Thread: Drill here, drill now, pay less!

Originally Posted by DSailing

Life saving technology? Like the PVCs that they create in order to save one rich man's life but in turns kills many other people and animals with cancers and poisons?

I can see the headlines in the paper now: "Local Frog's 5 Year Lifepspan Cut Short By PVC Poisoning. Its Six Hundred Offspring Did Not Attend Funeral Due To Conflicting Schedule With Mating Season." and then somewhere on page 14 "Nature Conservationalist's Life Spared By State of the Art Medical Equipment." You have to consider both the good and the bad, and weigh them together.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Mostly diseases that are a by-product of the industrialization itself and the poisoning of our water and food sources.

Really? Name ten new diseases that never existed before 1800. The meteor that killed all of the dinosaurs could have been shot down by the US Aegis missile defense system. Think about all the animals and now-extinct species technology could have saved. (although there might not be as much oil today if those animals hand't died!)

Originally Posted by DSailing

This doesn't even get into the wars and killings that must be waged so that we may strip the land from the indigenous people who live where the oil is.

What are indigenous people? People who killed whatever was there before them to get where they are now? I don't think indigenous people exist. Even so, why should anyone be killed so that their land can be taken away? What does that have to do with oil? The US can't even move a few bears to drill on its own land. Besides that, the oil has more claim to being indigenous than anyone who is living nearby. Let's let the oil speak for itself: What is oil good at? What can oil provide? How does oil improve human life? Let The Earth speak for itself!

You know, I wasn't a huge fan of Jimmy Carter, even before he took office. Never voted for the guy; thought he was kind of lightweight.

But he did create the Department of Energy, which, in turn began to do a number of things: fund research into alternate energy sources; create economic incentives for renewable energy and energy conservation; create tax breaks for homeowners who added energy conserving features to their homes. It goes on and on.

Had that continued, it's likely that now, 30 years later, the U.S. would be a net exporter of energy and energy technology. Carter's efforts did result in a 3-5 percent decrease in most oil use, that resulted in an oil glut and lowered prices.

But then, there was Reagan.

Now, I know that Reagan is the little tin god of all conservatives, and made us proud again and blah blah blah. But he did essentially gut the energy department. He de-funded it in the budget process (thank you, David Stockman), and de-fanged it through the regulatory process. And he reversed all the progress.

So it's very true that if you like $4.25 gasoline, you should thank Ronald Reagan.

So, we can drill until the cows come home (what David Brower called the "Deplete America First" program), and it won't do any good. Because oil, as we've known for 30 years, is a dying technology. But fine, drill ANWR. I've seen Prudhoe Bay, and any oilman who says that the drilling is minimum impact and hasn't trashed the area is lying through his rotten little teeth.

I'm afraid we're a day late and a dollar short on this one.

j

So it's very true that if you like $4.25 gasoline, you should thank Ronald Reagan.

I once saw a quote that said something that was supposed to praise Reagan, but was actually a double entandre' that "America owes Ron Reagan a debt that can never be repaid..."

So true...so true...

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I can see the headlines in the paper now: "Local Frog's 5 Year Lifepspan Cut Short By PVC Poisoning. Its Six Hundred Offspring Did Not Attend Funeral Due To Conflicting Schedule With Mating Season." and then somewhere on page 14 "Nature Conservationalist's Life Spared By State of the Art Medical Equipment." You have to consider both the good and the bad, and weigh them together.

No matter how you look at it. PCVs and other products of our industrial age are deadly not only to frogs, but all forms of life including ourselves.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Really? Name ten new diseases that never existed before 1800. The meteor that killed all of the dinosaurs could have been shot down by the US Aegis missile defense system. Think about all the animals and now-extinct species technology could have saved. (although there might not be as much oil today if those animals hand't died!)

Attention Deficit Disorder
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Childhood Diabetes
Various Cancers
Higher birth defects
High cases of infertility
Carpel Tunnel Syndrome
Shell Shock Syndrome
Radiation poisoning
PVC poisoning
Mercury and heavy metals poisoning
Methane gas poisoning from landfills
Toxic shock syndrome

Think about the humans and animals and life that those missles have already killed; not some imaginary astreroid heading to earth.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

What are indigenous people? People who killed whatever was there before them to get where they are now? I don't think indigenous people exist.

Indigenous people were people that watched over and utilized the land before civilization destroyed them. They were aware that we are a part of nature and do not have dominion over it. Luckily there are pockets that have survived, but it shouldn’t be long before we completely destroy them and their way of life.

