Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

An old Marine general had it right when he said, "War is a racket."

That would be Major General "Old Gimlet Eye" Smedley D. Butler. His is a most interesting story, one that I would recommend every sunshine patriot read. I have The Plot To Seize The White House sitting on my shelf of library books to get to, but first I have some "brain-destroying bilge" to finish off. 8)

No relation. Fortunately, I've no relation to Civil War General Benjamin 'Spoons' Butler, either.

Smedley was quite a well known person in the 1930s. His book War is a Racket seems to be making a comeback. Smedley spent most of his career fighting for Standard Oil in China and United Fruit in Latin America. While all praised him as an officer, he later became a major critic of corporate militarism. Many who do not the Iraq adventures are pushing Smedley's book as a fine critique of the Bush administration.

I'm sure there is some sort of fallacy in there, somewhere... :wink:

Originally Posted by msm

Islam TODAY is where Christianity was IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Forced marriages. Patriarchy. Wife beating. Therefore, what you are DEFENDING is what you profess to be AGAINST.

Do we agree here? I've been trying to say this for a long time! (my argument being that Islam is about 600 years behind because it started up 600 years later... - and just look at the years on their calendar! they're in the 15th century according to their system... but what happened in the Christian world in the 15th century years from the Christian calendar? How about

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p-2_Chalmers.html

?)

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by msm

Islam TODAY is where Christianity was IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Forced marriages. Patriarchy. Wife beating. Therefore, what you are DEFENDING is what you profess to be AGAINST.

Do we agree here? I've been trying to say this for a long time! (my argument being that Islam is about 600 years behind because it started up 600 years later... - and just look at the years on their calendar! they're in the 15th century according to their system... but what happened in the Christian world in the 15th century years from the Christian calendar? How about

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p-2_Chalmers.html

?)

I wouldn't say this is an issue of the age of the religion, but of transition from Agricultural Age civilization to Industrial Age patterns. When a culture changes from having most of the people on the land to most of them in the cities, there are significant changes in the government, and lesser shifts in religion. It is natural and normal for autocratic rulers to cling to power. It is natural and normal for cleric believing in a timeless truth to resist change. It is natural an normal for both autocratic rulers and hide bound clerics to see changes come they would not want.

I don't see that the age of Islam much matters. Technology was going to come and induce population shifts and cultural changes. Before the arrival of Technology, the Agricultural Age religions were more or less timeless. Change is induced by outside pressure, not by age.

Originally Posted by msm

EARTH TO RICK: A PIPELINE ACROSS AFGHANISTAN NEVER MADE ECONOMIC SENSE. NEVER DID, NEVER WILL. IT WILL NEVER BE BUILT. IT IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION.

It made economic sense at one time (1997), otherwise it wouldn't have been pursued:

Miller pointed out that the project still faces significant economic, political and commercial challenges, such as finalizing mutually acceptable commercial agreements and agreements with transit countries. "This project has exceptionally sound economic fundamentals, given the presence of proven gas reserves in Turkmenistan and the market needs of Pakistan and India. The Dauletabad Field has produced well over 2 billion cubic feet per day in the past and is capable of producing that volume today. With the right development program, the Field will continue to be able to produce natural gas at this rate long into the future. No other import project can provide such volumes of natural gas to these markets at a lower price."

The proposed natural gas pipeline would stretch from the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan border in southeastern Turkmenistan to Multan, Pakistan (790 miles, 1,271 kilometers), with a 400-mile (640-kilometer) extension to India under consideration. Estimated cost of the project is US$1.9 billion for the segment to Pakistan and an additional US$600 million for the extension to India

By (2002) it didn't make political sense:

Although still favored by the participant countries to revive the project, Unocal Spokesperson Terry Covington says that the company does not have any plans or interest in another pipeline project through Afghanistan. She says that after the company withdrew from the CentGas consortium in 1998, they invested their capital in other parts of the world, specifically in Southeast Asia. "We can?t make any decisions based on a snapshot of a country," Covington told EurasiaNet. "There are several things we look for before we invest in a country: an internationally recognized government, peace and stability, and social [standards]."

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by msm

Islam TODAY is where Christianity was IN THE MIDDLE AGES. Forced marriages. Patriarchy. Wife beating. Therefore, what you are DEFENDING is what you profess to be AGAINST.

Do we agree here? I've been trying to say this for a long time! (my argument being that Islam is about 600 years behind because it started up 600 years later... - and just look at the years on their calendar! they're in the 15th century according to their system... but what happened in the Christian world in the 15th century years from the Christian calendar? How about

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n1p-2_Chalmers.html

?)

I wouldn't say this is an issue of the age of the religion, but of transition from Agricultural Age civilization to Industrial Age patterns. When a culture changes from having most of the people on the land to most of them in the cities, there are significant changes in the government, and lesser shifts in religion. It is natural and normal for autocratic rulers to cling to power. It is natural and normal for cleric believing in a timeless truth to resist change. It is natural an normal for both autocratic rulers and hide bound clerics to see changes come they would not want.

I don't see that the age of Islam much matters. Technology was going to come and induce population shifts and cultural changes. Before the arrival of Technology, the Agricultural Age religions were more or less timeless. Change is induced by outside pressure, not by age.

Exactly. If it were a matter of the date of founding, Buddhism would be several hundred years ahead of Christianity, Judaism several hundred years ahead of Buddhism, and Hinduism the most "advanced" of all.

At any rate, the intolerant behaviors msm mentioned are certainly aspects of many societies -- Christian, Islam or otherwise. After all, an explicit rejection of wife-beating by the Christian mainstream is fairly recent -- less than a hundred years old. There are still many "conservative" Christian preachers who justify abusive patriarchy with a straightforward reading of the New Testament ("Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands.") Of course, such a reading is hardly in keeping with the basic Christian philosophy of charity, but the same can be said of Islam as well.

Bob, are you saying that Islam is still largely an agrarian religion? When I look at a map of (say) Iraq, it seems that most of the population lives in cities. Is this a fairly recent change?

Rick:

Islam is an agrarian-age religion, as is Christianity, but Iraq may no longer be an agrarian-age society. Bob and I have both thought a good bit along these lines, but reached somewhat different conclusions. The most significant difference may be that I see industrial-age culture as a transition phase rather than a new paradigm in itself. By "paradigm" I mean a mode of societal existence encompassing economic activity, religious beliefs and practices, structures of government, and norms and mores, all of these being causally related to one another. It's my belief that humans have, historically and prehistorically, lived under two full-fledged paradigms and a number of transitional modes, plus an anomaly or two here or there.

Human society existed first (and for by far the longest time) in what I call the "pre-civilized paradigm," which can be described as follows:

Economic activity: foraging, hunting, simple crafts, communal ownership of resources, barter between bands, sharing and giving as the main means of wealth distribution within a band.

Political structure: the "band," a smallish group mostly related by blood, without a formal government, group decisions made by consensus or by deferral to high-status individuals.

Religious beliefs: man is subordinate to and part of nature; nature is sacred; kinship between man and other animals, and sometimes plants, recognized; no formal priesthood, but status possessed by those of deep devotion and/or mystical awareness. A function of these beliefs is that there was little or no emphasis on the growth of human population, and so little subordination of women to men; the status of women was considerably higher in precivilized society than in agrarian times.

With the development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, humans began living in cities. Over a relatively brief time, this resulted in the emergence of the second paradigm, which I call the "classical civilized paradigm," and which can be described as follows:

Economic activity: farming, some by small private farmers, but a significant percentage by large landholders (usually not hands-on farmers but rather members of the warrior/aristocrat elite) whose fields are worked by some form of forced labor, either slavery or a substitute such as serfdom; small-scale manufacturing, or occasionally large-scale manufacturing using slaves; private ownership (de facto if not always de jure) of resources; trade, both within a society and between societies, as the main means of exchange.

Political forms: monarchy, supported by three competing elite classes, the warrior/aristocrats (usually the most powerful group), the merchant princes (occasionally the most powerful group, as in the Roman Republic), and the priest/bureaucrats (occasionally the most powerful group, as in ancient China in peacetime); established, formal government with a developed bureaucracy.

Religious beliefs: man is apart from and superior to nature, special; the divine is found in beings or principles also apart from and superior to nature, which create or give rise to nature, and are also superior to man; a formal priesthood, closely connected with the state, whose members (along with the government bureaucrats) form one of the three elite groups.

These religious beliefs are part of all the world's so-called "great" religions. Many of the prophetic founders of those religions gave voice to teachings which diverge from the pattern, but the religions they founded, as actually practiced in the agrarian age, did not. One other common feature of agrarian-age religion was a sexual morality that aimed, consciously or not, at maximizing birthrates. The switch from foraging and hunting to agriculture allowed a much larger population, and military competition between societies required one. Hence the reduction in women's status (because women in control of their own reproductive behavior tend to have smaller families), and the channeling of all female (and sometimes, though not usually, all male) sexuality into marital relationships that are best for raising children, and the almost-but-not-quite universal condemnation of homosexuality.

We are now in transition away from the classical paradigm. In fact, I would say we are fairly far along in the transition, but I would also say we have a ways to go yet. What I mean by that, is that the classical paradigm was a fairly stable social arrangement. But the current dominant pattern -- democratic-republic government, industrial-capitalist economy with strict government regulations -- needs some work if it is going to survive. In particular, it needs to accommodate itself to sustainable use of natural resources. Also, it will need to adjust to two huge future technological developments, human genetic engineering and refinement of artificial intelligence. Doing that will drive other political, economic, religious, and social changes, eventually arriving at the third paradigm of society, which I call the "advanced civilized paradigm."

What the world's religions are now experiencing is stress and uncertainty, as their messages and teachings, which were appropriate to agrarian society, become less and less so. I am not referring to the core teachings of these religions, which tend to transcend societal paradigms, but to the accreted teachings acquired in becoming the dominant faiths of a civilization rather than a mystical or prophetic renegade. To many, these accreted teachings can be as important, and often more so, than the core teachings, if only because they are easier to understand and the core teachings are often mystical and opaque. To cite one severe item of contention and upset, that agrarian-age sexual morality is no longer appropriate and is undergoing change. High birthrates are no longer desirable in the modern context, quite the opposite, and so it is no longer a good idea to subordinate women's reproductive behavior to men, or to channel all female sexuality into marital relationships, or to condemn homosexuality. Also, as society becomes more global and cosmopolitan with the refinement of information and transportation technology, the claim of some agrarian-age religions to be sole possessors of The Truth or of Divine Favor becomes less and less credible. Neither of these developments is in conflict with any religion's core teachings, but both conflict with very important accreted teachings.

And that is one very important reason why a group of Muslim fanatics flew airplanes into our buildings. It is not the only reason, but it is important background information, in my belief.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Rick:

Islam is an agrarian-age religion, as is Christianity...

Oh, really? In 1980, according to Gallup, nearly forty percent of Americans had claimed to have recently had a "born-again" experience with Jesus Christ. I don't think these folks then became farmers; Willie Nelson and Farm Aid in 1983 notwithstanding.

Oddly enough, these "born again" numbers became known just as the New Left was hysterically attacking the nuclear power industry, which would eventually force many areas of the country back into the stoneage of burning coal.

In this light, I thus think a more accurate statement should read, "Islam is an agrarian-age religion, as is the New Left." 8)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

...as the New Left was hysterically attacking the nuclear power industry, which would eventually force many areas of the country back into the stoneage of burning coal.

...not to mention burning oil, and I'm not talking about patchouli.

Mark is entirely correct here. "Split Wood Not Atoms" was the slogan of fools. I cannot forgive the Left for its stupidity on this matter. It was one of the major factors, if not the major factor, that continues to plunge us into war. Damn those idiots! But they were right about other important matters, like civil rights, Vietnam, and rock 'n' roll. Jimi Hendrix died for their sins, as did Jesus--two megaliths of redemption. I don't recall, however, if the latter ever "kissed the sky."

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Islam is an agrarian-age religion, as is Christianity...

Oh, really? In 1980, according to Gallup, nearly forty percent of Americans had claimed to have recently had a "born-again" experience with Jesus Christ. I don't think these folks then became farmers; Willie Nelson and Farm Aid in 1983 notwithstanding.

