 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / August 2005NY TIMES: Running-Out of Oil, BREAKING POINT by Maass
This is page one of a ten-page NY TIMES Magazine article that would be of less new information to the been-there/knew-that <sci.environment> news group, while general readers may enjoy the influential NYT's access to Peter Maass' interesting professional writing. www.nytimes.com registration/access for marketing cookie http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/magazine/21OIL.html copyrighted by the new york times 2005 The Breaking Point E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Single-Page By PETER MAASS Published: August 21, 2005 The largest oil terminal in the world, Ras Tanura, is located on the eastern coast of Saudi Arabia, along the Persian Gulf. From Ras Tanura's control tower, you can see the classic totems of oil's dominion -- supertankers coming and going, row upon row of storage tanks and miles and miles of pipes. Ras Tanura, which I visited in June, is the funnel through which nearly 10 percent of the world's daily supply of petroleum flows. Standing in the control tower, you are surrounded by more than 50 million barrels of oil, yet not a drop can be seen. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image George Steinmetz Oil Runs Through It...for Now: Shaybah, one of Saudi Arabia's oil fields, which all told can produce 10.5 million barrels of oil a day. The Saudis say they can boost production to 12.5 million barrels a day, or 15 million, or more. But there is a limit to how much you can ask of the earth, and it is fast approaching, some experts say. Forum: Energy Should America be doing more to prepare for an oil shortage? Enlarge This Image Stephanie Kuykendal/Corbis, for The New York Times Future Shock? Sadad al-Husseini, a former Aramco executive, sees an oil shortage looming. But he says that it is consumers, not producers, who are to blame. The oil is there, of course. In a technological sleight of hand, oil can be extracted from the deserts of Arabia, processed to get rid of water and gas, sent through pipelines to a terminal on the gulf, loaded onto a supertanker and shipped to a port thousands of miles away, then run through a refinery and poured into a tanker truck that delivers it to a suburban gas station, where it is pumped into an S.U.V. -- all without anyone's actually glimpsing the stuff. So long as there is enough oil to fuel the global economy, it is not only out of sight but also out of mind, at least for consumers. I visited Ras Tanura because oil is no longer out of mind, thanks to record prices caused by refinery shortages and surging demand -- most notably in the United States and China -- which has strained the capacity of oil producers and especially Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of all. Unlike the 1973 crisis, when the embargo by the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries created an artificial shortfall, today's shortage, or near-shortage, is real. If demand surges even more, or if a producer goes offline because of unrest or terrorism, there may suddenly not be enough oil to go around. As Aref al-Ali, my escort from Saudi Aramco, the giant state-owned oil company, pointed out, ''One mistake at Ras Tanura today, and the price of oil will go up.'' This has turned the port into a fortress; its entrances have an array of gates and bomb barriers to prevent terrorists from cutting off the black oxygen that the modern world depends on. Yet the problem is far greater than the brief havoc that could be wrought by a speeding zealot with 50 pounds of TNT in the trunk of his car. Concerns are being voiced by some oil experts that Saudi Arabia and other producers may, in the near future, be unable to meet rising world demand. The producers are not running out of oil, not yet, but their decades-old reservoirs are not as full and geologically spry as they used to be, and they may be incapable of producing, on a daily basis, the increasing volumes of oil that the world requires. ''One thing is clear,'' warns Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, in a series of new advertisements, ''the era of easy oil is over.'' In the past several years, the gap between demand and supply, once considerable, has steadily narrowed, and today is almost negligible. The consequences of an actual shortfall of supply would be immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by even a small amount, the price of a barrel of oil could soar to triple-digit levels. This, in turn, could bring on a global recession, a result of exorbitant prices for transport fuels and for products that rely on petrochemicals -- which is to say, almost every product on the market. The impact on the American way of life would be profound: cars cannot be propelled by roof-borne windmills. The suburban and exurban lifestyles, hinged to two-car families and constant trips to work, school and Wal-Mart, might become unaffordable or, if gas rationing is imposed, impossible. Carpools would be the least imposing of many inconveniences; the cost of home heating would soar -- assuming, of course, that climate-controlled habitats do not become just a fond memory. But will such a situation really come to pass? That depends on Saudi Arabia. To know the answer, you need to know whether the Saudis, who possess 22 percent of the world's oil reserves, can increase their country's output beyond its current limit of 10.5 million barrels a day, and even beyond the 12.5-million-barrel target it has set for 2009. (World consumption is about 84 million barrels a day.) Saudi Arabia is the sole oil superpower. No other producer possesses reserves close to its 263 billion barrels, which is almost twice as much as the runner-up, Iran, with 133 billion barrels. New fields in other countries are discovered now and then, but they tend to offer only small increments. For example, the much-contested and as-yet-unexploited reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge are believed to amount to about 10 billion barrels, or just a fraction of what the Saudis possess. 12345678910Next Page > Peter Maass is a contributing writer. He is writing a book about oil. Next Article in Magazine (1 of 14) > For a limited time, get The Times delivered free for 2 weeks. We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by the corp. boss whore media. The worst possible use for oil is energy. Bret Cahill > We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a > year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by > the corp. boss whore media. > > The worst possible use for oil is energy. Agreed. but it aint upta us. How do you plan to survive the economic crash we will use instead to reduce our consumption? Taking charge Mileage-hungry turn hybrids into plug-ins Tim Molloy - Associated Press Friday, August 26, 2005 Corte Madera, Calif. --- Politicians and automakers say a car that can reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage. It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret --- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel. Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car. Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb --- all for about a quarter. He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. They have the support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling. While the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too. So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them. "They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy." The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg. "The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make dramatic difference." Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power. Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass- produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price. But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids --- and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cellphones. Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in and don't want to confuse the message. Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence. Gaffney, who heads the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism. "The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are . . . the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said. DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available. Others are modifying hybrids, too. Monrovia, Calif.-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said. University of California-Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban. Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag. Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations. "They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially." We need EVs that can be easily converted to hybrids by adding a gen set -- a small hybrid engine + generator + fuel tank. You can commute up to 80 miles each week day in your battery only EV -- a glorified golf cart -- charging off the grid only. In commuter mode you have more space and less weight without the hybrid engine. And when you need to drive cross country you can drop in a small gas engine/generator/fuel tank set. If you screw up and try to drive cross country without the engine -- this is every EV automakers' worst nightmare for some reason -- you pull over when the battery dies and the stupid motorist calls AAA on for a tow or a rental gen set. If you need to haul something you rent a larger gas engine/gen set. Right now we have a lot of 8 liter engines on the road NOT hauling anything -- an horrific waste of fuel. Bret Cahill > We need EVs that can be easily converted to hybrids by adding a gen set > -- a small hybrid engine + generator + fuel tank. > > You can commute up to 80 miles each week day in your battery only EV -- > a glorified golf cart -- charging off the grid only. In commuter mode > you have more space and less weight without the hybrid engine. Not really enough to be worthwhile. Since the grid doesn't run on nuclear or magic alternatives, the tradeoff is questionable. Not that I think all electric is a bad idea if you can do it right. > And when you need to drive cross country you can drop in a small gas > engine/generator/fuel tank set. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you need to haul something you rent a larger gas engine/gen set. But you would have to rent larger brakes and suspension and so on---towing big things with a light car is not a good idea. There's something called zip cars ? where you can do everything on line and pick up a local small car if you live in a city. But what would be really good would be the same idea for pickup trucks, vans and so on. I use Enterprise for business sometimes which is pretty good but it would be nice to have even more immediate availability. I like your aftermarket idea but it has been tried and failed with electric conversions. Manufacturers will not make it easy, and oil companies can put you out of business with a couple of years of low prices. -tg > Right now we have a lot of 8 liter engines on the road NOT hauling > anything -- an horrific waste of fuel. > > Bret Cahill <> We need EVs that can be easily converted to hybrids by adding a gen set <> -- a small hybrid engine + generator + fuel tank. <> You can commute up to 80 miles each week day in your battery only EV -- <> a glorified golf cart -- charging off the grid only. In commuter mode <> you have more space and less weight without the hybrid engine. < Not really enough to be worthwhile. The engine-generator-tank is several cu feet -- a lot on a small car. Generators are heavy. The extra weight cuts into miles per kilowatt-hour, even with regenerative braking. < Since the grid doesn't run on < nuclear or magic alternatives, the tradeoff is questionable. It's cleaner, even when you burn coal and account for the 10% lost in transmission lines. Less NOx. If it comes to sequestering CO2 -- admittedly as pipe dreamish as a democratic Iraq -- the power plant is the only place to do it. Better idea: get the morons in Congress to fund fusion. I have no reason to doubt the claims of the conventional fusion people. < Not that I think all electric is a bad idea if you can do it right. No motor oil. One moving part per wheel. Much higher reliability. En masse, much cheaper. The article had the automaker start off with a hybrid and they essentially made it more EV. <> And when you need to drive cross country you can drop in a small gas <> engine/generator/fuel tank set. . . . <> If you need to haul something you rent a larger gas engine/gen set. < But you would have to rent larger brakes and suspension and so < on---towing big things with a light car is not a good idea. I heard about the Japanese making a three wheel EV. Maybe a 4th wheel/traction motor/brake/engine/generator/fuel tank rig could be bolted on. This would effectively increase control by 33%. < There's something called zip cars ? where you can do everything on line < and pick up a local small car if you live in a city. But what would be < really good would be the same idea for pickup trucks, vans and so on. I'm surprised the truck idea didn't come first. That just shows you how few people really need large vehicles. People want something sitting in front of their house for "emergencies." Same as the gun nuts. They like a gun "just in case." We both know this is ignorant as hell but that's how people think. I'm just trying to offer options that will sell, not wage an educational campaign. Better idea: Pay by day auto insurance. You have your car registered and you have a policy but you never pay for insurance as long as it sits in the driveway. You take the bus or cycle to work. When it rains or you need to haul some groceries you contact the insurance company. The company will charge more on a per day basis but overall it would be big savings for a lot of motorists. Except for about 14 weeks in the winter I only use my vehicle three times a month if that. The insurance is several times more expensive than what I pay in fuel. Bret Cahill > <> We need EVs that can be easily converted to hybrids by adding a gen > set [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Better idea: get the morons in Congress to fund fusion. I have no > reason to doubt the claims of the conventional fusion people. Except that they sound like your friends in the White House, with cheap energy just around the next 15-year corner every year for the last 50. > < Not that I think all electric is a bad idea if you can do it right. > > No motor oil. One moving part per wheel. Much higher reliability. En > masse, much cheaper. All reasons for the manufacturers to avoid it as long as possible. Electric motors can last almost forever. And without all the gadgets for pollution control, and all the other parts that they now sell you at OEM prices, profits would actually have to be earned. > The article had the automaker start off with a hybrid and they > essentially made it more EV. > <> And when you need to drive cross country you can drop in a small gas > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I'm surprised the truck idea didn't come first. That just shows you > how few people really need large vehicles. Note that hybrids didn't come first in trucks either, which is where they make the most sense and have the most impact. > People want something sitting in front of their house for > "emergencies." Same as the gun nuts. They like a gun "just in case." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Better idea: Pay by day auto insurance. As I said, I rent from Enterprise for business, but their daily insurance rate is insane---more than the rental plus gas combined. So you could only drive for about two weeks for the price of yearly insurance. -tg > You have your car registered and you have a policy but you never pay > for insurance as long as it sits in the driveway. You take the bus or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bret Cahill < > Better idea: get the morons in Congress to fund fusion. I have no < > reason to doubt the claims of the conventional fusion people. < Except that they sound like your friends in the White House, with cheap < energy just around the next 15-year corner every year for the last 50. It's WAY underfunded. In June congress cut two billion -- most of the lasers -- from the Nat'l Ignition Facility. It's insane. . . . < All reasons for the manufacturers to avoid it as long as possible. < Electric motors can last almost forever. And without all the gadgets < for pollution control, and all the other parts that they now sell you < at OEM prices, profits would actually have to be earned. Automaker management is living in the past when Henry Ford I and other robber barons controlled the media, congress, the Fed and everything else. If the Democrats ever wake up and realize the internet is the voter there won't be anything keeping Congress from stripping the corporations of bad management until they act in the nation's interest. A carrot won't work here so you must use a stick. Going after the criminals at Enron and World Com isn't enough. Everyone enjoyed watching Martha get locked up but I'm not impressed with "perp of the week." . . . . < I rent from Enterprise for business, but their daily insurance rate is insane---more < than the rental plus gas combined. It would be much cheaper if you owned the car. After all, how are zip cars insured? I'm not against zip cars. It's just that a whole lot more people would like to have a car sitting in the drive way. And every motorist would like to clear some traffic off the streets. Bret Cahill > If the Democrats ever wake up and realize the internet is the voter > there won't be anything keeping Congress from stripping the > corporations of bad management until they act in the nation's interest. Bret, I used to think that the internet would be a worthwhile medium for educating people. But for your ideas to work, people would have to *read*. Maybe the ease of searching will influence the next generation to read a bit more, but 'the voter' these days is influenced by slogans, and the fundatarians have a lock on that. Face it, people are willing to pour their money into oil company profits, at TWICE what they paid one? year ago, but if you suggest a nickel tax on gas to encourage conservation, there will be crosses burning on your lawn. That's right folks, $1.30 for Exxon, but not one penny for body armor for the soldiers. -tg There's a pecking order to political change. You can get something done IF you are willing to read, plan, work and wait. But if you don't read Montesquieu or Brandeis, Madison or Jefferson or DeTocqueville, you are not going to know how to do it and you won't even try. I'm not saying that there won't be a major attenuation in world population in the next 100 years because of the oil-population situation -- probably through geo wars as well as famine -- but I think we might have a chance if we work hard enough, politically and technologically. We need to use those ET radio transmitters to show the rest of the universe that we didn't go down without trying -- Dick Cheney didn't get to blow up the planet for a "few barrels more." Bret Cahill It would be really nice to have affordable after market power/drive train conversions. We're in a "it needed to be done last decade situation." Bret Cahill > It would be really nice to have affordable after market power/drive > train conversions. We're in a "it needed to be done last decade > situation." Rational policy would be nice, but that aint what we are gonna see, is it. No, what's driving SUV sales, in the face of the disasters we see and the high gas prices, is the fantasy that the SUV can take the family away from it all into the wilderness... when the schitt hits the fan. The SUV is what the survivalists call a "Bug-out" vehicle. Of course, because we live in the United States of Denial, it is a fantasy; families cant go camping in the wilderness forever, or even more than a few weeks. But the couch potatos, looking at the Hummer ads implying that he and his family can disappear... dont think that far ahead. You'd think the people building Hummer's would. But all they see is the immediate profit, not the looming disaster. Diamond, in "Collapse", discussing the total collapses of Mangareva and Easter Island, the Maya & Chaco canyon, and the Greenland Norse- comments that every time, the policy makers were in denial, and that every time the maldistribution of wealth got worse before for the proverbial schitt hit the fan. And whenever there were 'survivors', what happened was a rebellion with chaos an anarchy with a bloodbath of the ruling class. Yes, it *would* be really nice, but whether sheeple will wake up or just go on eating junk food in front of TV til the lights go out is a very debatable issue. I am not sanguine. So- I ask, again: what do you suggest that those few people who are paying attention, and see the mismanagement now going on, should do if economic disaster arrives before the next election? >> We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a >> year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Agreed. but it aint upta us. How do you plan to survive the economic > crash we will use instead to reduce our consumption? http://www.ei2025.org >>>We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a >>>year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.ei2025.org How the f.ck do you expect to get a mandate thru the smoke screen of the transnational media who really know how to pander to the couch potatos, and not challenge them like your advocated position does? I like your program too, but let's be realistic. >>>>We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a >>>>year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I like your program too, but let's be realistic. You don't have to convince everyone. What you have to do is convince one billionaire with a sense of history and a good helping of ego to fund a good project. If it is a good product, and it is marketed well (marketing is much more than promotion [advertising]), it _will_ sell. Examples: recycling, EV/hybrid, green power. If your idea is that of a crackpot, or is so fantastical that only the clinically insane see your logic or want it, well, there is not much hope for it. Looking at your website, it would seem that responsible and intelligent people are needed in our government to make energy independence and ecological preservation a reality. I agree. However, I would focus on getting these types of people into government and have that be the end, because these people would, by their very nature, address these and other important issues in an effective, creative, and sustainable way. Many speak of the media as an enemy or some monolithic force out to malignantly destroy humankind because it is... gasp... EVIL, but it is really just a simple creature. It has only two needs: sustenance (money) and companionship (observers). Treat it as such, and you will have success. steveo >>>>>We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a >>>>>year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > billionaire with a sense of history and a good helping of ego to fund a good > project. I dont know any, doubt he does either. They must be swamped with spam. Maybe there are good ideas, but there's a sea of bullschitt to wade thru. Diamond writes of Tokugawa, and there are other examples in history where a leader steps forth with vision the people lack just as there are examples where leaders are blind to all visions by their own. But I dont see any billionaires that this culture has created with the kind of open mind that's required, to either have an idea, or listen to one, that'd make much difference. > If it is a good product, and it is marketed well (marketing is much more > than promotion [advertising]), it _will_ sell. Examples: recycling, > EV/hybrid, green power. Which are nice ideas but lacking support; they dont 'sell', and the sheeple aint buying. > If your idea is that of a crackpot, or is so fantastical that only the > clinically insane see your logic or want it, well, there is not much hope > for it. And who gets to decide if its insane or visionary? > Looking at your website, it would seem that responsible and intelligent > people are needed in our government to make energy independence and > ecological preservation a reality. I agree. However, I would focus on > getting these types of people into government and have that be the end, > because these people would, by their very nature, address these and other > important issues in an effective, creative, and sustainable way. Well, for instance, Jim Lendall, Green party, Little Rock, has announced he's running for governor. He dont even have a website up yet. > Many speak of the media as an enemy or some monolithic force out to > malignantly destroy humankind because it is... gasp... EVIL, but it is > really just a simple creature. It has only two needs: sustenance (money) > and companionship (observers). Treat it as such, and you will have success. Agreed what its needs are, but it dont care how I treat it any more than an elephant cares what an ant thinks. Even making an impact on local politics is hamstrung by the closed mindedness of the lawyers, realtors, and developers who now run things. >>>>>>We need to be funding fusion and batterys several hundred billion a >>>>>>year or we will soon have BIG problems, not just silly crap hyped by [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> billionaire with a sense of history and a good helping of ego to fund a >> good project. > I dont know any, doubt he does either. They must be swamped with spam. > Maybe there are good ideas, but there's a sea of bullschitt to wade [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with the kind of open mind that's required, to either have an idea, > or listen to one, that'd make much difference. Sure there are. A lot of these people set up funds for this very type of reason. The problem is that the fund managers are a bunch of self-important weasals who are more interested in the prestige their position affords than the ability to impact the course of human events--a far greater and richer legacy that would truely write their names in the books. Another result of an inferior education system and maladjusted society. Which stems from a broken political process. Which is the result of a flawed education system and maladjusted society. A vicious circle if ever there was one, no? Which Diamond book is this from? Diamond is an engaging and interesting author, if a bit shallow at times. >> If it is a good product, and it is marketed well (marketing is much more >> than promotion [advertising]), it _will_ sell. Examples: recycling, >> EV/hybrid, green power. > Which are nice ideas but lacking support; they dont 'sell', and the > sheeple aint buying. And they will continue to not as long as they are treated as 'sheeple' and not as humans who have an obligation, responsibility, and privlige of being contributing members of the race. Just because people act stupid doesn't mean that it is ok or that it should be tolerated. If stupidity were punished by people reaping what they sow, there would be many fewer stupid people, either through death or a change in behavior. >> If your idea is that of a crackpot, or is so fantastical that only the >> clinically insane see your logic or want it, well, there is not much hope >> for it. > And who gets to decide if its insane or visionary? Reality and the people they present the idea to. It still never ceases to amaze me that people spend hundreds of dollars to learn how to 'GET RICH QUICK!!!!' when they could just copy the very same scheme that they are being suckered by! Seriously, though, applying logic and a systematic analysis will quickly vett the ideas. This is they very escence of investing (on the individual and institutional levels). >> Looking at your website, it would seem that responsible and intelligent >> people are needed in our government to make energy independence and >> ecological preservation a reality. I agree. However, I would focus on >> getting these types of people into government and have that be the end, >> because these people would, by their very nature, address these and other >> important issues in an effective, creative, and sustainable way. > Well, for instance, Jim Lendall, Green party, Little Rock, has > announced he's running for governor. He dont even have a website up yet. I used to be a Libertarian. When the candidate for Governor of the State of California ran on a platform of ferret legalization, I gave up. I dispair of third parties ever making a difference because they are just too damn incompetent, whatever their orientation. Like your example shows, even people who might/should/do care can't be bothered to try, or proceed to try in such a piteously piss-poor way that their effort is a joke. Another example of inferior people in our government (or trying to be). So, now I am a member of the Nothing Party. I wish there was a party that was serious out there. I am so needy at this point I would support just about any party that engaged in any ethical policy positions if they would just do it with skill, fortitude, forthrightness, and seriousness. >> Many speak of the media as an enemy or some monolithic force out to >> malignantly destroy humankind because it is... gasp... EVIL, but it is >> really just a simple creature. It has only two needs: sustenance (money) >> and companionship (observers). Treat it as such, and you will have >> success. > Agreed what its needs are, but it dont care how I treat it any more than > an elephant cares what an ant thinks. Even making an impact on local > politics is hamstrung by the closed mindedness of the lawyers, realtors, > and developers who now run things. Hand it treats, and it will come lick your hand. This is the whole premise of 'pork.' As for the second point, fix the problem of inferior governmental workers and the structure of our society will change such that the law will be conducive to recreating a nation that makes logical sense. Structure drives behavior, which in turn drives results. Create a system where long-term profitability means a healthy environment filled with people who work to better themselves and their fellow man equally (which people buy into because others will be doing the same, which works to their benefit as well), and they will engage in behaviors that will produce a society that will (yes, "will") be wondrous to behold. steveo some famous billionaires whom reportedly are at Maslow's top of values pyrammid George Soros (political activist) Warren Buffet (when he dies, the bulk reportedly goes to charities) Bill Gates (has apparently given huge amounts to African vaccination and public health projects) Ted Turner (environmentalist, donation of a billion to UN) not Robert Cohen (only a philanthropist/altruist in his own mind, which means nuthin existentially) others? > some famous billionaires whom reportedly are at Maslow's top of values > pyrammid [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > others? Great examples! Thinking about this more: we don't even need these multi-billionaires for funding. How many buildings, benches, libraries, schools, etc. have someone's name on them because that person donated a large amount of money because they believed in what the project was? steveo Breaking points are stupid. They're an illusion generated by exponential functions. When you view the situation on a loci-level, what appears to be a singular "point" in the chart really just looks the same as any other curve. The market and the population will have to adjust, but no all-encompassing desaster scenario is going to come to pass. People will adapt. Sure, people will adapt by dying in a geo war. Bret Cahill |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.