The coming 'peak oil' and its geopolitical consequences

[PersianLord]

Greetings,

Today I read a highly sophisticated analysis of Bundeswehr on the possible consequences of a global oil depletion crisis in near future and thought it might be of interest to FB readers.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

This is the part of report that pisses me off:

Peak oil would also have profound consequences for Berlin's posture toward the Middle East, according to the study. "A readjustment of Germany's Middle East policy ... in favor of more intensive relations with producer countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have the largest conventional oil reserves in the region, might put a strain on German-Israeli relations, depending on the intensity of the policy change," the authors write.

Thus, I posted my oppsing comment in the related Facebook page here:

http://www.facebook.com/spiegelinternational

The report's suggetion to put aside politics in relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran for the sake of oil seems pathetic to me. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both among the worst abusers of human rights and neglecting the plight of these nations...  in order to secure cheap oil sounds too 3rd-reichian for a 'democratic' Germany. I think the report understimates the negotiating power of West in handling relations with oil-producing nations; the fact is that almost NO oil-producing country is capable of even 'exploring', leave alone exracting, their oil resources and all are dependent on the free world's big corporates. So, instead of pursuing a passive submission to the oppressive regime of Middle East, I suggest taking a brave, aggressive stand that will achieve two goals at the same time:

i) Securing the stream of oil to West
ii) Acting on the West's responsibilities towards promoting and protecting human rights and democratic rule

Regards

I would like to know what do FB reader think of the ongoing debate.

PL

[Zorba]

With a "brave, aggressive stand" do you mean something like the USA's efforts in Afghanistan?

[PersianLord]

With a "brave, aggressive stand" do you mean something like the USA's efforts in Afghanistan?

Not necessarily. BTW, I realize your inherent opposition to 'bravery'.

Regards,

PL

[Zorba]

I don't oppose bravery, but I wonder if you even know what you're talking about. So I ask again, what kind of bravery do you have in mind?

[PersianLord]

I don't oppose bravery, but I wonder if you even know what you're talking about. So I ask again, what kind of bravery do you have in mind?

Bravery means it's bad to succumb to Mullahs for the sake of securing oil, even when we all know they're going to make nukes, as those German 'experts' have suggested. It also means not bowing to Saudi king to appease the 'Muslim' world.

I hope I helped you out to grasp a minimalistic understanding of 'bravery'. I'm not interested in continuing this 'debate' though.

PL

[stiefnu]

I would like to know what do FB reader think of the ongoing debate.  PL

I'm not interested in continuing this 'debate' though.  PL

So, why bother to invite a debate in the first place? 

[PersianLord]

So, why bother to invite a debate in the first place? 

Because I know Zorba's interested in anything but a 'debate' in its true meaning.

PL

[RickrInSF]

"peak oil" is a concept used scare weak minded people like u PL

[Zorba]

PL, apparently you described what you see as cowardry. I asked what kind of bravery you had in mind. It's indeed hard to have a good debate if you can't even explain your own viewpoint...

[RickrInSF]

here is a good debate:
is PL's icon a man or a woman, and why does he pick such a picture?

[PersianLord]

Well, since I'm not into debating with queers, I leave Rick's inflammatory remarks ucommented as they're not even worth reading. I just ask the admins to see which idiot is starting flame wars.

But Zorba, I just pointed out that by bravery I mean not succumbing to despotic rulers such as Mullahs or Saudis for the sake of oil. In other words, not to sacrifice your human obligations in promoting democracy and human rights just to secure an oil stream for your economy. I don't know why you can't grasp the idea though.

Regards,

PL

[Zorba]

Don't you find that rather vague PL? Make it concrete. Who is succumbing right now and how, and what is your alternative, brave plan to this? I would like to know what you want to do, not what you don't want to do (as that can never be bravery).

[stog]

give a man enough rope...

[PersianLord]

Don't you find that rather vague PL? Make it concrete. Who is succumbing right now and how, and what is your alternative, brave plan to this? I would like to know what you want to do, not what you don't want to do (as that can never be bravery).

Zorba, have you read the Spiegel link at all? I guess not, since according to the leaded info, German think tanks are suggesting:

Peak oil would also have profound consequences for Berlin's posture toward the Middle East, according to the study. "A readjustment of Germany's Middle East policy ... in favor of more intensive relations with producer countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have the largest conventional oil reserves in the region, might put a strain on German-Israeli relations, depending on the intensity of the policy change," the authors write.

So, this is the 'succumbing' part. Got it?

Now what's my plan? I just explained it briefly in my 1st post: since the despotic regimes ruling the oil-rich nations are dependent on Westeran technology to explore & extract their oil, West has actually the 'upper hand' in its relations with them, quite contrary to what German 'experts' would us believe. So, there's no need to 'intensify' relations with Mullahs & Saudis at the expense of abandoning democracy-promoting campaigns and neglecting the well and alive freedom-seeking movements of Iranians and Arab. And this is what I call a 'brave' move. May be not a thoroughly appropriate word though.

Regards,

PL

[garp_02]

Oh dear - PL is an even bigger *rick than I thought on my first ever contact with him.

He seems to think that 'the West' should be promoting democracy like some religious crusade, and that democarcy is somehow tied to freedom!  Democracy is a form of political government, like many other forms and is, itself, riddled with problems. I do not see it as the West's right to impose it's preferred form of government upon other sovereign nations.

I also don't see the West as having a right to the oil under the ground of the oil-rich nations.  If the West believes so much in supply and demand and a free economy, then surely the inevitable outcome of that is that the oil-rich nations can charge what they want for their assets.

Let's face it, the West appeased the Kuwaiti regime by interjecting because of oil - I believe the second Gulf war was almost entirely undertaken for the black gold.

As for human rights - isn't it everyone's basic human right to be 'queer' or express their sexuality in any way they wish, so long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else?

PLcontaradicts his own arguments so many times that I think he should accet ridicule as his true human obligation.

[PersianLord]

Oh dear - PL is an even bigger *rick than I thought on my first ever contact with him.

He seems to think that 'the West' should be promoting democracy like some religious crusade, and that democarcy is somehow tied to freedom!  Democracy is a form of political government, like many other forms and is, itself, riddled with problems. I do not see it as the West's right to impose it's preferred form of government upon other sovereign nations.

I also don't see the West as having a right to the oil under the ground of the oil-rich nations.  If the West believes so much in supply and demand and a free economy, then surely the inevitable outcome of that is that the oil-rich nations can charge what they want for their assets.

Let's face it, the West appeased the Kuwaiti regime by interjecting because of oil - I believe the second Gulf war was almost entirely undertaken for the black gold.

As for human rights - isn't it everyone's basic human right to be 'queer' or express their sexuality in any way they wish, so long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else?

PLcontaradicts his own arguments so many times that I think he should accet ridicule as his true human obligation.

What a clueless idiot are you garp.

I never said that the oil resources of oil-rich nations belong to West.

Also I didn't oppose being a 'queer' or any other sexuality form your deranged brain can ever imagine of. I just said I'm not into debating with them and this is my fundamental right.

Oh...I was about to forget. I'm not into debating with arseholes as well.

PL

[garp_02]

So, instead of pursuing a passive submission to the oppressive regime of Middle East, I suggest taking a brave, aggressive stand that will achieve two goals at the same time:

i) Securing the stream of oil to West
ii) Acting on the West's responsibilities towards promoting and protecting human rights and democratic rule

So isn't taking an aggressive stand to ensure the stream of oil to the West an assumption that the West has a right to that oil?

[PersianLord]

So, instead of pursuing a passive submission to the oppressive regime of Middle East, I suggest taking a brave, aggressive stand that will achieve two goals at the same time:

i) Securing the stream of oil to West
ii) Acting on the West's responsibilities towards promoting and protecting human rights and democratic rule

So isn't taking an aggressive stand to ensure the stream of oil to the West an assumption that the West has a right to that oil?

As Western technology is behind oil exploration & extraction, yes it does have a right to oil stream. It's a 'free market'; so when you suplply the producers with tech and other resources, you have a right to purchase their products' otherwise you'll stop providing your technical support.

PL

[garp_02]

Laugh My Bloody Ass Off.

I'll let the readers decide who the 'arsehole' is.

[socksey]

Shall we have a poll on that?     I vote for garp as the "arsehole".

Behave, brattlings and stop resorting to name calling, please.   

socksey



Remarriage: A triumph of hope over experience. -Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)

[Zorba]

Zorba, have you read the Spiegel link at all? I guess not, since according to the leaded info, German think tanks are suggesting:

Peak oil would also have profound consequences for Berlin's posture toward the Middle East, according to the study. "A readjustment of Germany's Middle East policy ... in favor of more intensive relations with producer countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have the largest conventional oil reserves in the region, might put a strain on German-Israeli relations, depending on the intensity of the policy change," the authors write.

So, this is the 'succumbing' part. Got it?