Marc, do you really not understand the distinction between "agrarian" and "agrarian-age", or are you actually claiming that the 40% you mention (which includes me, by the way, though it didn't in 1980) do not consider themselves direct spiritual heirs to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth -- who illustrated every doctrinal point with a pastoral example, and whose highest holy day is still celebrated according to the ancient lunisolar crop calendar? Are you saying that Christianity is a "modern" religion, like the syncretic pseudo-nature religions of the last Awakening (such as Neo-Paganism and Wicca)? I think most "Born-Agains" would be quite surprised to hear that. Even the thoroughly "modern" folks I attend Church with, who are so involved in cutting-edge high tech in every other aspect of their lives, are quite comfortable in considering themselves adherents to a religion that is essentially unchanged over 2000 years.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

In this light, I thus think a more accurate statement should read, "Islam is an agrarian-age religion, as is the New Left." 8)

As I just said (and I suspect you agree) Wicca and Paganism are not authentic pre-Christian nature religions at all, but rather creations of Boomer sensibilities (most of whom wouldn't be caught dead on a farm.) Thus, the purported religion of the New Left is not agrarian-age at all, and your offensive attempt at humor falls rather flat.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Rick:

Islam is an agrarian-age religion, as is Christianity, but Iraq may no longer be an agrarian-age society. Bob and I have both thought a good bit along these lines, but reached somewhat different conclusions. The most significant difference may be that I see industrial-age culture as a transition phase rather than a new paradigm in itself. By "paradigm" I mean a mode of societal existence encompassing economic activity, religious beliefs and practices, structures of government, and norms and mores, all of these being causally related to one another. It's my belief that humans have, historically and prehistorically, lived under two full-fledged paradigms and a number of transitional modes, plus an anomaly or two here or there.

Human society existed first (and for by far the longest time) in what I call the "pre-civilized paradigm," which can be described as follows...

With the development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, humans began living in cities. Over a relatively brief time, this resulted in the emergence of the second paradigm, which I call the "classical civilized paradigm," and which can be described as follows...

We are now in transition away from the classical paradigm. In fact, I would say we are fairly far along in the transition, but I would also say we have a ways to go yet. What I mean by that, is that the classical paradigm was a fairly stable social arrangement. But the current dominant pattern -- democratic-republic government, industrial-capitalist economy with strict government regulations -- needs some work if it is going to survive.

Brian and I are more or less in agreement on these three paradigms, or Ages of Civilization. I have more sympathy with Toffler, who predicts the existence of a fourth paradigm, his "Third Wave Civilization," which might include a global civilization, renewable forms of energy, computer networked information exchange, and weapons of mass destruction.

The problem with creating a new "Age" is the increasing rate of change. The Hunter Gatherer pattern was stable for millions of years. The Classic pattern lasted for tens of centuries. There are still many Classic pattern cultures and cultures in transition to the Industrial pattern as Toffler's alleged Global pattern is just beginning. Thus, I can understand Brian's reluctance to make the distinction between Toffler's Second and Third Waves.

I do make the distinction as we know the usual pattern of a Classic to Industrial culture shift, while I know squat about the Industrial to Global culture shift. If Osama and Saddam had been equipped with gunpowder weapons only, it wouldn't take much crystal ball gazing to see how things would fall in the long run. We could do containment, continue existing policies, and act smug. With the possibility of weapons of mass destruction thrown in, the situation is far less stable. The division of wealth between the First and Third World becomes an issue when the Third World can deploy WMD. The Industrial Age pattern of developed countries exploiting less developed countries might have to go.

Thus, while Brian thinks the current pattern of civilization "needs some work if it is going to survive," I think the current pattern is obsolete, has no chance of surviving, and we will end up with no choice about whether or not we are going to have to do some serious work.

Still, the Industrial pattern never really got set. The question of whether we are starting a new revolution or whether the old revolution is continuing isn't exactly the most important point to debate.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Mark is entirely correct here. "Split Wood Not Atoms" was the slogan of fools.

Well, considering that wood and other biomass fuel is renewable while nuclear power is not, and has a Hubbell peak not very far beyond that of oil, perhaps it wasn't.

