Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In assessing whether any given controversy is a sign of 3T or 4T, I think it's helpful to bear in mind the issues on which the Crisis turns. Once again, in my opinion, these are:

1) The instability of the global economy due to maldistribution of wealth;

2) The breakdown of the global peacekeeping system due to the fall of one of the superpowers, and accompanying proliferation of WMD and terrorist movements; and

3) The looming collision between our low efficiency/high throughput style of production/consumption, and natural limits.

I believe we're in a Fourth Turning, and I have no trouble seeing how issues (1) and (2) fit into the current crisis. I also believe that "our low efficiency/high throughput style of production/consumption" will pose a threat to the continuance of civilization (and possibly the human species). But I have a harder time seeing the emergence of this issue as a life-and-death matter over the next twenty years or so. For example, most of the studies I've heard about put the bulk of the problems associated with global warming (e.g. destruction of biomes and associated species loss, movement of agricultural belts, coastal flooding) toward the end of the 21st century.

I gather that you have a different take on the matter. Could you elaborate? How might the environmental consequences of our past and current behavior come home to roost over the next few decades to the point where civilization is threatened?

Corvis:

There are several environmental/resource problems that will peak during this Crisis, although global warming isn't one of them. (But we're likely to see major anti-GW action during the Crisis as part of the overall response.) The global oil production peak is estimated for about 2010. After that, the price of oil will skyrocket, creating not only economic havoc but also food shortages. Around the same time, we will be experiencing water shortages in most of the world (including the U.S., although it will be much worse in other places). Also, project the exponential growth of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Asia, and possibly Latin America. All of this and probably some other things I didn't think to mention will dominate the second half of the Crisis, eclipsing the purely economic and military concerns.

Corvis:

There are several environmental/resource problems that will peak during this Crisis, although global warming isn't one of them. (But we're likely to see major anti-GW action during the Crisis as part of the overall response.) The global oil production peak is estimated for about 2010. After that, the price of oil will skyrocket, creating not only economic havoc but also food shortages. Around the same time, we will be experiencing water shortages in most of the world (including the U.S., although it will be much worse in other places). Also, project the exponential growth of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Asia, and possibly Latin America. All of this and probably some other things I didn't think to mention will dominate the second half of the Crisis, eclipsing the purely economic and military concerns.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It is therefore 4T, although I agree with Eli that it is only the tip of the iceberg, and that far more serious transformations will be necessary than merely upping SUV gas mileage requirements or even banning SUVs altogether.

Oh, really? Well you can have my SUVs, when you pry them off my cold, dead hand grips, moron.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It is therefore 4T, although I agree with Eli that it is only the tip of the iceberg, and that far more serious transformations will be necessary than merely upping SUV gas mileage requirements or even banning SUVs altogether.

Oh, really? Well you can have my SUVs, when you pry them off my cold, dead hand grips, moron.

More debunking of the environmentalist nonsense...

From the Environmental News Network comes:
Natural atmospheric scrubber not in decline, study finds

Thursday, January 09, 2003
By Andrew Bridges, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES ? A natural chemical that scrubs pollution from the sky is more abundant than previously believed, leading scientists to wonder if they have been underestimating the atmosphere's ability to cleanse itself.

A popular "talk-radio host" expounds upon the meaning of said idiotic environmental b.s.:

Shazam! The 'Ole Simpleton Was Right Again

January 9, 2003

I've taken so much heat over the years from environmental wackos and junk scientists for daring to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day on issues related to the Earf. For example, I always pointed out how summertime storms would remove the haze and smog around Sacramento, and asked how that could be since we hadn't banned SUVs or eliminated Freon overnight.

Lo and behold, the journal Nature has published a study finding that a natural chemical, hydroxyl, which scrubs pollution from the sky, is more abundant than previously believed, "leading scientists to wonder if they have been underestimating the atmosphere's ability to cleanse itself." This is precisely why true science is built on questioning, and not on a popular vote (how often have you heard "most scientists agree"?) or shouting down the few or the one who dares to say, "Hey, maybe the Earth isn't flat." Yet that's precisely what those who have chosen to hijack the environment to destroy our way of life have done.

