Do you feel guilty about the oil spill?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Government taxes and services was Re: Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
Next: Operation Distance Chart: 15.66%
From: 5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 on 9 May 2010 23:01 On Sun, 09 May 2010 20:57:17 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <9h4eu5hldr77i56okufvcrplhrcmeoigd2(a)4ax.com>, 5440 Dead, 573 > since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:13:51 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >>(Matthew Russotto) wrote: >>> >>>Renewable is not the opposite of finite. Unlimited is the opposite of >>>finite. Very little is unlimited; the second law of thermodynamics >>>assures that. So blathering about how oil is a finite resource and >>>implying that therefore we shouldn't rely on it is nonsense; we have no >>>choice but to depend on finite resources, because that is all there is. >> >>A strange thing for someone who advocates profligate waste to be saying. > > I don't advocate profligate waste. I do advocate making use of > resources, including oil, rather than leaving them in the ground for > fear that they might run out. It's impossible to run civilization on > moonbeams and rainbows, and that applies whether or not the shift is > gradual or abrupt. Care to point to anyone who is advocating anything like that? The shift WILL have to come, like it or not.
From: 5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 on 9 May 2010 23:58 On Sun, 09 May 2010 20:52:36 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <9e4eu5pr95ke9e0rm8u1m7jinla76tt62n(a)4ax.com>, 5440 Dead, 573 > since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:17:13 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >>(Matthew Russotto) wrote: >> >>>In article <kvydnafd4YLarnvWnZ2dnUVZ_vannZ2d(a)posted.carinet>, 5440 >>>Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote: >>>>On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:26:58 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <8J5En.344637$K81.303465(a)newsfe18.iad>, lil abner >>>>> <@daisey.mae> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If they bring our economy to a screeching halt and ban all >>>>>>automobiles, air conditioners, and power plants pollution will not >>>>>>be reduced by 20% or whatever magic number they pull out of the air. >>>>> >>>>> No, it would be reduced by more like 80-90%. As would the >>>>> population. Wouldn't last long, though; the Chinese would love to >>>>> have the real estate. >>>> >>>>Well, you're correct: all the worlds' economies would completely >>>>crash, as would the human population. >>>> >>>>I would love to know why you think China would be spared. Don't they >>>>use gasoline, too? >>> >>>I assumed they wouldn't be stupid enough to stop. >> >>You realize that the Chinese economy is just one big bubble, right? > > The Chinese economy is dependent on the American and European economies; > through currency manipulation the Chinese leaders are subsidizing the > American and European consumer on the backs of their own people (and > naturally taking a big cut for themselves). > > However, were the US to eliminate autos and power plants and crash, > while the Chinese economy would collapse, it would not fall as far, and > their military would be largely intact. It doesn't have as far to fall. But fall it will. About 75% of the Chinese population -- nearly a billion people -- are outside the "Chinese economy". But they are the source of cheap food and labor, not just for exports, but their own economy.
From: Matthew Russotto on 10 May 2010 21:18 In article <fp6dnVEEQuOc6nrWnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)posted.carinet>, 5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote: >On Sun, 09 May 2010 20:57:17 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> In article <9h4eu5hldr77i56okufvcrplhrcmeoigd2(a)4ax.com>, 5440 Dead, 573 >> since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote: >>>On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:13:51 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote: >>>> >>>>Renewable is not the opposite of finite. Unlimited is the opposite of >>>>finite. Very little is unlimited; the second law of thermodynamics >>>>assures that. So blathering about how oil is a finite resource and >>>>implying that therefore we shouldn't rely on it is nonsense; we have no >>>>choice but to depend on finite resources, because that is all there is. >>> >>>A strange thing for someone who advocates profligate waste to be saying. >> >> I don't advocate profligate waste. I do advocate making use of >> resources, including oil, rather than leaving them in the ground for >> fear that they might run out. It's impossible to run civilization on >> moonbeams and rainbows, and that applies whether or not the shift is >> gradual or abrupt. > >Care to point to anyone who is advocating anything like that? You. See: >The shift WILL have to come, like it or not. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: 5440 Dead, 573 since 1/20/09 on 10 May 2010 22:20 On Mon, 10 May 2010 20:18:45 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <fp6dnVEEQuOc6nrWnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)posted.carinet>, 5440 Dead, > 573 since 1/20/09 <dead(a)dead.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 09 May 2010 20:57:17 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote: >> >>> In article <9h4eu5hldr77i56okufvcrplhrcmeoigd2(a)4ax.com>, 5440 Dead, >>> 573 since 1/20/09 <zeppp(a)finestplanet.com> wrote: >>>>On Sun, 09 May 2010 13:13:51 -0500, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Renewable is not the opposite of finite. Unlimited is the opposite >>>>>of finite. Very little is unlimited; the second law of >>>>>thermodynamics assures that. So blathering about how oil is a finite >>>>>resource and implying that therefore we shouldn't rely on it is >>>>>nonsense; we have no choice but to depend on finite resources, >>>>>because that is all there is. >>>> >>>>A strange thing for someone who advocates profligate waste to be >>>>saying. >>> >>> I don't advocate profligate waste. I do advocate making use of >>> resources, including oil, rather than leaving them in the ground for >>> fear that they might run out. It's impossible to run civilization on >>> moonbeams and rainbows, and that applies whether or not the shift is >>> gradual or abrupt. >> >>Care to point to anyone who is advocating anything like that? > > You. > > See: >>The shift WILL have to come, like it or not. Ah. I see your problem. You don't understand what the word "advocate" means. It means to espouse a hoped-for outcome. Describing an inevitable outcome isn't the same thing.
From: His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises on 14 May 2010 23:26
On May 14, 9:08 pm, Hachiroku ããã㯠<Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:26:28 -0700, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, > ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises wrote: > > > > > Do you find that you can't sleep, or that you have nightmares? > > Nope. Sleep just fine, thanks! I think it is a stain on the human race as a whole. Like a blot of ink on a linen suit. |