Political Crossfire Forums

micfranklin · Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject:

Like money, oil is the root of all evil today :1evil:

poweRob · Joined: 14 Jul 2004 Posts: 22900

John Galt wrote: Don't like logging? Use plastic toliet paper.

You can't think or care to think of any other technology or biological answer to making paper other than logging?

Galt = status quo

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21932 Location: Minnesota

Rob wrote: John Galt wrote: Don't like logging? Use plastic toliet paper.

You can't think or care to think of any other technology or biological answer to making paper other than logging?

Galt = status quo

Not off the top of my head. Sure I'd like a cheaper softer tissue, but right now wood is cheap, plentiful, and -- here's that buzzword that youir side likes -- "sustianable." I saw an awesome Modern Marvels about logging today actually. One guy can fell down 175 trees in an hour, cut them up into logs and get them ready to go on trucks. Amazing machines they have.

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7610 Location: Tampa, FL

John Galt wrote: Rob wrote: John Galt wrote: Don't like logging? Use plastic toliet paper.

You can't think or care to think of any other technology or biological answer to making paper other than logging?

Galt = status quo

Not off the top of my head. Sure I'd like a cheaper softer tissue, but right now wood is cheap, plentiful, and -- here's that buzzword that youir side likes -- "sustianable." I saw an awesome Modern Marvels about logging today actually. One guy can fell down 175 trees in an hour, cut them up into logs and get them ready to go on trucks. Amazing machines they have.
Easily. I've run logging machines before, those things are incredible, the cutter can cut a 3-foot-diameter pine tree in half-a-second--the blade breaks the speed of sound. Then the "skidders" carry at most about 20 trees to a giant machine that trims the branches in a matter of seconds and loads them onto the back of a truck. We can clear hundreds of acres in days. Absolutely amazing machinery.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21932 Location: Minnesota

Well this one machine grabbed the trunk then debranched it or whatever you want to call it while cutting it into smaller logs and the whole process from cutting it down to cutting it apart with no branches left took seconds. It was this giant arm that came off of what looked like a little bobcat. Amazing.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

micfranklin wrote: Like money, oil is the root of all evil today :1evil:

cancer is evil
is oil responsible for cancer?

oh wait--oil is responsible for finding cures to cancer. wait---thats the opposite of evil. or are you trying to argue that cancer is good?

Oil is probably one of the most benevelont presents from the earth to man. It is certainly a force of good, not evil.

It is directly or indirectly responsible for all of man's greatest achievements. It has improve and saved the lives of billions. Can that be evil? Clearly, you are very very confused. :lol:

Eternal · Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 2055 Location: Somewhere

John Galt wrote: No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner. Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories. They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

I really do love it when you rant John. However, like always, your arguments regarding the environment crumble in the light of reason:

John Galt wrote: No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner.

What motivated the desire to implement these technologies? Do you think it may have been something to do with the fact that people were tired of breathing polluted air, swimming in polluted rivers and drinking toxic water? The bottom line John is that necessity is the mother of invention.

The introduction of unleaded petrol and other pollution reducing technologies came about through need. This need was created by awareness of the damage being done by the then current technologies, and this awareness came about through the hard work and effort of “environmentalists”. The people who had a vested interest in the old technologies fought tooth and nail against the new, thankfully the “environmentalists” won the day.

John Galt wrote: Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Sorry John, wrong again. Governments introduced laws because that is what people wanted. They were tired of corrupt business owners who refused to abide by community standards and who, when confronted by the community, chose to shield themselves with a wall of lawyers rather than take responsibility for their actions.

Besides, individuals can still sue companies if they believe they have wronged, something I’m sure you’re against.

John Galt wrote: Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories.

Cigarette companies have been saying similar things regarding the affects of their product. Thankfully the scientists involved in uncovering these dangers weren’t intimidated by their threats, and the issue of global warming is just the same; good scientists practicing sound science being challenged by people who represent nothing more than greed and self interest.

Quote: They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

Human’s created the concept of rights and as a society we can do whatever we want with them.

Cheers, Eternal

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:37 am Post subject:

ieatfood wrote: micfranklin wrote: Like money, oil is the root of all evil today :1evil:

cancer is evil
is oil responsible for cancer?

oh wait--oil is responsible for finding cures to cancer. wait---thats the opposite of evil. or are you trying to argue that cancer is good?

Oil is probably one of the most benevelont presents from the earth to man. It is certainly a force of good, not evil.