Now what's my plan? I just explained it briefly in my 1st post: since the despotic regimes ruling the oil-rich nations are dependent on Westeran technology to explore & extract their oil, West has actually the 'upper hand' in its relations with them, quite contrary to what German 'experts' would us believe. So, there's no need to 'intensify' relations with Mullahs & Saudis at the expense of abandoning democracy-promoting campaigns and neglecting the well and alive freedom-seeking movements of Iranians and Arab. And this is what I call a 'brave' move. May be not a thoroughly appropriate word though.

Regards,

PL

Yes, I read the article. The succumbing as mentioned in the article is clear, although it remains unclear how the current situation might be a form of succumbing to Israel. The article also mentions: "Unconditional support for Israel and its right to exist is currently a cornerstone of German foreign policy."

Now for the more interesting part: the bravery. You state that "the West" has the upperhand in the relations with the biggest oil-producing countries with their totalitarian states, because we provide the technology.

That seems like a very wrong and short-sighted observation. The West only provides this very technology because we need their oil. If the West stopped providing these countries with this technology, the resulting huge oil crisis would cause western economies to rapidly decline or even collapse, which especially given the current deep economic crisis, is something no western country can afford.

Another problem with your approach is that "the West" doesn't exist (anymore) and that "the West" is only one of the players on the geopolitical playfield. The totalitarian regimes with their oil will simply play a divide and conquer strategy. Therefore, the result of your ideas might be that the West tries to pressure f.i. Saudi Arabia, has to deal with oil shortages and economic decline, while China or India will grab the opportunity to dominate with both hands.

[NIHILIST]

The ultimate question here is WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO IF THE POWERS THAT BE TURN OFF THE SPIGOT ?

In the near 40 years since the first energy crisis, despite much political chest-thumping, most of the industrial world is still as dependent on oil as it was in the 70s. At the time, the US government could have mandated that all new construction must be solar powered but it did not. 40 years later the first all-electric cars are about to come to market, with price tags of about $ 40,000 and requiring a re-charge after 85 miles. Not much to inspire lifestyle changes.

Estimates of oil in the ground in the USA vary but, despite all the rhetoric about dependence on foreign oil, our politicians have declared drilling in several promising areas to be off-limits, largely out of alleged concern for the environment.

At the same time, these politicians are being held hostage by the environmental PACs that provide ample campaign contributions. Within the last year, Senator Feinstein of California unveiled a plan to pave vast areas of the desert in the southwest USA with hundreds of square miles of solar panels.

Not so fast, said the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, claiming that such an action would cause irreparable harm to miles of pristine desert.

For years the state of Massachusetts was ready with a project called CAPE WIND. This was to construct an offshore farm of windmills to provide power to the good people of New England.

Not so fast, said then Senator Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of the senate, who objected because the project was to be built in one of his favorite yachting areas.

When world oil prices sent gasoline to $ 4.00 per gallon, legendary oilman T Boone Pickens was all over the air and on every talk show hawking his latest venture, windmills stretching from the Mexican to the Canadian border. Gasoline prices retreated to less than $ 2 per gallon and T Boone is nowhere to be seen.

One of the more amusing aspects of the increasing summer melt of arctic ice is the rush to explore previously icebound areas for deepwater oil, natural gas, etc despite alleged concern for the environment.

So the options seem to be, resuming exploitation of our own natural resources, re-learning how to ride bicycles, or what countries have done since the beginning of time........take the resources they lack from nations that possess them.

Take your pick.


Bob

[diane]

This seemed sort of relevant....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWhLSORCwW0#

[Zorba]

Umm, about the CAPE wind project: dear Bob tells us a one-sided story as usual.

"Cape Wind was an issue in the 2006 election for Governor of Massachusetts. The winner, Democrat Deval Patrick, supported the project; his Republican opponent, former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, opposed it."

and

"Walter Cronkite was the subject of controversy as well when he originally came out against the wind farm but then changed his opinion. Other opponents have included Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Kerry and former Gov. Mitt Romney."

I guess Republican governors like their sailing trips just as much.

[RickrInSF]

The options to reduce demand of oil are varied and many, electricity from wind is but one of them, they include:

Jimmy Carter style solar panels (heats water using black pipes on the roof)
direct electricity from solar (although production has it's own polution concerns)
mirror solar (directs sunlight to one spot, heating water for steam engine)
geothermal plants
electric cars (battery production and disposal a big problem, but well worth the effort to find solutions)
hydrogen powered cars
nuclear (dangers well known, so might scrap this as option)
point of use electric generation (eliminates power line waste)

and many more i'm sure

all of these could have been implemented to some degree in the "near 40 years since the first oil crisis", but they have all been fought tooth and nail by big oil, they desire a crisis, it increases profit

" resuming exploitation of our own natural resources" is not a solution, there is not enough oil in the world, much less the US to satisfy current projections of demand, the only real solution is (of course) to reduce demand

"take the resources they lack from nations that possess them" is at best a short term solution, and morally corrupt

human nature being what it is, we will (of course) wait for a real crisis before doing something about it

so bob, u had better go buy that bike ur so unwilling to ride

[stog]

i like that   

[ah_clem]

The options to reduce demand of oil are varied and many, electricity from wind is but one of them, they include:
...hydrogen powered cars...