More environmental news, this from the journal Science: a scientific study has established that these glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years, as part of a natural process! Hey, Ariana Huffington and you anti-SUV nuts! Were there Canyoneros around in 8,000 B.C.? These are respected, peer-reviewed periodicals, folks. They have far more credibility than people who simply claim the label "environmentalist" without a single science class to back it up.

I want to use this as a rejoinder to John McCain (R-Media) calling for us to put the breaks on capitalism and prosperity because he buys this superstition that we're causing global warming. The ignorant among us who believe this are no different from the cavemen who saw a lunar eclipse in the sky, and thought it was because they'd angered the gods. These people are exploited by communist anti-capitalists liars who claim that they alone stand for the universal values of clean water and air, as a way to destroy the lone superpower of this planet.

More debunking of the environmentalist nonsense...

From the Environmental News Network comes:
Natural atmospheric scrubber not in decline, study finds

Thursday, January 09, 2003
By Andrew Bridges, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES ? A natural chemical that scrubs pollution from the sky is more abundant than previously believed, leading scientists to wonder if they have been underestimating the atmosphere's ability to cleanse itself.

A popular "talk-radio host" expounds upon the meaning of said idiotic environmental b.s.:

Shazam! The 'Ole Simpleton Was Right Again

January 9, 2003

I've taken so much heat over the years from environmental wackos and junk scientists for daring to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day on issues related to the Earf. For example, I always pointed out how summertime storms would remove the haze and smog around Sacramento, and asked how that could be since we hadn't banned SUVs or eliminated Freon overnight.

Lo and behold, the journal Nature has published a study finding that a natural chemical, hydroxyl, which scrubs pollution from the sky, is more abundant than previously believed, "leading scientists to wonder if they have been underestimating the atmosphere's ability to cleanse itself." This is precisely why true science is built on questioning, and not on a popular vote (how often have you heard "most scientists agree"?) or shouting down the few or the one who dares to say, "Hey, maybe the Earth isn't flat." Yet that's precisely what those who have chosen to hijack the environment to destroy our way of life have done.

More environmental news, this from the journal Science: a scientific study has established that these glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years, as part of a natural process! Hey, Ariana Huffington and you anti-SUV nuts! Were there Canyoneros around in 8,000 B.C.? These are respected, peer-reviewed periodicals, folks. They have far more credibility than people who simply claim the label "environmentalist" without a single science class to back it up.

I want to use this as a rejoinder to John McCain (R-Media) calling for us to put the breaks on capitalism and prosperity because he buys this superstition that we're causing global warming. The ignorant among us who believe this are no different from the cavemen who saw a lunar eclipse in the sky, and thought it was because they'd angered the gods. These people are exploited by communist anti-capitalists liars who claim that they alone stand for the universal values of clean water and air, as a way to destroy the lone superpower of this planet.

Conclusion?

Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

Conclusion?

Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

U.S. May Face a Water Crisis ...............January 10, 2003





BY BILL LAMBRECHT
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Leading water experts warned Thursday of shortages and a potential crisis if the United States proceeds without a national water policy that spells out cooperation between governments and regions.

In letters to the White House, governors and every member of Congress, the experts argued that the country urgently needs to develop a "national water vision" to cope with shortages and other problems looming on the horizon.

The letter asserts that the United States' inability to effectively plan for drought, flooding and improved water quality jeopardizes the nation's strength not just at home but abroad.

"In many areas, we do not have enough water for forecasted long-term municipal and industrial use," the letter said.

"Our nation once led the world in water technology and management. Today our water expertise is dwindling and with it our capacity to help lead the world's growing efforts to avert famine, drought and related humanitarian disasters -- the breeding grounds of terrorism and violence," the letter said.

The letter delivered the recommendations from the Water Resources Policy Dialogue, a gathering last fall of representatives from federal agencies, state governments, local planning departments and conservation groups from around the country.

Since then, the punishing drought of 2002 has abated in parts of the country, particularly in the Southeast. But light winter snowfall in parts of the West may present problems along the Missouri River and elsewhere this year.

The looming shortages are especially serious in California, the experts said, where more than 1 million households could be affected by a new federal rationing policy cutting California's share of the Colorado River.

Retired Army Gen. Gerald Galloway, who is chairman of the National Water Dialogue, presented the recommendations at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He said he worried that the government has all but abandoned the effective river management that helped build the country in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Galloway has special expertise when it comes to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers: After the Great Flood of 1993, he headed a task force that investigated ways to minimize devastation from future flooding along the Mississippi.

