the who problem with telling companies to cut down here is that they'll just move stuff to china. and we're a capitalist nation, we don't tell our companies what to do, they tell us what to do.
and if the government wants money then they should start collecting on old war debts dating back as far as WWI. seriously Britain stills owes us a couple trillion because of loaned support money from the last couple wars. we can also us that money to pay back our current war debt and be squared of in that regard. we'll still be in debt, but not half as bad as we already are, we can pay back china for all the money they loaned us some 20-30 years ago. that and they already own most of U.S.'s money anyway, because people ship jobs over there and we buy the cheap products from them.
and the government could hold a fricken bake sale. seriously do something like the girl scouts or local schools do to fund their programs. it wouldn't hurt anyone and the could get some money to boot.
Sorry, but I got a really funny mental image of some big boat laden down with girl scout cookies and big tough navy guys sailing around to a bunch a countries and ringing the doorbell of the capital building and being like "Would you be interested in buying cookies?" and the president of that country (or dictator or w/e) would be like "Hmmm...I could go for some cookies. I'll take 450 million boxes of Thin Mints 230 million Trefoils,..." and the US getting tons of money. I know that's not what you meant, but oh well.
Sorry, but I got a really funny mental image of some big boat laden down with girl scout cookies and big tough navy guys sailing around to a bunch a countries and ringing the doorbell of the capital building and being like "Would you be interested in buying cookies?" and the president of that country (or dictator or w/e) would be like "Hmmm...I could go for some cookies. I'll take 450 million boxes of Thin Mints 230 million Trefoils,..." and the US getting tons of money. I know that's not what you meant, but oh well.
Well, that's simply retarded. Cutting down on pollution isn't a bad thing, but there's so many ways that the government could do it without punishing us. They could force companies to cut down on CO2 omissions and force car dealerships to form other forms of fuel. That way, it's corporations that are suffering, not the individuals. I think it's just a way for them to make money, seeing as Obama wants all these new gov't programs. The main reason I dislike democrats is that they are for large governments, which I can't stand.
Corporations suffering = income suffering = employees suffering = people suffering. I agree, I cannot stand large governments and this is just a power grab to screw us more to pay for healthcare.
We don't need no education!
We don't need no thought control,
No dark sarcasm in the classroom!
Teachers leave them kids alone,
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
Global warming may not exist, but pollution is very real. This is something few come to the realization of. The polluted air that IS found to be caused by energy production, is where most people forget our water supply runs through in a process we commonly know as rain. Our rain water "the stuff we drink" is also fed to our plants and animals that we eat so it is a constant cycle. What harm has come out of tax for cleaner air? If we continue as is, the world as we know it will become unsuitable for outdoor life, and will become much more expensive than a petty tax for waste produced from making energy, in a matter of 75 years. We will be forced to filter our water further, and filter our oxygen supply essentially everything we need in daily life. Does this sound like an idea world? Oh and btw just to clear things up for you dumb asses stuck on global warming, what I said has nothing to do with a few degrees changing in a harmonious cycle.
__________________
Quote:
09:22 PM <Gow> Oh I got it... Drunk Sexy in Vader mask.
"I am who I am today because I remember who I was yesterday, and who I want to be tomorrow."
- Me
And Republicans don't want to increase the power of the government? Patriot Act, anti-choice laws?
The Republican Government knows what books I take out of the library, for crying out loud. How is that small government? The government can detain anyone it wants to and not give a reason and not offer any of the civil rights that date back to the Magna Carta. The Republicans want to refuse marriage rights to any couple they think is "eww" and refuse women's right to have medical operations because of their religious beliefs?
Seriously, anytime I hear people accusing democrats of being pro-big government I know they're just fox news dumbasses. The only ones who can say that are anarchists and libertarians (pratically same thing).
Democrats are just more honest about taxing policy. Look at California's Republican governer's proposition to hike taxes just last May. People are amazing when it comes to tax, we expect police to be everywhere at once, we expect an excellent public education, we expect roads not to have potholes, yet we get mad when we are asked to pay for it.
I have no clue what you mean by " Regime of the European History." I don't remember any country failing because the people put in too much focus on keeping the environment safe. Closest I can think of is Pompei
OK, let's assume Global Warming occurs simply due to natural sun cycles and stuff. We continue to put in effort to get off Fossil Fuels and get cleaner air, taxes go up like a nickel a day, and we start using alternative energy. In the process, oil companies become small business, replaced by companies that produce alternative energy which has a much lower cost of entry (encouraging competition in a free market) fueling the economy. The energy industry is no longer controlled by the middle east, allowing democratic nations to form as the oil barons no longer have US and European support, our government becomes less corrupt as historically, 50% of national corruption has been due to the oil industry (much more nowadays), we stop running the risk of depleting our oil supply, and we decrease the risk of dumping oil into the ocean and ruining ecosystems. Energy prices drop, (if you don't get why take an economics 101 class-free market vs monopoly). Sounds horrible.
I don't give a **** if Global Warming is real, it's an impetus to develop better forms of energy, and that's good. There will be growing pains, but if we don't do the switch, it'll be much worse in a generation or two.
Two problems. First and foremost, plenty of countries have failed due to environmental concern, or simply the over use of resources. The Incas, were a powerful civilization, who were incredibly reliant on wood, for thier various industries. After some people began worrying about wood consumption, and the Incas consumed wood to such an extent, that tree levels in South America fell significantly. This caused an economic collapse, and thus a subsequent collapse of the system. A similar situation would have occured if the people concerned about lumber consumption gained power. The industries reliant upon lumber, would be forced to rebuild and search for alternative source, eventually leading to a collapse and the fall of the Incan empire. Either way, the Incas were in a bad situation.
Modern society has encountered a similar situation with Oil. Let us observe the country of America. Currently, many activists exist that propagate the use of alternative energy sources, however they fail to realize the monstrous reprecussions of such actions, and the amount of time it would take to switch to alternative energy. As a result of the dependance of almost all industries on oil, the movement of alternative energy sources will take a great deal of time. Furthermore, the discovery of a cheaper sources of energy will take a huge amount of time, that may cause the amount of oil existant, to disappear. The movement to a new source of energy will cause a widespread industrial collapse, leading to something significantly worse than the Great Deppression. Utter economic devastation will occur, resulting in the fall of the United States of America as a super power. I do not suggest that the search for alternative energy not occur, however, I believe it should occur slowly, and with economic incentives for businesses.
Two problems. First and foremost, plenty of countries have failed due to environmental concern, or simply the over use of resources. The Incas, were a powerful civilization, who were incredibly reliant on wood, for thier various industries. After some people began worrying about wood consumption, and the Incas consumed wood to such an extent, that tree levels in South America fell significantly. This caused an economic collapse, and thus a subsequent collapse of the system. A similar situation would have occured if the people concerned about lumber consumption gained power. The industries reliant upon lumber, would be forced to rebuild and search for alternative source, eventually leading to a collapse and the fall of the Incan empire. Either way, the Incas were in a bad situation.
Modern society has encountered a similar situation with Oil. Let us observe the country of America. Currently, many activists exist that propagate the use of alternative energy sources, however they fail to realize the monstrous reprecussions of such actions, and the amount of time it would take to switch to alternative energy. As a result of the dependance of almost all industries on oil, the movement of alternative energy sources will take a great deal of time. Furthermore, the discovery of a cheaper sources of energy will take a huge amount of time, that may cause the amount of oil existant, to disappear. The movement to a new source of energy will cause a widespread industrial collapse, leading to something significantly worse than the Great Deppression. Utter economic devastation will occur, resulting in the fall of the United States of America as a super power. I do not suggest that the search for alternative energy not occur, however, I believe it should occur slowly, and with economic incentives for businesses.
|Jeez, someone's optimistic today|
With the rapid rate of acceleration in the development of new technology these days i would have to seriously say that the statement you made isn't very accurate, although it is a good guess. Seriously, you're underestimating our race, we're too smart to let that happen.
[rant]I'm more in favor of the idea that there will be a big war over whatever is left of oil. I think the USA is in a good position to control oil if they want to, with the amount of troops they insist on keeping in the Middle East... heck the amount of military resources they have in general is enough to blow anyone away.[/rant]
Two problems. First and foremost, plenty of countries have failed due to environmental concern, or simply the over use of resources. The Incas, were a powerful civilization, who were incredibly reliant on wood, for thier various industries. After some people began worrying about wood consumption, and the Incas consumed wood to such an extent, that tree levels in South America fell significantly. This caused an economic collapse, and thus a subsequent collapse of the system. A similar situation would have occured if the people concerned about lumber consumption gained power. The industries reliant upon lumber, would be forced to rebuild and search for alternative source, eventually leading to a collapse and the fall of the Incan empire. Either way, the Incas were in a bad situation.
Modern society has encountered a similar situation with Oil. Let us observe the country of America. Currently, many activists exist that propagate the use of alternative energy sources, however they fail to realize the monstrous reprecussions of such actions, and the amount of time it would take to switch to alternative energy. As a result of the dependance of almost all industries on oil, the movement of alternative energy sources will take a great deal of time. Furthermore, the discovery of a cheaper sources of energy will take a huge amount of time, that may cause the amount of oil existant, to disappear. The movement to a new source of energy will cause a widespread industrial collapse, leading to something significantly worse than the Great Deppression. Utter economic devastation will occur, resulting in the fall of the United States of America as a super power. I do not suggest that the search for alternative energy not occur, however, I believe it should occur slowly, and with economic incentives for businesses.
Here I was thinking it was Europe that caused Incan society to end... My point above in that regard was (If I remember correctly) that the person I was replying to made it sound like being too conscious of it was a problem, of course, advancing too quickly technologically can be hazardous with over-using resources, hence why we need to find resources that are cheaper and more quickly replenishing.
I'd say that's the main argument for alternative energy research and beginning a switch over, so we can minimize the 'growing pain' if/when our oil supply becomes depleted (which will be a while if you consider the oil supplies that exist but are too costly to use currently). If it goes too slow, we are gambling, either the backlash would be very little or a huge huge amount (I forget the name of that movie where the world runs out of oil...). If we go too quickly, we risk hitting ourselves in the face. I'd say we should change to nuclear power, then work on consumer cars, then mass-transit (airplanes, trucks, busses, ships), then smaller items like backup-generators. I claim no expertise, just my application of some (IMO) common sense
With the rapid rate of acceleration in the development of new technology these days i would have to seriously say that the statement you made isn't very accurate, although it is a good guess. Seriously, you're underestimating our race, we're too smart to let that happen.
[rant]I'm more in favor of the idea that there will be a big war over whatever is left of oil. I think the USA is in a good position to control oil if they want to, with the amount of troops they insist on keeping in the Middle East... heck the amount of military resources they have in general is enough to blow anyone away.[/rant]
Indeed, technological acceleration in some areas is quite rapid. However, with a quick transit from oil consumption, the entire infrastructure of America and most of the world will require significant reformations and restructuring. Technology won't be able to advance if no or very little infrastructure exists.
Pray that I am mistaken.
Last edited by MercifulBoss; 07-20-2009 at 08:22 PM.
Indeed, technological acceleration in some areas is quite rapid. However, with a quick transit from oil consumption, the entire infrastructure of America and most of the world will require significant reformations and restructuring. Technology won't be able to advance if no or very little infrastructure exists.
I suppose you have research to show that making the shift to alternative energy sources relatively soon, to almost completely avoid the problem of oil running out, would have a larger negative economic impact than making the shift to alternative energy sources at a slower rate, resulting in more of a predicament when oil runs out.
Otherwise, your claims are purely speculation, and without much merit. There is, however, research that shows that pollution has a negative impact on the environment (aside from Global Warming), as well as people themselves.
I am assuming that you do not have much basis for your claims, since you are comparing Incan economics to today's economics in an attempt to make your point. Your description of why the Incan civilization failed was not even anywhere near accurate, anyways.
__________________
"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter
Support Team GFX Crew Global Moderator Super Zuner²
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nowhere, USA
Posts: 4,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by MercifulBoss
Technology won't be able to advance if no or very little infrastructure exists.
Technology always advances even when things are screwed up, and when it seems like the US scientists are doing to hot and they need something to push them into new territory of technology they grab a scientist from another country
Technology always advances even when things are screwed up, and when it seems like the US scientists are doing to hot and they need something to push them into new territory of technology they grab a scientist from another country
Meh, Middle Ages anyone? Technology pretty much grinded to a halt then...
I suppose you have research to show that making the shift to alternative energy sources relatively soon, to almost completely avoid the problem of oil running out, would have a larger negative economic impact than making the shift to alternative energy sources at a slower rate, resulting in more of a predicament when oil runs out.
Otherwise, your claims are purely speculation, and without much merit. There is, however, research that shows that pollution has a negative impact on the environment (aside from Global Warming), as well as people themselves.
I am assuming that you do not have much basis for your claims, since you are comparing Incan economics to today's economics in an attempt to make your point. Your description of why the Incan civilization failed was not even anywhere near accurate, anyways.
Pollution does have a negative impact on people and the environment. Now I imagine that if people have no money, if the transition to alternative energy occurs too quickly, people won't be overly concerned of the environmental impact they are causing, as they will be too busy trying to survive. Plus were are the guarentees new energy sources won't be worse than oil, unless of course an ion plant is created.
Actually, what I described was part of the reason why the Incans empire fell. When your economy is failing, it is difficult to fight invaders. When the Europeans came, the Incans were already in decline. The Spanish and the economic collapse were the final straws of many that finally tipped them over. I used the Incans as I thought they were suitable to my argument. However, if you wish I could use more modern examples.
One would be surprised on the reprecussions that the economy can have on a state.
Last edited by MercifulBoss; 07-21-2009 at 06:08 AM.
Pollution does have a negative impact on people and the environment. Now I imagine that if people have no money, if the transition to alternative energy occurs too quickly, people won't be overly concerned of the environmental impact they are causing, as they will be too busy trying to survive. Plus were are the guarentees new energy sources won't be worse than oil, unless of course an ion plant is created.
Actually, what I described was part of the reason why the Incans empire fell. When your economy is failing, it is difficult to fight invaders. When the Europeans came, the Incans were already in decline. The Spanish and the economic collapse were the final straws of many that finally tipped them over. I used the Incans as I thought they were suitable to my argument. However, if you wish I could use more modern examples.
One would be surprised on the reprecussions that the economy can have on a state.
The financial situation of Russia was pretty bad after the Soviet Union collapsed, so they radically changed the economic system. There was a lot of corruption in Russia that did not help the situation there. The fact that Russia also took up all of the Soviet Union's external debts even though its population only accounted for half of the Soviet Union's should not be ignored, either. That is hardly comparible to changing energy sources, but even Russia's economic change was similar enough to changing energy sources, the U.S. would not have many of the problems that Russia had after the Soviet Union was dismantled.
As for the economic forecasting, are they predicting what would happen if energy sources are changed within a few years, a decade, or a few decades? The economic impact varies greatly depending on the timeline that is used.
Unless there has been some catastrophic event that I am unaware of, most Americans do have money, and even more would have money if they would stop buying a lot of things that they do not need. Of course, there are also many that are just barely getting by because they lost their jobs, or because they are disadvantaged, so I am not blaming their problems on their spending habits. The transition is not happening very quickly however, so that should not be an issue, anyways.
In what way do you mean "worse"? If you mean cost, "worse" is very relative. See this graph. If they transition to renewable energy sources, the renewable energy sources would be better in that they are renewable. Even if they cost a bit more than oil does now, the fact that they would not eventually deplete would give them a large advantage over oil. By the time that the transition to an alternative energy source is anywhere near completed, the recession should be far past over. As for environmental impact, the people who research the alternative energy sources should have a good idea about what impact they will have.
The Inca Civil War, as well as the Small Pox, which the Spanish brought with them, greatly weakened the Incas. It does not matter how good or bad their economy was. The Spanish would have defeated them, anyways.
__________________
"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter
The financial situation of Russia was pretty bad after the Soviet Union collapsed, so they radically changed the economic system. There was a lot of corruption in Russia that did not help the situation there. The fact that Russia also took up all of the Soviet Union's external debts even though its population only accounted for half of the Soviet Union's should not be ignored, either. That is hardly comparible to changing energy sources, but even Russia's economic change was similar enough to changing energy sources, the U.S. would not have many of the problems that Russia had after the Soviet Union was dismantled.
As for the economic forecasting, are they predicting what would happen if energy sources are changed within a few years, a decade, or a few decades? The economic impact varies greatly depending on the timeline that is used.
Unless there has been some catastrophic event that I am unaware of, most Americans do have money, and even more would have money if they would stop buying a lot of things that they do not need. Of course, there are also many that are just barely getting by because they lost their jobs, or because they are disadvantaged, so I am not blaming their problems on their spending habits. The transition is not happening very quickly however, so that should not be an issue, anyways.
In what way do you mean "worse"? If you mean cost, "worse" is very relative. See this graph. If they transition to renewable energy sources, the renewable energy sources would be better in that they are renewable. Even if they cost a bit more than oil does now, the fact that they would not eventually deplete would give them a large advantage over oil. By the time that the transition to an alternative energy source is anywhere near completed, the recession should be far past over. As for environmental impact, the people who research the alternative energy sources should have a good idea about what impact they will have.