Hydrogen is not an energy source.  You have to get the hydrogen somewhere, and the usual way is to run electric current through water to separate the Oxygen from the hydrogen.  That takes energy.

Which isn't to say that hydrogen powered cars are a useless technology.  It has two giant advantages over petroleum based cars:

• You can use any source of electricity to make Hydrogen - coal, nuclear, solar, geothermal, natural gas, hydro, or even good old oil can all be used.  This means our transportation infrastructure is not dependent on a single energy source.
• It eliminates the point-source pollution from each vehicle.  Cars that burn hydrogen only emit water vapor, so they are inherently non-polluting.  Of course, the plant that makes the hydrogen may emit pollution, but you can slap more pollution control technology on a stationary plant than a moving vehicle, and you can locate it far outside the city.  Getting rid of the literally millions of point-source pollution generators would make the air in cities much much cleaner.

So, hydrogen technology is great, but it's not an energy source, merely a method of energy distribution.  

[RickrInSF]

well, to say that hydrogen is not an energy source is kind of silly, when you burn hydrogen, it releases energy

actually, hydrogen is normally produced FROM hydrocarbons (using steam reforming), which has a byproduct of CO2 (so, not a good solution at all!)

simply heating water to 2000 deg C can also break the hydrogen oxygen bond (thermolysis) (concentrating solar power could be used)

finally, electrolysis - since heat is absorbed from the surroundings, the heating value of the produced hydrogen is higher than the electric input

so, hydrogen could be produced cleanly and efficiently - to be used as an energy source 

[NIHILIST]

Just a few final words on the subject.

With regard to EXPLOITING OUR OWN RESOURCES, the truth is no one really knows how much oil is in the ground. The huge find offshore of Brazil came as no small surprise. And refusing to continue to drill for oil where we know it exists in the USA simply because certain special interest groups say it's not enough to meet demand is absurd. If there isn't enough oil to meet demand why not just stop drilling now ? If the effort is futile, why waste time and money pursuing it for the present ? Plus, I can't think of a faster way to reduce dependence on oil than to quit drilling for it.

Regarding CAPE WIND, it's true that the project was opposed my many politicians of different party affiliation. However, Ted Kennedy was by far the most powerful of the opponents. An alleged environmentalist, he fought the project for at least 5 years, trying to introduce legislation in the Senate to kill the project. I used him as the most hypocritical of those involved in the issue, his opposition based on nothing more than NIMBY.

It's no coincidence that Cape Wind was finally approved after Kennedy's death. No doubt at sometime during the debate Kennedy announced that the project would be built only over his dead body. I'm glad he got his wish.

With regard to my comment about TAKING RESOURCES FROM THOSE WHO HAVE THEM, I was gratified to find the one idiot in the crowd who can't recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment. I agree that the idea is morally corrupt and reprehensible, but it is nothing new.

Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth for about 200 years in no small part because it looted resources from its colonies. In the northeast colonies of America, Britain completely deforested millions of acres of forest to the extent that something like 80% of all ships of the Royal Navy in the 18th and 19th centuries were built from wood cut in the American colonies.

The city of Los Angeles became the huge metropolis it is today by stealing water from the Owens River valley and diverting it south.

Human nature being what it is, no one should be surprised to see such things occur in the future. Water will likely be the next resource that nations will go to war over.


Bob

[ah_clem]

Hydrogen is an energy source in the same way that your ATM card is a source of income.  Yes, you can burn hydrogen and get energy, just like you can get money with ATM credit card, but the actual  money/energy has to come from somewhere else.

[NIHILIST]

My ex-wife could never understand how her checking account could be overdrawn if she still had checks in her checkbook.

Bob

[RickrInSF]

your atm card analogy is completely wrong

hydrogen is the money, not the atm card, how you produced it is completely separated from how you use it (u cannot withdraw money from your account if you don't have any, even if you have an atm card)

yes, it takes energy to produce hydrogen from water (or other sources or simply seperated out of air), but once produced, it is a source of energy (by burning)

Bob, as for your ex-wife, she married you so her intellect is very much in question (although the ex part has to go in her favor)

As for "EXPLOITING OUR OWN RESOURCES", you play the typical game of twisting my words into something i never said. I did not argue we should not drill for oil because there is not enough to meet demand, what i said is that exploiting our own resources is not a solution. We should absolutely continue to drill for oil - WHERE it is SAFE! (so, there are many places that we know oil exists, but i am against drilling there for other reasons and that is a completely different argument) Again, the only solution is to reduce demand for oil.

As for your remarks being "tongue-in-cheek", it is very hard not to take your statements at face value when you continue to justify them as "nothing new", and then predict that although "morally corrupt and reprehensible", something that will most likely happen anyway.

[ah_clem]

yes, it takes energy to produce hydrogen from water (or other sources or simply seperated out of air), but once produced, it is a source of energy (by burning)

So, where do we get the energy to produce the hydrogen?   

(BTW, you are correct about the method to make hydrogen - electrolysis is not the most common industrial method.)

[RickrInSF]

where the energy comes from to produce hydogen has no relevance to the question (is it an energy source), once produced it IS an energy source

it does, however, give relevance to the question - is it a viable energy source?

i realize that this is an exercise in semantics, but i believe it is an important one, by you saying that hydrogen is not an energy source because it takes as much energy to produce as it produces, is wrong

is it safe?, is it economical? is there a cheap, clean way to produce hydrogen? those are good questions, but if there is, hydrogen would be a good substitute for oil - as an energy source (for the reasons you already mentioned) .

[garp_02]

Nuclear gets my vote, if we're talking about electricity production.

As for the rest, I agree with Rick in that people should be looking more at reducing the dependence on oil than where else can we get more.

Cheers

[stog]

nitrogenous methane pour moi  
see also references to Petomane*



*

Spoiler

During a career that spanned more than twenty years, Frenchman Joseph Pujol--Le Petomane--captivated fin-de-siecle Parisian audiences and brought international crowds to tears of laughter with his unusual performances. Alone on stage and elegantly attired, Pujol demonstrated his peculiar ability to take in copious quantities of air or water at will through his rectum and to expel either when convenient, a skill which allowed him to perform a number of spectacular feats. Pujol used his disciplined flatulence, for example, to blow out candles (from a distance of 12 inches) or to shoot jets of water--sucked in immediately beforehand--as far as four or five yards. He could imitate various animals with his emissions and could play recognizable tunes. (A newspaper of the day reports: "In reality he produced only four notes, the do, mi, sol, and do of the octave. I cannot guarantee that each of these notes was tonally true.") And in a coup de grace that would have left Howard Stern screaming for more, Le Petomane would insert a rubber hose into his anus and, thrusting a cigarette into the hose's free end, would enjoy a rectal smoke, his sphincter alternately breathing in and exhaling. (Pujol played the flute using the same apparatus.)

[close]

[socksey]

Omg!   

socksey



Marriage to her (Barbra) was like a bath of lava. - Elliott Gould

[dorbel]

The point about burning oil for energy is that it will eventually run out, there is only a limited supply. Planning for a world without oil is essential and all discussions about "increasing supply" or "reducing demand" for it are so short term as to be laughable. It's replacement for transport, presumably electricity generated by a mix of wind, wave, sun, nuclear power and remaining coal stocks, needs to be planned for and implemented now.
I'm not quite clear how the analogy with using timber for ship building in the 18th and 19th centuries is relevant. Using timber, in itself a renewable resource, to make something is very different to burning it for energy. Wooden ships of that time had a useful life of about 30 years, after which the timber was recycled for new ships, houses and barns. Moreover, NIHo's figures are just wrong. Prior to the American war of Independence, the only transatlantic timber trade was in masts and large spars, as only these justified the high cost of shipping. Almost all the rest came from the Baltic states, a serious drain on the British economy as we had a trade deficit with the Baltic. However, a great number of british ships in the 18th century, about a third of the registry, were built in the new england yards and purchased from the shipbuilders there, hardly plundering. After the war of independence the transatlantic timber trade did become very important, as the invention of the circular saw made the shipping of cut lumber more practical, but note that this was trade, not despoilation.
The forests of America and Canada were cut down for shipbuilding, but not by Imperial Britain.

[RickrInSF]

NO, the point is, that no one is doing short term or long term planning (except the oil companies who are planning on a crisis for profit), so unless we start with short term solutions, how will we know the best methods for long term solutions?

[NIHILIST]

I made no reference to the transatlantic timber trade. What I referred to was the deforestation of New England by the British, who, of course, claimed the colonies, to build British ships in the colonies. As I pointed out, a huge preponderance of British ships were built in the colonies and built with wood harvested in the colonies.

This occurred largely because Britain had already stripped its home island of all timber and was forced to go elsewhere. Its colonies were the logical places to go. This process can reasonably be called EXPLOITING THE NATURAL RESOURCES.

To pursue it a bit further, why did Britain and other nations of Europe claim colonies in other parts of the world ? They certainly didn't do it for the betterment of their fellow humans as the Spanish conquest of Latin America or Britain's involvement in India demonstrate all too clearly. At least the Brits built infrastructure as opposed to the Spaniards who were motivated only by loot.

But I digress..........no one doubts that the planet would be better off if cars could run and homes be heated and industries be powered by other than fossil fuels. We've known this for 50 years, maybe longer. You can point fingers at BIG OIL or BIG COAL  or any other convenient scapegoat, but the truth is that the necessary paradigm shifts haven't occurred because powerful elected officials don't want them to.... BIG GOVERNMENT.

A senator who claims to be a dedicated environmentalist, who regularly denounces the oil industry, but does everything in his power to prevent a wind farm which would serve his own constituency from being built because of his own personal reasons is the worst kind of hypocrite.

We've elected too many of these people, in both parties, for too long. The current political unrest in my country indicates that the voters are at long last fed up and want career politicians who talk a good game but do nothing, sent home. I personally have been waiting for this election since I quit voting in 1984.


Bob

[dorbel]

Huge preponderance? According to Charles F. Carroll in, 1775 about one third of the british registry had been built in North American yards. After 1783, one imagines that the despoilation of the forests was carried out by Americans.
The loss of huge forests worldwide for timber shipbuilding was not of course confined to America, nor carried out exclusively by the British. At one time a traveller could ride from Tunis to Tangiers, entirely in the shade of trees. The mistral and the scirocco did not blow in ancient times; they are the result of deforestation on mountain slopes. Big business is still doing so today, though not to build sailing ships sadly.

On another point that NIHo raises, the oil and motor industries have done far more to stand in the way of the development of alternative energy sources than governments worldwide. From their point of view this is of course not unreasonable. The manafacturers of buggy whips no doubt fought against the internal combustion engine for similar reasons.

[PersianLord]

I think the root cause of energy crisis is the same as the cause of environmental crisis, immigration crisis, human devolution crisis and many other plights of human race: over-population of earth. I blame the industrial society and the drug & medicine industries for this phenomenon.

I have a good solution to solve this problem once and for all; but won't share it for obvious reasons.

I also would like to appreciate Bob's contributions to this debate. Glory be to HIM!

Regards,

PL

[dorbel]

So, back to the pre-industrial dark ages for PL then! Presumably he sees himself as an aristocrat and not a serf. I still think that PL is more likely to be a brilliant satirical comedian than a serious commentator. He's certainly a laugh a minute.

[PersianLord]

So, back to the pre-industrial dark ages for PL then! Presumably he sees himself as an aristocrat and not a serf. I still think that PL is more likely to be a brilliant satirical comedian than a serious commentator. He's certainly a laugh a minute.

Refrain from starting flame wars in FB.

BTW, I don't want to get back to old ages. I just ask for some serious modifications in the current life style and social values & mechanisms of modern humans.

PL

[RickrInSF]

the oil and motor industries have done far more to stand in the way of the development of alternative energy sources than governments worldwide.

it seems like an obvious statement to me, one very ironic point, they do so partly by controlling "big government", that's not the ironic part, the ironic part is that people like Bob and PL continue to support the very people that are controlling "big government" and at the same time condemn "big government"

[PersianLord]

it seems like an obvious statement to me, one very ironic point, they do so partly by controlling "big government", that's not the ironic part, the ironic part is that people like Bob and PL continue to support the very people that are controlling "big government" and at the same time condemn "big government"

Go for the 'cause', not the 'effects'. May be now some big corporations are influencin certain parts of political structures, but this is not thr real cause. The main motive & justification behind 'big gov't' syndrome, in its true historical background, was the leftist idea if social justice. I admit that security concerns have played their part in the malicious expansion of gov't, but this is a recent trend.

PL

[dorbel]

All right, I'll buy it. What do you really want to see PL? The return of the Shah in Iran and a carbon copy "rule for life" autocrat in every other country? It's my guess that the legalisation of the rule of the Rajapakse family in Sri Lanka is the sort of thing that would appeal to you. If democracy and a concept of social justice don't appeal to you, give it to us straight, what does?

[PersianLord]

All right, I'll buy it. What do you really want to see PL? The return of the Shah in Iran and a carbon copy "rule for life" autocrat in every other country? It's my guess that the legalisation of the rule of the Rajapakse family in Sri Lanka is the sort of thing that would appeal to you. If democracy and a concept of social justice don't appeal to you, give it to us straight, what does?