It is directly or indirectly responsible for all of man's greatest achievements. It has improve and saved the lives of billions. Can that be evil? Clearly, you are very very confused. :lol:

Maybe I should rephrase that so it's the love of oil is the root of all evil today.

Pebble · Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 1143

Quote:
cancer is evil
is oil responsible for cancer?

Well, if you want to get really pedantic......

Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil and a known carcinogen...

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21932 Location: Minnesota

Eternal wrote: John Galt wrote: No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner. Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories. They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

I really do love it when you rant John. However, like always, your arguments regarding the environment crumble in the light of reason:

John Galt wrote: No it would not be a "polluted toxic waste dump." It isn't now, and frankly none of it is "thanks" to any enviornmentalists. As technology progresses we become more efficent and the enviornment is consequently cleaner.

What motivated the desire to implement these technologies? Do you think it may have been something to do with the fact that people were tired of breathing polluted air, swimming in polluted rivers and drinking toxic water? The bottom line John is that necessity is the mother of invention.

The introduction of unleaded petrol and other pollution reducing technologies came about through need. This need was created by awareness of the damage being done by the then current technologies, and this awareness came about through the hard work and effort of “environmentalists”. The people who had a vested interest in the old technologies fought tooth and nail against the new, thankfully the “environmentalists” won the day.

That's what I said Eternal. As technology progressed (creators are the ones who did that, aka evil buisness intrests) then the enviornment became cleaner.

Quote: John Galt wrote: Furthermore if someone polluted YOUR property you should have a right to sue them but thanks to enviornmentalists who push for heavy regulation of buisnesses, you don't, as polluters are fined by the government instead of taken to court and restitution paid out.

Sorry John, wrong again. Governments introduced laws because that is what people wanted. They were tired of corrupt business owners who refused to abide by community standards and who, when confronted by the community, chose to shield themselves with a wall of lawyers rather than take responsibility for their actions.

Besides, individuals can still sue companies if they believe they have wronged, something I’m sure you’re against.

You could still sue them though. Now you can't, for the same reason you cannot sue the tabacco companies: they are regulated. Government fines companies for going beyond pollution emmision levels.The company can plan ahead and say, "well we can dump this much crap in here this year and we'll only be fined X" instead of thinking "What if this person sues us? What happens if a jury finds us guilty?"

John Galt wrote: Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories.

Quote: Cigarette companies have been saying similar things regarding the affects of their product.

Fallacy so I wopn't address it.

Quote: Quote: They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

Human’s created the concept of rights and as a society we can do whatever we want with them.

Cheers, Eternal

You continue to prove my points Eternal.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

micfranklin wrote:
Maybe I should rephrase that so it's the love of oil is the root of all evil today.

People say trite phrases like Money is evil or oil is evil. But that is all really childish.

In truth, everyone loves money and everyone loves oil. Including you . Including me.

Without money, we wouldnt have food, clothing, shelter, education or medicine. Without oil, we wouldn't have money.

And if we love food, if we love clothing, if we love shelter, if we love education, if we love medicine, then we also must love money and we also must love oil. They are all inter-connected.

So chill out. We all need oil for all the good things in life. Are there bad side effects of oil? Certainly. But we never claim that the side effects of a life-saving drug cause the drug to be evil.

Lipitor has the terrible side effect of liver toxicity. But do we claim it to be an evil drug? No, because it saves lives.

You can think of oil in the same way--like a life saving drug with some bad side effects.

You need a more balanced view on the issue.

thorn · Joined: 25 Jun 2004 Posts: 2743 Location: some rainy place

John Galt wrote: Use of oil by man is natural though. How could it not be? Therefore for allyour ramblings baouthow great nature is, why not let the nature of man run its course?
Every living being uses its environment up to the point when it gets unsustainable, say, a wolf hunting too much prey. What happens? Wolf dead. Now you say you have reason, please use it.

