The coming 'peak oil' and its geopolitical consequences

[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.