debate. It is explicitly stated from the onset that this thought experiment is premised on the fact that the alternatives are not there. THAT is where the argument starts, not right now where there is no such crisis.
    Again, it seems like the oil argument is hitting a nerve, so go ahead and argue the food/water argument. Or not.
    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
  8. #68  
    My apologies. You aren't hitting a nerve with me, I just got lackadaisical and did not stay on topic. People already fight over all the things you said right now. Naturally, this would seem to say that we will be led into anarchy, with everyone fighting for resources. It is hard to envision that (right now) when you think about it, as is everyone reconciling their differences and joining forces for a better tomorrow. So I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between, with some people fighting over these things, while others work diligently towards something better. But we should hope none of the big first-world countries ever decides to fight for these things. That could lead our world into something very dangerous.


    My Themes:CLICK HERE
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions