Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:59 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:34 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.
Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh? I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might
buy ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...
Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations --
whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the
noise of their changes as to make no discernible difference.
Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When
they become so, then they'll take off.
--
It is the fact that we over-consume that makes us vulnerable to
making
mistakes.
Who is this "we" and what "mistakes" are "we vulnerable to making"? I
see far more people starving in places where energy consumption is far
lower than in the US than I do in the US. So seems to me that _they_
are the ones who are "vulnerable".

Oh goody, we're talking about energy/fuel, now we have added
herring...I mean food.. I mean lack of herring...food...red
herrings... I'm all confused now. (That tactic is called ridiculing
the opponent)

I'll get right on chasing that.

Try to stay on topic, John.

The topic being what. I thought this topic was about tools.