They saw all life as precious and wouldn’t think of destroying life for an easier way to live.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Even so, why should anyone be killed so that their land can be taken away? What does that have to do with oil?

Exactly. Why should we be killing people and animals to get to oil?

It has to do with the US, because we wage wars over oil and force people from their lands or kill them in order to take it and the other resources available. It is not just the US though; it is all of “civilization”.

The US can't even move a few bears to drill on its own land. Besides that, the oil has more claim to being indigenous than anyone who is living nearby. Let's let the oil speak for itself: What is oil good at? What can oil provide? How does oil improve human life? Let The Earth speak for itself![/quote]


Who says that the US has the right to that land? Do the bear, the Eskimos or the Iraqis not have the right to say what should be done to their land?

Sure the oil can provide you with many luxuries and a “quality” life, but who and what are we willing to kill for it? I would rather have forests with plenty of animals and diversity, clean drinking water, and air that is not full of smog.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Now, I know that Reagan is the little tin god of all conservatives, and made us proud again and blah blah blah.

Blasphemy!

[QUOTE=DSailing;224800]
No matter how you look at it. PCVs and other products of our industrial age are deadly not only to frogs, but all forms of life including ourselves.

Attention Deficit Disorder
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Childhood Diabetes
Various Cancers
Higher birth defects
High cases of infertility
Carpel Tunnel Syndrome
Shell Shock Syndrome
Radiation poisoning
PVC poisoning
Mercury and heavy metals poisoning
Methane gas poisoning from landfills
Toxic shock syndrome

Think about the humans and animals and life that those missles have already killed; not some imaginary astreroid heading to earth.


Add AIDS/HIV
Ebola and its cousins
SARS

And there's no missile currently in production that could even begin to knock down the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. That technology doesn't exist, oil or no oil.

The discussion of indigenous rights, on the other hand, is not one I'll engage. It's already pretty far over the edge.

j

Originally Posted by DSailing

No matter how you look at it. PCVs and other products of our industrial age are deadly not only to frogs, but all forms of life including ourselves.

Sorry, I thought you said PVC, lol.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Attention Deficit Disorder
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Childhood Diabetes
Various Cancers
Higher birth defects
High cases of infertility
Carpel Tunnel Syndrome
Shell Shock Syndrome
Radiation poisoning
PVC poisoning
Mercury and heavy metals poisoning
Methane gas poisoning from landfills
Toxic shock syndrome

None of the diseases you just mentioned were created by industrialization. A lot of those symptoms that were introduced that way are certainly horrible side-effects though.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Think about the humans and animals and life that those missles have already killed; not some imaginary astreroid heading to earth.

Once we find Utopia, missiles will disappear. I hate that they're used, but I don't see how that relates to oil. As long as people fight, they'll figure out a way to hurt people (and animals!). Eliminating oil would just put pressure on some other resource people will fight over.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Indigenous people were people that watched over and utilized the land before civilization destroyed them. They were aware that we are a part of nature and do not have dominion over it. Luckily there are pockets that have survived, but it shouldn’t be long before we completely destroy them and their way of life.

They saw all life as precious and wouldn’t think of destroying life for an easier way to live.

I think that's going a little far with the idealization of it. They were just people like you and I, except that some of them enjoyed human sacrifices and lifespans of 35 years and other qualities which led to very poor quality of life.[/quote]

[quote=DSailing;224800]Exactly. Why should we be killing people and animals to get to oil?

It has to do with the US, because we wage wars over oil and force people from their lands or kill them in order to take it and the other resources available. It is not just the US though; it is all of “civilization”.[quote]

True. People have been killing each other for resources for ages. I don't think drilling will solve that root problem, and neither will not drilling. May as well drill in Alaska (which is a US state) where nobody has to die

Originally Posted by DSailing

Who says that the US has the right to that land? Do the bear, the Eskimos or the Iraqis not have the right to say what should be done to their land?

I do. The people of Alaska wanted to be part of the US and now they are. Once the bears get voting rights then they can have a say as well. The Eskimos have just as much representation in their government as I do. I don't know what rights the Iraqis have regarding their land - I haven't read their constitution, and I probably should. Getting rid of Saddam did allow them much more freedom of speech though.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Sure the oil can provide you with many luxuries and a “quality” life, but who and what are we willing to kill for it? I would rather have forests with plenty of animals and diversity, clean drinking water, and air that is not full of smog.