The Inca Civil War, as well as the Small Pox, which the Spanish brought with them, greatly weakened the Incas. It does not matter how good or bad their economy was. The Spanish would have defeated them, anyways.
The rapid transition from the Soviet Union's Communism, to the Russian Federations Capitalism utterly destroyed the countries infrastructure. As a result, the rapid transition of one energy source to another is comparible to the transition in between economic systems. The infrastructure in both instances would be ruined. The economy of a country corrolates with the infrastructure. If the infrastructure is ruined, corruption levels increase, people stop paying taxes, businesses begin exploiting their workers, in short everything becomes chaos. The point is that the transition to oil, would hurt the US significantly, possibly leading to a collapse.
The timeline that is forecasted, for which the aforementioned may occur, is approximately one to two decades. The economic impact will be huge.
Currently, Americans have money. However, as is evidenced by the Soviet Union, a collapse in infrastructure will cause significant reprecussions for the general populace, especially the middle and lower classes. They will lose money, and pollution will hardly be a concern.
Indeed, renewable energy sources would be a great alternative. The problem is, that such energy sources do not contain or produce sufficient energy to power our cities. Furthermore, transitioning to nuclear energy, would cost significantly more, be far more dangerous, and would be limited to a select number of countries, thus in essence not fixing the problem. The environmental impact could be difficult to predict, much like it can be difficult to predict the results of genetic engineering.
Prior to the coming of the Spanish, the Incan empire was already in decline. Hence, why I also stated, that part of the reason for the collapse of the Incas lay in economic ruin. But, you are correct, they would not have defeated the Spanish. Had the Spanish not been present, their fall was already imminent due to a failed economy, as a result of a significant change, that their economy could not withstand.
The rapid transition from the Soviet Union's Communism, to the Russian Federations Capitalism utterly destroyed the countries infrastructure. As a result, the rapid transition of one energy source to another is comparible to the transition in between economic systems. The infrastructure in both instances would be ruined. The economy of a country corrolates with the infrastructure. If the infrastructure is ruined, corruption levels increase, people stop paying taxes, businesses begin exploiting their workers, in short everything becomes chaos. The point is that the transition to oil, would hurt the US significantly, possibly leading to a collapse.
The timeline that is forecasted, for which the aforementioned may occur, is approximately one to two decades. The economic impact will be huge.
Currently, Americans have money. However, as is evidenced by the Soviet Union, a collapse in infrastructure will cause significant reprecussions for the general populace, especially the middle and lower classes. They will lose money, and pollution will hardly be a concern.
Indeed, renewable energy sources would be a great alternative. The problem is, that such energy sources do not contain or produce sufficient energy to power our cities. Furthermore, transitioning to nuclear energy, would cost significantly more, be far more dangerous, and would be limited to a select number of countries, thus in essence not fixing the problem. The environmental impact could be difficult to predict, much like it can be difficult to predict the results of genetic engineering.
Prior to the coming of the Spanish, the Incan empire was already in decline. Hence, why I also stated, that part of the reason for the collapse of the Incas lay in economic ruin. But, you are correct, they would not have defeated the Spanish. Had the Spanish not been present, their fall was already imminent due to a failed economy, as a result of a significant change, that their economy could not withstand.
Russia's economy change happened within a few years, not a few decades. Changing a country's main energy source within a few years would likely have similar effects, however I do not know anyone that is suggesting that switching to an alternative energy source within a few years, or even a decade, is a good idea. My point is that if people cling to oil like it is best thing ever and do not accept anything else, when it runs out, the impact will be far worse than if an alternative energy source was developed and implemented before that happens.
Like I said, running out of oil without an alternative energy source already implemented would be much worse. I agree that there would be a lack of interest in reducing pollution in the event of an infrastructure collapse, but it can not be assumed that such will happen, merely speculated.
Just because current alternative energy sources are not enough to power the country does not mean that there will never be alternative energy sources that would be sufficient. That is why more research should be put into finding better alternative energy sources so that in a decade or two, the transition away from oil can begin, in order to have it completed before we run out of oil. I am not saying that we should have the transition to an alternative energy source completed within a decade or two.
How do you know that the Incan civilization would not have recovered? It is like saying that disease is part of the reason for the death of someone who had a horrible disease that might kill them when they were killed in a car crash.
__________________
"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter
In all honesty i think this bill is a pretty good decision, sure it will put some pressure on everyone financially but so does every major reform. I'd rather go through a tough spot now and fix the issue rather regret it thoroughly in my lifetime or have my children/grandchildren be punished for our ignorance.
Russia's economy change happened within a few years, not a few decades. Changing a country's main energy source within a few years would likely have similar effects, however I do not know anyone that is suggesting that switching to an alternative energy source within a few years, or even a decade, is a good idea. My point is that if people cling to oil like it is best thing ever and do not accept anything else, when it runs out, the impact will be far worse than if an alternative energy source was developed and implemented before that happens.
Like I said, running out of oil without an alternative energy source already implemented would be much worse. I agree that there would be a lack of interest in reducing pollution in the event of an infrastructure collapse, but it can not be assumed that such will happen, merely speculated.
Just because current alternative energy sources are not enough to power the country does not mean that there will never be alternative energy sources that would be sufficient. That is why more research should be put into finding better alternative energy sources so that in a decade or two, the transition away from oil can begin, in order to have it completed before we run out of oil. I am not saying that we should have the transition to an alternative energy source completed within a decade or two.
How do you know that the Incan civilization would not have recovered? It is like saying that disease is part of the reason for the death of someone who had a horrible disease that might kill them when they were killed in a car crash.
I agree with a majority of your post.
As I understand your posts, and the statements of a variety of people on these boards, they propose switching to an alternative energy sources relatively quickly and utterly abandoning oil, without regards to the impacts to the economy and infrastructure.
It is not merely a matter of current energy sources being insufficient to power the country, it is also a matter of the cost associated in researching and developing these energy sources. For example, an Ion engine with a couple of grams of matter, is sufficient to power a rocket to the nearest star, however, the cost of building such an engine is huge. As a result of the cost, most businesses and governmental organizations would deem it unsuitable for construction. I believe that the government and business will concentrate their efforts on research until oil is depleted, or it's depletion is imminent, after which the infrastructure has already collapsed. Most businesses do not invest in projects that are risky, and present no immediate or medium term benefits.
The Incans could not have recovered for the same reason that the Soviet Union could not. Their economy and government required substantial reforms in fundamental matters. To reform would have been to entierly collapse the empire.
Last edited by MercifulBoss; 08-09-2009 at 10:45 AM.
As I understand your posts, and the statements of a variety of people on these boards, they propose switching to an alternative energy sources relatively quickly and utterly abandoning oil, without regards to the impacts to the economy and infrastructure.
It is not merely a matter of current energy sources being insufficient to power the country, it is also a matter of the cost associated in researching and developing these energy sources. For example, an Ion engine with a couple of grams of matter, is sufficient to power a rocket to the nearest star, however, the cost of building such an engine is huge. As a result of the cost, most businesses and governmental organizations would deem it unsuitable for construction. I believe that the government and business will concentrate their efforts on research until oil is depleted, or it's depletion is imminent, after which the infrastructure has already collapsed. Most businesses do not invest in projects that are risky, and present no immediate or medium term benefits.
The Incans could not have recovered for the same reason that the Soviet Union could not. Their economy and government required substantial reforms in fundamental matters. To reform would have been to entierly collapse the empire.
There really is no rush to abandon oil very soon. However, waiting on switching to alternative energy sources until the oil is depleted, or even near close to depleted is nonsense. What effect do you think it will have on the economy and infrastructure when oil prices increase ten-fold or more?
Alternative energy sources need to be implemented before oil prices increase to an unbearable point. That does not mean within a decade or two, but that also does not mean shortly before all of the oil supply is gone.
__________________
"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter
fix the issue rather regret it thoroughly in my lifetime or have my children/grandchildren be punished for our ignorance.
Ignorance like oh, say, a government in debt by trillions of dollars? Ignorance that will force our children to pay 60% income taxes at $200,000? THAT kind of ignorance?
We don't need no education!
We don't need no thought control,
No dark sarcasm in the classroom!
Teachers leave them kids alone,
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
Ignorance like oh, say, a government in debt by trillions of dollars? Ignorance that will force our children to pay 60% income taxes at $200,000? THAT kind of ignorance?
Our debt has been (much) worse before.
__________________
Better contraceptives will control population only if people will use them. A nuclear holocaust can be prevented only if the conditions under which nations make war can be changed. The environment will continue to deteriorate until pollution practices are abandoned. We need to make vast changes in human behavior. B.F. Skinner