Last year, Galloway was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that warned after a study of an ongoing collapse of the Missouri River ecosystem.

The letter to political leaders mentioned the impasse between federal agencies over proposals to make environmentally friendly flow changes in the Missouri as one of several principal water disputes around the country

In an interview, Galloway said, "You can't have upstream and downstream fighting with one another, trumping each other continually."

He said he had received no immediate reaction to the recommendations but hoped that they would spur legislation in Congress this year and a high-level gathering soon to plan how to proceed.

The letter said federal policy should define shared responsibilities between all levels of government. In addition, the country needs to address water problems by watershed and basin rather than approaching them state-by-state or incrementally, it said.

Richard Engberg of the American Water Resources Association said it is especially important for local governments to take the initiative to plan for their futures.

"It comes down to a community level, and small communities are particularly vulnerable," he said.

______________________

Conclusion Marc?

U.S. May Face a Water Crisis ...............January 10, 2003





BY BILL LAMBRECHT
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Leading water experts warned Thursday of shortages and a potential crisis if the United States proceeds without a national water policy that spells out cooperation between governments and regions.

In letters to the White House, governors and every member of Congress, the experts argued that the country urgently needs to develop a "national water vision" to cope with shortages and other problems looming on the horizon.

The letter asserts that the United States' inability to effectively plan for drought, flooding and improved water quality jeopardizes the nation's strength not just at home but abroad.

"In many areas, we do not have enough water for forecasted long-term municipal and industrial use," the letter said.

"Our nation once led the world in water technology and management. Today our water expertise is dwindling and with it our capacity to help lead the world's growing efforts to avert famine, drought and related humanitarian disasters -- the breeding grounds of terrorism and violence," the letter said.

The letter delivered the recommendations from the Water Resources Policy Dialogue, a gathering last fall of representatives from federal agencies, state governments, local planning departments and conservation groups from around the country.

Since then, the punishing drought of 2002 has abated in parts of the country, particularly in the Southeast. But light winter snowfall in parts of the West may present problems along the Missouri River and elsewhere this year.

The looming shortages are especially serious in California, the experts said, where more than 1 million households could be affected by a new federal rationing policy cutting California's share of the Colorado River.

Retired Army Gen. Gerald Galloway, who is chairman of the National Water Dialogue, presented the recommendations at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He said he worried that the government has all but abandoned the effective river management that helped build the country in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Galloway has special expertise when it comes to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers: After the Great Flood of 1993, he headed a task force that investigated ways to minimize devastation from future flooding along the Mississippi.

Last year, Galloway was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that warned after a study of an ongoing collapse of the Missouri River ecosystem.

The letter to political leaders mentioned the impasse between federal agencies over proposals to make environmentally friendly flow changes in the Missouri as one of several principal water disputes around the country

In an interview, Galloway said, "You can't have upstream and downstream fighting with one another, trumping each other continually."

He said he had received no immediate reaction to the recommendations but hoped that they would spur legislation in Congress this year and a high-level gathering soon to plan how to proceed.

The letter said federal policy should define shared responsibilities between all levels of government. In addition, the country needs to address water problems by watershed and basin rather than approaching them state-by-state or incrementally, it said.

Richard Engberg of the American Water Resources Association said it is especially important for local governments to take the initiative to plan for their futures.

"It comes down to a community level, and small communities are particularly vulnerable," he said.

______________________

Conclusion Marc?

Eh, try Chickenbailey. :wink:

Eh, try Chickenbailey. :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

An issue that encompasses one or more of these three is 4T; one that does not is 3T. The SUV controversy touches on the third issue directly and the second indirectly. It is therefore 4T, although I agree with Eli that it is only the tip of the iceberg, and that far more serious transformations will be necessary than merely upping SUV gas mileage requirements or even banning SUVs altogether.

The real issue here is not SUV's, however the design of all automobile engines, which are internal conbustion powered by petroleum (which is a fossil fuel like coal), so much of our modern life is dependant on fossil fuels including farming and energy. We are sure that Petroleum is a finite resource with limits to how much can be economically exracted, even with improvements to exraction technology.

The main problem with our fossil fuel society is that we humans are pouring out the highest level of CO2 in the amosphere in a very long time, the Greenland Ice Core can verfify that. Even if that level of CO2 changes the climate a little, that could wreck havoc with our agriculture and leave many very low lying areas of the world (many of which are heavily populated) under water. Not to mention other climatic effects which could devasting on a local level not just globally, if enough melt water from Greenland's ice sheet entered the North Altantic, the gulf stream would shut down, that would turn the mild climate of Western Europe into a climate similar to that of Martime Provinces of Canada. It happened just after the end of the last Ice Age.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

An issue that encompasses one or more of these three is 4T; one that does not is 3T. The SUV controversy touches on the third issue directly and the second indirectly. It is therefore 4T, although I agree with Eli that it is only the tip of the iceberg, and that far more serious transformations will be necessary than merely upping SUV gas mileage requirements or even banning SUVs altogether.

The real issue here is not SUV's, however the design of all automobile engines, which are internal conbustion powered by petroleum (which is a fossil fuel like coal), so much of our modern life is dependant on fossil fuels including farming and energy. We are sure that Petroleum is a finite resource with limits to how much can be economically exracted, even with improvements to exraction technology.

The main problem with our fossil fuel society is that we humans are pouring out the highest level of CO2 in the amosphere in a very long time, the Greenland Ice Core can verfify that. Even if that level of CO2 changes the climate a little, that could wreck havoc with our agriculture and leave many very low lying areas of the world (many of which are heavily populated) under water. Not to mention other climatic effects which could devasting on a local level not just globally, if enough melt water from Greenland's ice sheet entered the North Altantic, the gulf stream would shut down, that would turn the mild climate of Western Europe into a climate similar to that of Martime Provinces of Canada. It happened just after the end of the last Ice Age.

Originally Posted by cbailey

U.S. May Face a Water Crisis ...............January 10, 2003
<snip>

cbailey,

I happent to live on a contient which is the direst in the world and has very erratic rainfall, Australia has very little water, the Murray-Darling basin is a trickle in comparsion to Missouri and Sydney which gets on average the same amount of rainfall annually as New York City, needs to store 10 times per captia as much water in it's reserviors. Australia now is facing the begining of a serious water crisis, so much water has been diverted by the Murray-Darling basin that does not even flow to ocean or is flowing backwards.

Originally Posted by cbailey

U.S. May Face a Water Crisis ...............January 10, 2003
<snip>

cbailey,

I happent to live on a contient which is the direst in the world and has very erratic rainfall, Australia has very little water, the Murray-Darling basin is a trickle in comparsion to Missouri and Sydney which gets on average the same amount of rainfall annually as New York City, needs to store 10 times per captia as much water in it's reserviors. Australia now is facing the begining of a serious water crisis, so much water has been diverted by the Murray-Darling basin that does not even flow to ocean or is flowing backwards.

[quote]Mr. Rush said:

There are several environmental/resource problems that will peak during this Crisis, although
global warming isn't one of them. (But we're likely to see major anti-GW action during the Crisis as part
of the overall response.) The global oil production peak is estimated for about 2010. After that, the
price of oil will skyrocket, creating not only economic havoc but also food shortages. Around the
same time, we will be experiencing water shortages in most of the world (including the U.S.,
although it will be much worse in other places). Also, project the exponential growth of the AIDS
epidemic in Africa, Asia, and possibly Latin America. All of this and probably some other things
I didn't think to mention will dominate the second half of the Crisis, eclipsing the purely economic
and military concerns. [end quote]

Sorry, I don?t know how to work the quote thing. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me if I got it wrong.
I'm responding to Mr. Rush's pessimistic predictions about the future voiced in his analysis of peaking environmental/resource woes.

Forgive me, but this is just so much hyperbolic rubbish. Any projected peak of oil production is utter
poppycock, because free markets always solve such problems as they occur. Hence the hybrid automobiles
now available at a local dealership near you. Give the free market 7-10 years and oil won?t matter
unless we can still afford for its price to not interfere with our affluent lifestyle. We are Americans.
We don?t sit around waiting for water shortages or food shortages, wringing our hands and wondering if
maybe some high-brow redistribution of wealth plan will solve everything. We capitalize on the problem
and solve it for profit. Mr. Rush, you have a short memory. In the 1970?s your predecessors in the art of
doom-crying swore up and down that overpopulation of the planet was going to kill us all. There was
not going to be enough food or space to sustain even the lucky inhabitants of North America. By 1985
all of us were going to be living in squalor, stacked up like so much cordwood. Remember that?
It didn?t happen, of course. These catastrophes predicted by supposed ?environmentalists? never happen.
Your fears of water shortages are ludicrous. This planet is part of a Universe of such complexity and
perfection of design that you, sir, and all of your human cohorts combined, even if all our greedy and
polluting generations were allowed to live simultaneously, couldn?t touch it with a 10 millennia long pole.
The closest thing we humans have devised to approximate the natural system of Life, the Universe and
Everything is our economic systems. Left to the ?unseen hand? effect, they work essentially just as nature
herself works. Mess with those systems at your own peril. I don?t care how smart you are, how well you
think you understand the intrinsically interlocked systems that operate behind the scenes on every level in
every system known to man, you cannot outdo nature or mathematics. Nor can you screw it up very much.
It is essentially self-correcting and will forgive your stupid blunderings. We just don?t matter to Mother
Earth nearly as much as you would like to think we matter. Go back and study your physics and genetics.
Dynamic systems in this particular universe correct themselves without any planning at all. In fact,
centralized planning of any kind never works in this environment. Welcome to Earth. Make yourself
at home, but don?t bother trying to change any ?rule of law? here. The rules are set in stone and they never
change because they always work.

Water shortages! Are you some kind of comedian or WHAT? Water shortages! You make me laugh! Any kind of governmental or municipal concerns about water are ridiculous. Your own body is 97% water! I don't think this particular planet is designed to run out of it anytime soon.

[quote]Mr. Rush said:

There are several environmental/resource problems that will peak during this Crisis, although
global warming isn't one of them. (But we're likely to see major anti-GW action during the Crisis as part
of the overall response.) The global oil production peak is estimated for about 2010. After that, the
price of oil will skyrocket, creating not only economic havoc but also food shortages. Around the
same time, we will be experiencing water shortages in most of the world (including the U.S.,
although it will be much worse in other places). Also, project the exponential growth of the AIDS
epidemic in Africa, Asia, and possibly Latin America. All of this and probably some other things
I didn't think to mention will dominate the second half of the Crisis, eclipsing the purely economic
and military concerns. [end quote]

Sorry, I don?t know how to work the quote thing. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me if I got it wrong.
I'm responding to Mr. Rush's pessimistic predictions about the future voiced in his analysis of peaking environmental/resource woes.

Forgive me, but this is just so much hyperbolic rubbish. Any projected peak of oil production is utter
poppycock, because free markets always solve such problems as they occur. Hence the hybrid automobiles
now available at a local dealership near you. Give the free market 7-10 years and oil won?t matter
unless we can still afford for its price to not interfere with our affluent lifestyle. We are Americans.
We don?t sit around waiting for water shortages or food shortages, wringing our hands and wondering if
maybe some high-brow redistribution of wealth plan will solve everything. We capitalize on the problem
and solve it for profit. Mr. Rush, you have a short memory. In the 1970?s your predecessors in the art of
doom-crying swore up and down that overpopulation of the planet was going to kill us all. There was
not going to be enough food or space to sustain even the lucky inhabitants of North America. By 1985
all of us were going to be living in squalor, stacked up like so much cordwood. Remember that?
It didn?t happen, of course. These catastrophes predicted by supposed ?environmentalists? never happen.
Your fears of water shortages are ludicrous. This planet is part of a Universe of such complexity and
perfection of design that you, sir, and all of your human cohorts combined, even if all our greedy and
polluting generations were allowed to live simultaneously, couldn?t touch it with a 10 millennia long pole.
The closest thing we humans have devised to approximate the natural system of Life, the Universe and
Everything is our economic systems. Left to the ?unseen hand? effect, they work essentially just as nature
herself works. Mess with those systems at your own peril. I don?t care how smart you are, how well you
think you understand the intrinsically interlocked systems that operate behind the scenes on every level in
every system known to man, you cannot outdo nature or mathematics. Nor can you screw it up very much.
It is essentially self-correcting and will forgive your stupid blunderings. We just don?t matter to Mother
Earth nearly as much as you would like to think we matter. Go back and study your physics and genetics.
Dynamic systems in this particular universe correct themselves without any planning at all. In fact,
centralized planning of any kind never works in this environment. Welcome to Earth. Make yourself
at home, but don?t bother trying to change any ?rule of law? here. The rules are set in stone and they never
change because they always work.

Water shortages! Are you some kind of comedian or WHAT? Water shortages! You make me laugh! Any kind of governmental or municipal concerns about water are ridiculous. Your own body is 97% water! I don't think this particular planet is designed to run out of it anytime soon.

Where do you type after you quote? I am confused and somewhat embarrassed. I guess I should include one of those red-faced little emoticons. Okay, here his is :oops:
I wish this site had more how-to than cuteness.

Where do you type after you quote? I am confused and somewhat embarrassed. I guess I should include one of those red-faced little emoticons. Okay, here his is :oops:
I wish this site had more how-to than cuteness.

Sorry, I don?t know how to work the quote thing. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me if I got it wrong.
I'm responding to Mr. Rush's pessimistic predictions about the future voiced in his analysis of peaking environmental/resource woes.

Forgive me, but this is just so much hyperbolic rubbish. Any projected peak of oil production is utter
poppycock, because free markets always solve such problems as they occur. Hence the hybrid automobiles
now available at a local dealership near you. Give the free market 7-10 years and oil won?t matter
unless we can still afford for its price to not interfere with our affluent lifestyle. We are Americans.
We don?t sit around waiting for water shortages or food shortages, wringing our hands and wondering if
maybe some high-brow redistribution of wealth plan will solve everything. We capitalize on the problem
and solve it for profit. Mr. Rush, you have a short memory. In the 1970?s your predecessors in the art of
doom-crying swore up and down that overpopulation of the planet was going to kill us all. There was
not going to be enough food or space to sustain even the lucky inhabitants of North America. By 1985
all of us were going to be living in squalor, stacked up like so much cordwood. Remember that?
It didn?t happen, of course. These catastrophes predicted by supposed ?environmentalists? never happen.
Your fears of water shortages are ludicrous. This planet is part of a Universe of such complexity and
perfection of design that you, sir, and all of your human cohorts combined, even if all our greedy and
polluting generations were allowed to live simultaneously, couldn?t touch it with a 10 millennia long pole.
The closest thing we humans have devised to approximate the natural system of Life, the Universe and
Everything is our economic systems. Left to the ?unseen hand? effect, they work essentially just as nature
herself works. Mess with those systems at your own peril. I don?t care how smart you are, how well you
think you understand the intrinsically interlocked systems that operate behind the scenes on every level in
every system known to man, you cannot outdo nature or mathematics. Nor can you screw it up very much.
It is essentially self-correcting and will forgive your stupid blunderings. We just don?t matter to Mother
Earth nearly as much as you would like to think we matter. Go back and study your physics and genetics.
Dynamic systems in this particular universe correct themselves without any planning at all. In fact,
centralized planning of any kind never works in this environment. Welcome to Earth. Make yourself
at home, but don?t bother trying to change any ?rule of law? here. The rules are set in stone and they never
change because they always work.

Water shortages! Are you some kind of comedian or WHAT? Water shortages! You make me laugh! Any kind of governmental or municipal concerns about water are ridiculous. Your own body is 97% water! I don't think this particular planet is designed to run out of it anytime soon.

Sorry, I don?t know how to work the quote thing. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me if I got it wrong.
I'm responding to Mr. Rush's pessimistic predictions about the future voiced in his analysis of peaking environmental/resource woes.

Forgive me, but this is just so much hyperbolic rubbish. Any projected peak of oil production is utter
poppycock, because free markets always solve such problems as they occur. Hence the hybrid automobiles
now available at a local dealership near you. Give the free market 7-10 years and oil won?t matter
unless we can still afford for its price to not interfere with our affluent lifestyle. We are Americans.
We don?t sit around waiting for water shortages or food shortages, wringing our hands and wondering if
maybe some high-brow redistribution of wealth plan will solve everything. We capitalize on the problem
and solve it for profit. Mr. Rush, you have a short memory. In the 1970?s your predecessors in the art of
doom-crying swore up and down that overpopulation of the planet was going to kill us all. There was
not going to be enough food or space to sustain even the lucky inhabitants of North America. By 1985
all of us were going to be living in squalor, stacked up like so much cordwood. Remember that?
It didn?t happen, of course. These catastrophes predicted by supposed ?environmentalists? never happen.
Your fears of water shortages are ludicrous. This planet is part of a Universe of such complexity and
perfection of design that you, sir, and all of your human cohorts combined, even if all our greedy and
polluting generations were allowed to live simultaneously, couldn?t touch it with a 10 millennia long pole.
The closest thing we humans have devised to approximate the natural system of Life, the Universe and
Everything is our economic systems. Left to the ?unseen hand? effect, they work essentially just as nature
herself works. Mess with those systems at your own peril. I don?t care how smart you are, how well you
think you understand the intrinsically interlocked systems that operate behind the scenes on every level in
every system known to man, you cannot outdo nature or mathematics. Nor can you screw it up very much.
It is essentially self-correcting and will forgive your stupid blunderings. We just don?t matter to Mother
Earth nearly as much as you would like to think we matter. Go back and study your physics and genetics.
Dynamic systems in this particular universe correct themselves without any planning at all. In fact,
centralized planning of any kind never works in this environment. Welcome to Earth. Make yourself
at home, but don?t bother trying to change any ?rule of law? here. The rules are set in stone and they never
change because they always work.

Water shortages! Are you some kind of comedian or WHAT? Water shortages! You make me laugh! Any kind of governmental or municipal concerns about water are ridiculous. Your own body is 97% water! I don't think this particular planet is designed to run out of it anytime soon.

Suz X:

Regarding the mechanics of quoting, I recommend not using the "Quote" button on the form, but rather the following codes: "quote" in brackets ([]) starts the indentation and smaller type, and "/quote" in brackets terminates it.

Now, in response to your post. There are people on this board, myself among them, who have actually studied these and other subject matters at some length. You might want to do the same yourself before posting, or if not, then it would be best, perhaps, to read more carefully and respond with more respect and courtesey. But since it's your first time, I will try to answer your implicit questions. Do not expect that kind of forbearance to continue indefinitely!

Any projected peak of oil production is utter poppycock, because free markets always solve such problems as they occur. Hence the hybrid automobiles now available at a local dealership near you.

Yes, those hybrid cars, and the hydrogen fuel-cell engines that will ultimately replace even them, do hold out the promise that the oil shortage won't destroy the economy forever. Just as the artificial oil shortage of the 1970s was eventually overcome by improved fuel economy together with new sources of oil, so this coming natural oil shortage will be overcome. And yes, the market will have an important part to play in making that happen.

Just the same, I remember the gas lines from 1973, and the devastating effect on the U.S. economy from that temporary shortage. The fact that a problem has a solution doesn't mean that the solution is easy or painless. The market for highly efficient energy use will exist on its own only after the price of oil rises to make everyone quite miserable. We are still going to have a number of years of economic catastrophe before the adjustments are in place, and whether the "free market" could solve the problem best, the public outcry will not allow that to be tried. There will be emergency government programs put in place to deal with the situation, just as in the 1970s.

Mr. Rush, you have a short memory. In the 1970?s your predecessors in the art of doom-crying swore up and down that overpopulation of the planet was going to kill us all.

I think I just demonstrated above that I have quite a good memory, and I imagine it goes back a bit further than yours does. It is also more accurate than yours, apparently, because the truth is nobody ever said that overpopulation was going to "kill us all." And the further truth is that the prediction made in the 1970s that overpopulation would prove environmentally and economically disastrous if not checked has in fact come true today. Overpopulation of the planet is one of the two biggest factors behind the problems we face, and is leading to water shortages, famine, plague, war, and terrorism. (The specific overpopulation of the Middle East is the reason why all that oil revenue still leaves people poor, unemployed, and mad at the world.)

You should read the material you criticize before posting the criticism. It would help your accuracy rate.

Your own body is 97% water! I don't think this particular planet is designed to run out of it anytime soon.

This particular planet isn't "designed" at all.

When you deal with resources, there are too kinds of "running out," because there are two kinds of limits, stock limits and flow limits. Stock limits apply to nonrenewable resources, like oil. There is only so much oil in the ground, and thus only so much of it can be pumped out.