Well, I think that I mismanaged conveying my thoughts and ideas. Actually I meant 'social equality', not social justice in my latest post. I think that every citizen should be given an equal 'opportunity' to flourish his potentials and this is what I call a natural 'social justice', which is absolutely appreciable. But I hate to see 'social equality' which includes levying heavy, progressive tax rates, inclusive health care benefits and other tyrannical 'social security' initiatives that, in a nutshell, are intended to take away the hard-earned wealth of the entrepreneurial talents of the society and giving them out to the lazy, whining and stupid weaklings to enforce 'equality'. This is what I hate and despise.

PL

[Zorba]

Fair enough PersianLord. In this light, Iran is obviously an inferior country of lazy, whining and stupid weaklings, since you can't even build a democracy and decent economy over there and just keep protesting and asking other countries for help.

[dorbel]

And the weak are always lazy, whining and stupid? The old? The sick? Those who care for them? Their dependents?Those disadvantaged by poverty not of their making? Those for whom work is not available in their area or even in their country? Victims of crime? The list of those who deserve help from the rest of society is long and any of us may find ourselves on that list at any time through no fault of our own.  Let the weak go to the wall is a commonly held fascist viewpoint, but not one that can withstand a cursory critical examination. Shame on you PL for such shallow thinking. Try to develop a sense of what it means to be part of society, you'll be a better man for it.
Having a developed system of social justice inevitably means that some lazy and selfish people will take advantage of it. It is a price worth paying to ensure that in our lucky western societies, people dont starve or die from lack of medical help, or at least less often then they might in the heartless free-for-all that is your ideal.

[stiefnu]

Well said, dorbel.  Shallow thinking indeed.  Not to mention cruel, selfish and unimaginative.

[RickrInSF]

"progressive tax rates, inclusive health care benefits and other tyrannical 'social security' initiatives " are exactly the things that PROMOTE "entrepreneurial talents of the society", not the opposite.  You seem to be confusing "entrepreneurial talents" with fat, lazy rich people who live off of the wealth of their ancestors. This is not to say all rich people are fat and lazy, it only means that "progressive tax rates, inclusive health care benefits and other tyrannical 'social security' initiatives" only hurt the fat, lazy rich, all other rich people benifit from a healthy, educated society and have no problems making more money.

[PersianLord]

It seems that I'm the target of an unfair smear campaign which feeds on ignorance and negligence. I have no problem with being called a 'fascist', 'shallow-thinking', 'weak-minded', 'selfish', 'unimaginative', etc as I am an independent thinker who couldn't really care less about flame wars and derogatory comments of his pedant opponents, as long as there's no real merit in them. But since I'm not into wasting my time responding to claims that I have not made, I want to propose a question that will rectify the astray path of this debate.

Thus, hereby I urge dorbel et al to thoroughly ponder on this fundamental question of mine and give their definite answers before proceeding back to their ridiculous smear campaign. The question is here:

Do you consider your other fellow human beings as mere members of our species, which is called the 'human race', or as independent entities with uncompromisable dignity?

To give you a clue about what's my answer, I'd like to post a quote from Darwin. In his invaluable book, 'The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex' and in addressing the destructive effects of modern medicine and the 'inclusive health care', Darwin writes:

"Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

I am waiting for your response.

PL

[RickrInSF]

that is a great theory by darwin, to test this, i propose the following:

when a person dies, all his/her wealth and possessions are returned to the society
when a person is born, he/she is raised by society without knowlege of who the parents are
when a person reaches maturity, he/she is cut loose upon society to prove their worth, if proven, they are allowed to breed

PS, your question is framed in a way that make answering it foolish

[dorbel]

Do you consider your other fellow human beings as mere members of our species, which is called the 'human race', or as independent entities with uncompromisable dignity?

Well actually I consider my fellow human beings, as myself, to be both of these. Can I suggest that this debate will advance more quickly when PL, who appears to be immersed in genetic theories popular over a hundred years ago but not since, tells us what actual policies and actions he supports in the 21st century, in order to encourage "the weak in body and mind" to "refrain from marriage"? Don't beat about the bush PL. Leftists, as you would call them, have no difficulty in saying what they think should be happening, why do you? It will be interesting to see how you square the circle and tell us how we can control who can and cannot breed, without the draconian intervention of the "big government" that you so fear. No doubt a study of your hero the last Shah of Persia and his dedicated social workers Savak, may provide an answer.

[stiefnu]

genetic theories popular over a hundred years ago but not since

Except in Nazi Germany, to whose mast PL seems determined to nail his colours, as he strays yet further from the path of this debate (which he started) on the geopolitical consequences of peak oil.