There's a tradeoff. forests, diversity, clean water and clean air are also luxuries which have to be protected somehow. Ideally, nobody would ever need oil, guns, smog, PVC, or even frogs or forests. But people are so needy. They need food, water, shelter, clothes... Needing those things which are not distributed evenly is the very basic principle behind the whole mess.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Add AIDS/HIV
Ebola and its cousins
SARS

And there's no missile currently in production that could even begin to knock down the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. That technology doesn't exist, oil or no oil.

I could be wrong, but I thought AIDS/HIV and Ebola were monkey diseases that some indigenous people somehow extracted from the monkeys? Is SARS really a new disease? And I guess we'll just have to drill for more oil to increase technology to the point that we could knock down a meteor that could kill us all - dunno about that one. Probably not much I can do about it except go shave. I want to look good at the bank when I cash in on my oil company stock

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Sorry, I thought you said PVC, lol.
[/size][/font]

Actually, I meant to say PVC which is very toxic in its making, use and waste.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

None of the diseases you just mentioned were created by industrialization. A lot of those symptoms that were introduced that way are certainly horrible side-effects though.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. We wouldn't have these without industrialization or civilization.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Once we find Utopia, missiles will disappear. I hate that they're used, but I don't see how that relates to oil. As long as people fight, they'll figure out a way to hurt people (and animals!). Eliminating oil would just put pressure on some other resource people will fight over

It is a choice, and we must live with the consequences of our choices.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I think that's going a little far with the idealization of it. They were just people like you and I, except that some of them enjoyed human sacrifices and lifespans of 35 years and other qualities which led to very poor quality of life.

You are thinking Mayan which was a civilization too, and was eventually abandoned.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I do. The people of Alaska wanted to be part of the US and now they are. Once the bears get voting rights then they can have a say as well. The Eskimos have just as much representation in their government as I do. I don't know what rights the Iraqis have regarding their land - I haven't read their constitution, and I probably should. Getting rid of Saddam did allow them much more freedom of speech though.
[/size][/font]

The bears and I do not need voting rights, what we need is to be recognized as living beings and be allowed to enjoy the lands that we live upon without the stripping of the resources. Who is civilization to decide that they have dominion over the lands?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

There's a tradeoff. forests, diversity, clean water and clean air are also luxuries which have to be protected somehow. Ideally, nobody would ever need oil, guns, smog, PVC, or even frogs or forests. But people are so needy. They need food, water, shelter, clothes... Needing those things which are not distributed evenly is the very basic principle behind the whole mess.

For me, I see the forests, diversity, clean water and air as necessities to life not as luxuries. These aren't things given by a government; they are given for free from the earth.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I once saw a quote that said something that was supposed to praise Reagan, but was actually a double entandre' that "America owes Ron Reagan a debt that can never be repaid..."

So true...so true...

... Oh wait we can probably say the same for "W", $520 billion dollars at $2 billion dollars a week for the last 5 years imagine what we could have done with that money (use it to really solve our energy crisis)
...Oh wait but Rummy (Mr "you don't know what you don't know") said it would cost only 50-60 billion....
...Oh wait then who is going to pay for all the debt we have "unwittingly" acquired ...
...Oh wait our kids and grands kid will take care of that...
...Oh wait let me ask little johnny who is barely out of his diapers. Well Johnny what do you say....
...Oh wait wait what's that smell...
...Oh crap....I thought little Johnny was potty trained...

Originally Posted by DSailing

For me, I see the forests, diversity, clean water and air as necessities to life not as luxuries. These aren't things given by a government; they are given for free from the earth.

And this is the nature of our disagreement. The Earth provides people with the opportunity to better themselves through technology and also gives them the option to live without it. Government is meant to protect those options because people, left on their own, will take your clean water so they can have it for themselves. Just because The Earth offers an animalistic minimalist lifestyle doesn't mean it's the only right way to live. Both ways have their advantages and disadvantages and the right to choose ought to be protected. Even primitive societies use tools, and tools give way to more tools, and eventually those societies will be asking for oil. That's just the way it is and we have to figure out the best way to handle it.

Drilling for more in the US now is going to be better for the US as a whole than not drilling here now. If my car's tire starts going flat, it doesn't help nearly as much for to say "well, I guess I should just take all the tires off here in the middle of nowhere since they are the cause of my problem. I really need a better method of transportion" as it does to quickly get to a gas station, fill up the tire, then drive to a garage so I can find out what happened.

What's wrong with drilling here now to sustain the health of the economy while people figure out how to solve the problem? Do you think people will stop trying to find alternate energy sources if we start drilling here?