Fresh water is a renewable resource, not a nonrenewable one. It is constantly being replenished by evaporation and condensation, so stock limits don't apply. But flow limits do. A flow limit says, not that there's only so much we can take, period, but that there's only so much that can be taken at any one time. If we use fresh water faster than evaporation and condensation can replenish it, then the amount we draw drops over time. It's like a bank account into which a certain monthly income is deposited. As long as the amount you withdraw is less than or equal to that income, you're fine; if you withdraw more than you deposit, though, you're going to run short of funds. In just the same way, we are running short of water in many parts of the world already, and beginning to do so in the U.S.

I'm glad you found it amusing, but when you laugh at something that knowledgeable people recognize as quite serious, you run the risk of embarrassing yourself. I suggest you do some studying on the subject of ecology before trying this again. And remember, a mind is like a parachute: it only works when open.

Suz X:

Regarding the mechanics of quoting, I recommend not using the "Quote" button on the form, but rather the following codes: "quote" in brackets ([]) starts the indentation and smaller type, and "/quote" in brackets terminates it.

Now, in response to your post. There are people on this board, myself among them, who have actually studied these and other subject matters at some length. You might want to do the same yourself before posting, or if not, then it would be best, perhaps, to read more carefully and respond with more respect and courtesey. But since it's your first time, I will try to answer your implicit questions. Do not expect that kind of forbearance to continue indefinitely!

Any projected peak of oil production is utter poppycock, because free markets always solve such problems as they occur. Hence the hybrid automobiles now available at a local dealership near you.

Yes, those hybrid cars, and the hydrogen fuel-cell engines that will ultimately replace even them, do hold out the promise that the oil shortage won't destroy the economy forever. Just as the artificial oil shortage of the 1970s was eventually overcome by improved fuel economy together with new sources of oil, so this coming natural oil shortage will be overcome. And yes, the market will have an important part to play in making that happen.

Just the same, I remember the gas lines from 1973, and the devastating effect on the U.S. economy from that temporary shortage. The fact that a problem has a solution doesn't mean that the solution is easy or painless. The market for highly efficient energy use will exist on its own only after the price of oil rises to make everyone quite miserable. We are still going to have a number of years of economic catastrophe before the adjustments are in place, and whether the "free market" could solve the problem best, the public outcry will not allow that to be tried. There will be emergency government programs put in place to deal with the situation, just as in the 1970s.

Mr. Rush, you have a short memory. In the 1970?s your predecessors in the art of doom-crying swore up and down that overpopulation of the planet was going to kill us all.

I think I just demonstrated above that I have quite a good memory, and I imagine it goes back a bit further than yours does. It is also more accurate than yours, apparently, because the truth is nobody ever said that overpopulation was going to "kill us all." And the further truth is that the prediction made in the 1970s that overpopulation would prove environmentally and economically disastrous if not checked has in fact come true today. Overpopulation of the planet is one of the two biggest factors behind the problems we face, and is leading to water shortages, famine, plague, war, and terrorism. (The specific overpopulation of the Middle East is the reason why all that oil revenue still leaves people poor, unemployed, and mad at the world.)

You should read the material you criticize before posting the criticism. It would help your accuracy rate.

Your own body is 97% water! I don't think this particular planet is designed to run out of it anytime soon.

This particular planet isn't "designed" at all.

When you deal with resources, there are too kinds of "running out," because there are two kinds of limits, stock limits and flow limits. Stock limits apply to nonrenewable resources, like oil. There is only so much oil in the ground, and thus only so much of it can be pumped out.

Fresh water is a renewable resource, not a nonrenewable one. It is constantly being replenished by evaporation and condensation, so stock limits don't apply. But flow limits do. A flow limit says, not that there's only so much we can take, period, but that there's only so much that can be taken at any one time. If we use fresh water faster than evaporation and condensation can replenish it, then the amount we draw drops over time. It's like a bank account into which a certain monthly income is deposited. As long as the amount you withdraw is less than or equal to that income, you're fine; if you withdraw more than you deposit, though, you're going to run short of funds. In just the same way, we are running short of water in many parts of the world already, and beginning to do so in the U.S.

I'm glad you found it amusing, but when you laugh at something that knowledgeable people recognize as quite serious, you run the risk of embarrassing yourself. I suggest you do some studying on the subject of ecology before trying this again. And remember, a mind is like a parachute: it only works when open.