[PersianLord]

I see no point in continuing this debate, as my question has not been answered properly.

PL

[dorbel]

I see no point in continuing this debate, as my question has not been answered properly.

I think that it is PL who can't answer a question properly, or even at all. I certainly answered his somewhat opaque question myself as best as I could. Others felt that to even attempt an answer was hopeless. One may sympathise.

[PersianLord]

I think that it is PL who can't answer a question properly, or even at all. I certainly answered his somewhat opaque question myself as best as I could. Others felt that to even attempt an answer was hopeless. One may sympathise.

Don't beg for my response. I asked you and your ratpack to answer a simple question and you failed miserably; opting to returning back to childish smear campaigns. Case closed.

PL

[dorbel]

Nobody is begging PL. We just want to clarify exactly what it is that you think needs to be done. No hints, no vague questions. What are you for? Sterilisation of the "unfit"? States where the government makes no provision for its poor and needy? States without communists? States without muslims? States where "undesirables" get disappeared? States where an hereditary ruler like the Shah governs the country as he thinks fit with the help of a brutal secret police? Tell us do, because as long as you keep hinting, we will have to draw our own conclusions.

[ah_clem]

I asked you and your ratpack to answer a simple question and you failed miserably

The question at hand, as near as I can determine:

I would like to know what do FB reader think of the ongoing debate.

I think Professor Godwin is correct as usual.

[dorbel]

I think the root cause of energy crisis is the same as the cause of environmental crisis, immigration crisis, human devolution crisis and many other plights of human race: over-population of earth. I blame the industrial society and the drug & medicine industries for this phenomenon.

I have a good solution to solve this problem once and for all; but won't share it for obvious reasons.

What is the solution and what are the obvious reasons why you can't share it with us? How hard can this question be?

[RickrInSF]

Do you consider your other fellow human beings as mere members of our species, which is called the 'human race', or as independent entities with uncompromisable dignity?

Let's dissect this question to find out why i said it would be foolish to answer.
You are really asking two questions, as if only one of the questions could be true, so let's look at the first question first.
"Do you consider your other fellow human beings as mere members of our species, which is called the 'human race'"?

What do you mean by "mere members of our species"? Are you asking if there could be something more than being a member of humanity? Or are you asking if some humans are more? (supermen perhaps?) Are you asking are all humans equal? Are you asking are all humans the same?

obviously, if you are a "fellow human being" you are a member of our species, so what exactly do you mean by "mere member"?

the second question, Do you consider your fellow human beings "as independent entities with uncompromisable dignity"?

the question of dignity immediately separates some humans from others, i do not believe you (PL) have dignity, uncompromisable or not, i believe dorbel does have dignity, is it uncompromisable? time will tell.

So again, you ask a question that cannot be answered in it's original form, and certainly both questions cannot be answered as one.

[socksey]

i believe dorbel does have dignity, is it uncompromisable? time will tell.

I believe "arrogance" best desribes dorbel's attitude and that is why I consider him so annoying except when he's discussing backgammon problems, at which time, I consider him to be useful. 

socksey



"I believe that if a man wanted to walk on water, and was prepared to give up everything in life, he could do it." - from English race car driver Sir Stirling Moss born on this day in 1929
   

[RickrInSF]

I believe "arrogance" best desribes dorbel's attitude

i used to believe this also, but have come to believe that he is only displaying what the British think of as humour.
also i think he has a short temper when it comes to certain people that he has come to know on FIBS, which i think we are ALL guilty of, especially me

PS dignity and arrogance are not incompatible

[dorbel]

I believe "arrogance" best desribes dorbel's attitude and that is why I consider him so annoying except when he's discussing backgammon problems, at which time, I consider him to be useful.  Yes

socksey

Is there some way in which this personal comment adds to the debate, or is this merely an intervention from one of fibsboard's famously impartial "moderators"?

[Zorba]

Hilarious and typical.

PersianLord starts a debate only to run away from it whining, when his true eugenetic beliefs are exposed.

Let's hope he doesn't procreate before maturing a bit!   

[garp_02]

I think there are a lot of people on Fibs who need to mature a bit.

PL is a total joke, as can be seen from this thread.

Some of the rest need to stop the playground tactics and look at things from the outside.

[socksey]

Please refrain from personal abuse.     Abuse serves no purpose except to inflame others and to enlighten us to our own inadequacies and immaturity.      That goes for me, too!   

socksey



"There are two things no man will admit he cannot do well: drive and make love." - from English race car driver Sir Stirling Moss born on this day in 1929