OIL is at the heart of all

[Cynthia]

Profits/companies/money generated......in corporate America can not sustain over time.

Wind energy/sun energy and who knows....some "other" energy discovered someday will lift this crisis out of the mud.


Why the heck do we think in terms of 'ONE WAY OR THE HIGHWAY'..pardon the pun, mentality.

We are a small potato on this planet. ...compared to MILLIONS of years it has taken to form this planet. Yet we think we are going to take charge of this planet in just two centuries?

To think about the science of it all, one has to laugh at our gluttony and demands of this life we take for granted. And at the risk of damaging the air, earth, and resources that were once pristine?

That's going to be the real issue on this planet in the next 100 years.


So, Obama, McCain, Biden and our little lady-Palin....as tough as she is.....mean nada compared to what is at the basis of the issue----the earth's resources, and the air we breathe.

We are a blimp....and yet we need civility to keep order.

Do we have that?

No...unless one is a true Christian-like soul....

Ok, that's my take on the bottom line.

Nite all.
Ciney

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that Jesus was any sort of ecological ideal. The world had so few people in it that overpopulation was not a problem. It took most people all morning just to fix lunch.

But we do really need to begin a serious program to end dependence on oil. Not oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or wherever, dependence on oil as a fuel, and everything else non-renewable.

The essence of business is to grow, grow, grow. This road leads to disaster. Growth of a company can be either the expansion of the total pie, or robbing slices from the competition. Since we are running out of non-renewable resources, it is absolutely essential that we concentrate on RENEWABLE ones. Population growth must be slowed, and if at all possible, reversed, so that there are enough renewable resources to permit everyone a decent and rewarding life.

Businesses can grow only to the degree that they use renewable resources and their products represent a betterment of the human condition.  This is not an end to growth, but it certainly requires a massive change in the way the economic system works, and the sooner this can take place, the better.

I would not expect the companies mining the Athabaska Tar Sands to view any part of this as a good thing, since it would represent their extinction, at least until such a time as CO2 emissions can be reduced to zero and petrochemicals are used just for recyclable plastics and the like.  I would not think that the bottled water industry would delight in these changes, either.

[Cynthia]

I don't think that Jesus was any sort of ecological ideal. The world had so few people in it that overpopulation was not a problem. It took most people all morning just to fix lunch.

But we do really need to begin a serious program to end dependence on oil. Not oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or wherever, dependence on oil as a fuel, and everything else non-renewable.

The essence of business is to grow, grow, grow. This road leads to disaster. Growth of a company can be either the expansion of the total pie, or robbing slices from the competition. Since we are running out of non-renewable resources, it is absolutely essential that we concentrate on RENEWABLE ones. Population growth must be slowed, and if at all possible, reversed, so that there are enough renewable resources to permit everyone a decent and rewarding life.

Businesses can grow only to the degree that they use renewable resources and their products represent a betterment of the human condition.  This is not an end to growth, but it certainly requires a massive change in the way the economic system works, and the sooner this can take place, the better.

I would not expect the companies mining the Athabaska Tar Sands to view any part of this as a good thing, since it would represent their extinction, at least until such a time as CO2 emissions can be reduced to zero and petrochemicals are used just for recyclable plastics and the like.  I would not think that the bottled water industry would delight in these changes, either.

Some reasonable ideas you have put forth, XO.

Over time, there will be a coming together of the minds that matter ---and all of the waste, greed will have no life to spread a wing.

As for controlling the rate of the population, we can't allow any government to control that, imo.

However, at the rate we are living in a state of illness the population will take a down slide on the other end of the life cycle.

You have made some very good points here, Xavier.

[Xavier_Onassis]

People have fewest children when they have been convinced that it is necessary to provide them with extensive education. The birth rate in most of the most prosperous parts of Europe is below the replacement rate. More Italians die than are born each year, for example. Poor people have too many children because they marry young and believe that they must have many children to support them in their old age. In countries where it is clear that the elderly will not be a burden on their children, the birthrate drops.

People also have too many children because of inadequate sex education and poor availability of birth control.

A  major problem in the US is that some denominations, such as the Mormons, tend to have large families as a method of increasing their influence. The Mormons are not the only ones, but they are the largest. The dysfunctional nature of poor Black families also cause them to have more children than they can educate properly.

The Peple's Republic of China has no choice but to limit the size of families by law. China cannot possibly feed as many people as would be born otherwise. This is a problem India will sonn have to confront.

Nature knows how to control population growth, but its methods are starvation, wars and plagues.

[richpo64]

Good grief ... 

[Amianthus]

People also have too many children because of [...] poor availability of birth control.

So, free for the asking is "poor availability"?

[Xavier_Onassis]

People also have too many children because of [...] poor availability of birth control.

So, free for the asking is "poor availability"?

=============================
JUst because they are free for the asking in Nasau County, NY does not mean they are free for the asking everywhere in the entire world.

[Amianthus]

JUst because they are free for the asking in Nasau County, NY does not mean they are free for the asking everywhere in the entire world.

Pretty much everywhere in the US.

And we don't control the rest of the world.

[Xavier_Onassis]

JUst because they are free for the asking in Nasau County, NY does not mean they are free for the asking everywhere in the entire world.

Pretty much everywhere in the US.
===============================
No, not really



And we don't control the rest of the world.

I was discussing why women have more children than they support.

"We" (whoever that might be) don't control most of the US. Birth control pills are not available "free for the asking" because of any government agency here in the US, either.

This does not mean that overpopulation in the US or the world is not a problem with regard to the world's dwinding nonrenewable resources.

[Amianthus]

No, not really

Yes, really.

"We" (whoever that might be) don't control most of the US. Birth control pills are not available "free for the asking" because of any government agency here in the US, either.

Now you're changing the terms by adding "because of any government agency". If they're free, does it really matter if it's the government doing the distribution?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Now you're changing the terms by adding "because of any government agency". If they're free, does it really matter if it's the government doing the distribution?

=====================
No, I was responding to what you said.

You said "We".

There are only two ways you can say "we": either because you contribute to Planned Parenthood or pass them out personally, or you pay taxes and your government does it in your name.

Otherwise, those who distribute bc devises should be referred to as 'they", since that group does not include you.

[Amianthus]

No, I was responding to what you said.

You said "We".

There are only two ways you can say "we": either because you contribute to Planned Parenthood or pass them out personally, or you pay taxes and your government does it in your name.

Otherwise, those who distribute bc devises should be referred to as 'they", since that group does not include you.

"We" as in citizens and residents of the US. Whether or not they contribute to Planned Parenthood and other like groups (which I do) and whether or not they are members of the civil service bureaucracy.

See, there is ANOTHER way you can say "we". I can think of at least two others. Perhaps you should stop thinking in terms of black and white?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Go quibble with yourself. You are not making sense today.

[Cynthia]

Go quibble with yourself. You are not making sense today.

Geesh....you guys act like children sometimes.


WHATEVER!


You two apparently disagree. I happen to think that you are both right in so many ways==on points that hold meaning to the needs of this country.


Stop the quibbling and get on with some rich discussion...

Ok...sounding like a teacher here....sorry.

There are a hell of a lot of "WE"S" to go around.