Ok, John Rant, you went on and on verbally raising hell without saying anything worth my time, really. I don't like repeating myself too much. Maybe it is the language barrier making it impossible for you to understand what I tried to say. So let me just get back to the core sentence, as I perceive it.
Quote: I do not ask anything of anyone else other than to let me live the way I want to. You ask everyone else to help YOU live the way YOU want to.
[...]
They should pay for it themselves if they care so much about it.
wrt the bolded part: great, same here. And I will not accept your disrupting or hindering my health, wellbeing, and enjoyment in life with your behaviour. If you got a problem with that, I don't care, because you're not worth more than I am to me. And your wishes are not worth more than my wishes. I don't ask you for help either. I just tell you that what you are doing is probably having an effect on my life, and my life is - as I just said - worth a lot more to me than yours is. So I refuse to pay with my own, my family's or friend's life, health, wellbeing, joy or whatever.
Now if we ever meet for a beer, it's gonna be my shout. But afterwards I might just wring every last droplet of blood out of your numb skull. :-D

Do we have an understanding?

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

thorn wrote:
Every living being uses its environment up to the point when it gets unsustainable

"sustainability" is a naiive idealistic concept

no human practice in the history of civilization has ever been sustainable
and what have we achieved using these "unsustainable" practices?

looking at all that humans have achieved, I'd say a lot.

human processes never have to be sustainable because human civilization is constantly evolving and thus no practice will ever be sustained.

in our thousands of years of history, we've done quite well as a species without sustainable practices. We'll continue to do quite well without them in the future.

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 508 Location: Raleigh, NC

Infinite911911 wrote: Humanity is the cancer of nature. :cry:

Quote: An oil tanker with 360,000 barrels capacity was struck by an ice floe and ran aground while loading oil products at an Alaska refinery on Thursday, causing a spill, a state official and the refining company said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-02-02T191116Z_01_N02299301_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-TANKER.xml&rpc=22

Mother Nature: 0
Humans: 902398874

This may be a shut out, ladies and gentleman.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

LDA wrote:

Mother Nature: 0
Humans: 902398874

This may be a shut out, ladies and gentleman.

Columbian volcano kills 20,000 people.

Cancer kills 1,000,000.

Score one for mother nature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/13/newsid_2539000/2539731.stm

Eternal · Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 2055 Location: Somewhere

John Galt wrote: That's what I said Eternal. As technology progressed (creators are the ones who did that, aka evil buisness intrests) then the enviornment became cleaner.

No John, you’re wrong once again. In order for technology to be driven forward it requires a catalyst, something to motivate it. This catalyst can be competition itself, such as what occurs in the IT industry. Sometimes the catalyst is social change and sometimes it comes about as the result of acquiring new knowledge, and it is the latter that is pushing the new environmentally friendly technology.

Sometimes industry readily accepts new technology. However when the new technology challenges already established technologies this is where the corporate bullying begins. In the case of environmentally friendly technologies the introduction of unleaded fuel and catalytic converters in cars had to be pushed by government, because industry simply wasn’t willing to incur the cost of introducing these new technologies. They were comfortable with the old and were making good money from it.

John Galt wrote: You could still sue them though. Now you can't, for the same reason you cannot sue the tabacco companies: they are regulated. Government fines companies for going beyond pollution emmision levels.The company can plan ahead and say, "well we can dump this much crap in here this year and we'll only be fined X" instead of thinking "What if this person sues us? What happens if a jury finds us guilty?"

Well that’s where Australia and the US differ then, because in Australia you can still sue tobacco companies. Indeed several years ago I vaguely remember a case involving an Australian law Clayton & Utz who were representing a tobacco firm in a civil lawsuit, who were being accused of underhanded tactics during the trial (something about shredding documents).

John Galt wrote: Again, enviornmentalists are anti-man because they are anti-reason. You called human beings a CANCER on this earth. No, enviornmentalist are a scourge on this earth; collectivists through and through who want to destroy all that man has accomplished. They fill people's heads with lies day in and day out and get them to believe outlandish theories.

Quote: Cigarette companies have been saying similar things regarding the affects of their product.

Fallacy so I wopn't address it.

Wrong again John! The antics of the tobacco industry were, and to a lesser extent still are, notorious for spewing propaganda. How long did it take them to admit that smoking significantly increases your chances of cancer and heart disease? A bloody long time!

John Galt wrote: They have made a mockery of the concept of rights by trying to "give" them to animals. Such a sick and twisted view of mankind needs to be done away with. Thankfully most people are reasonable and do not listen to this monkeybuinsess.

Eternal wrote: Human’s created the concept of rights and as a society we can do whatever we want with them.

John Galt wrote: You continue to prove my points Eternal.

Snide remarks aside John, your continued pre-occupation with the notion that rights stem from the ability to reason has no grounding in either historical or empirical evidence. My initial statement stands firm.

Cheers, Eternal

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

Eternal wrote:

What motivated the desire to implement these technologies? Do you think it may have been something to do with the fact that people were tired of breathing polluted air, swimming in polluted rivers and drinking toxic water? The bottom line John is that necessity is the mother of invention.

The introduction of unleaded petrol and other pollution reducing technologies came about through need. This need was created by awareness of the damage being done by the then current technologies, and this awareness came about through the hard work and effort of “environmentalists”. The people who had a vested interest in the old technologies fought tooth and nail against the new, thankfully the “environmentalists” won the day.

I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.

Il Principe · Joined: 05 Feb 2006 Posts: 721 Location: Fortress Europe

micfranklin wrote: Like money, oil is the root of all evil today :1evil:

Except oil will run out in 50 years, money wont.

Nothing to worry about though, I'm sure human creativity will find new and exciting way to screw up the planet.

thorn · Joined: 25 Jun 2004 Posts: 2743 Location: some rainy place

ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.
You are right with a fair share of what you said in this post, I saw enough of those hardcore guys during my studies. Although I quite frequently did not agree with them I was still happy they are there.

ieatfood wrote: "sustainability" is a naiive idealistic concept

no human practice in the history of civilization has ever been sustainable
and what have we achieved using these "unsustainable" practices?

looking at all that humans have achieved, I'd say a lot.
Sure thing, we achieved a lot. Looking around my home country I can very well see how much we achieved, and I can very well see the prices our society pays for these achievements. Considering the loss of biodiversity, the remodelling of nature, and the use of resources as well as the backlash on the people living here I'd say our practices in the past were borderline unsustainable, and we were quite close to paying even more.
Living in a country as densely populated and as extensively and intensively used as Germany I can tell you from my own experience that sustainability is not half as naive or idealistic a concept as you wish it were.

Quote: human processes never have to be sustainable because human civilization is constantly evolving and thus no practice will ever be sustained.
aha. so i.e. a wolf hunting prey to the point where there is no prey left is not a big deal for the wolf, because he is constantly evolving. Of course he cannot sustain the practise of hunting prey when he has evolved into a starving or dead wolf. But from our assessing the nature of the wolf we know that this is gonna happen to the wolf if he hunts more than what nature supplies. Reasoning made us understand the wolf's mistakes.
Reasoning also enables us to assess the outcome of our activity, we can assess if it's gonna be good or bad. So, what's it gonna be, we gonna look for an alternative if the outcome is bad? Or are we gonna go on and ignore our natural ability to reason and probably harm ourself?

Quote: in our thousands of years of history, we've done quite well as a species without sustainable practices. We'll continue to do quite well without them in the future.
Sure, and the fact that the Earth's population is growing and everyone tries to achieve the same standard of living (possibly the Western one with its incredibly extensive and intensive use of nature) is surely not gonna have an effect. Sorry, it'd better happen that we evolve into a species that finally learns to use reason in order to think ahead and avoid too high a price.
I have absolutely nothing against technological progress, but I think after seeing what kinds of effects our current behaviour and activity has on our biosphere I'd suggest we first try to assess if the outcome of the use of this technology is really worth it or if we could do it cheaper. Just think of this analogy: you want to buy a good and of course you have to pay a price to get it. So, I think you will want as cheap a price as possible. That's what I would do. And now exchange the "price" for "impact on the natural environment".

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21932 Location: Minnesota

Il Principe wrote: micfranklin wrote: Like money, oil is the root of all evil today :1evil:

Except oil will run out in 50 years, money wont.

Nothing to worry about though, I'm sure human creativity will find new and exciting way to screw up the planet.

Oil will never run out, and that is a fact. Of course, you are right that human ingenuity will find a replacement for oil as though it may never run out, it will someday gety expensive (well over 50 years from now) to the point where we'll actually need to start searching for a new fuel source. In the interim there is no need (nor from a moralistic standpoint, a reason) to push things from a governmental standpoint (if private entities want to -- go right ahead) to search for new fuel sources. Oil will be around for a long long time in pleantiful amounts. Once we were worried coal would run out. We have since found out that to be worried about that is one of the silliest things to worry about. With the coming advent of extracting oil from shale, as well as new technologies that now allow for drilling miles below the surface, plus the fact that exploration has found untapped areas with they believe more oil than the middle east, and at the same depths... oil isn't going away like the dinosaur. No, it will be here for centuries to come. If a cheaper alternative comes along: great. But if it doesn't, no worries.