The real solution is a vast increase in efficiency, which would allow between 1/10 and 1/4 the energy currently produced by oil to give us 100% of the use thereof. Do that, and it almost doesn't matter where the energy comes from. I doubt if the "split wood, not atoms" folks had the knowledge to recognize this, but they were likely more open to the idea, once it was explained to them, than nuclear power advocates tend to be.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Brian and I are more or less in agreement on these three paradigms, or Ages of Civilization. I have more sympathy with Toffler, who predicts the existence of a fourth paradigm, his "Third Wave Civilization,"

Let me clarify something. We are not yet in the advanced civilized paradigm, according to my own conception. The industrial-age norms are (or were -- we're already shifting away from them) a transitional phase. There were transitional phases in the shift from pre-civilized to classical life, too, such as the communal agrarian settlements frequently found in the early stages of the transition, and nomadic herder societies such as the Mongols or the early Hebrews. My advanced paradigm isn't industrial-age civilization, nor is it a precursor to Toffler's "third wave." It comes AFTER his third wave.

I can only speculate about the ultimate nature of advanced civilization, but here is what I think it will feature.

Economics: a highly efficient industrial/information/agricultural economy with almost all work done by computerized machines (robots), and today's system of wealth distribution based on wages paid for work being replaced by a system of universal capital ownership, either in common or at a guaranteed level of private ownership. Resource throughput efficiency will be orders of magnitude better than it is today, and just about everything will be recycled.

Politics: government functions mostly divided between the global and the local, with much of the power currently held by nation-states lost in one direction or the other. Collective decision-making will be by a combination of expert decisions by technocrats, and real-time democracy facilitated by information technology, with the latter arising both as local initiatives and from a global effort to make the technocrats publicly accountable (struggles lie ahead on that, I predict). The first stage of the transition featured the fall of the warrior/aristocrat elite. The second stage will feature the fall of another, the merchant princes, and the placement of strict restraints on the third, the technocrat/bureaucrats (in classical civilization the priest/bureaucrats).

Religion: As we achieve a more harmonious relationship with nature, religious conceptions and values will change (and already are changing) to reflect this necessity. If precivilized religion featured a conception of Man As Animal, and classical religion one of Man As Dominator, advanced religion will feature Man As Caretaker. We will be seen as part of, and our species interests subordinate to the greater interests of, the biosphere of the earth, but we will also be seen as an especially important part of the biosphere. Our intelligence and technical prowess will be called to the service of life, to protect the planet from future mass extinctions, and to facilitate Gaia's expansion to other worlds. The way we think of God, and of the relationship between God and Man, and the purpose of human life, will change accordingly, in a lot of ways that I may go into later on, some of which have already begun.

Thus, while Brian thinks the current pattern of civilization "needs some work if it is going to survive," I think the current pattern is obsolete, has no chance of surviving, and we will end up with no choice about whether or not we are going to have to do some serious work.

This is merely another way of saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

Thus, while Brian thinks the current pattern of civilization "needs some work if it is going to survive," I think the current pattern is obsolete, has no chance of surviving, and we will end up with no choice about whether or not we are going to have to do some serious work.

This is merely another way of saying the same thing.

Yep. I'm a bit dubious about about Brian's warrior / priest / merchant class distinctions. I'm not as focused on class power struggles as he is, though it is interesting to watch power flow from one class to another as cultures transition through classic, industrial and perhaps future paradigms. Still, the future he describes is closely akin to what I describe as Third Wave, Global or Information Age civilization.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, considering that wood and other biomass fuel is renewable while nuclear power is not, and has a Hubbell peak not very far beyond that of oil, perhaps it wasn't.

Brian, you appear to be assuming that only U235 fission would be used. If breeder reactors were built to convert U238 to Plutonium, then the fuel supply would last for millions of years at the current world energy utilization rate.

Tom:

I only mentioned the most obvious drawback to nuclear power. There are some other very serious ones.

The utility of an energy source is a function not just of how much energy it produces, but also of how much energy is required to extract it. Currently, it requires one barrel of oil's worth of energy to extract 10 barrels of crude, making oil a very cheap source of energy. (In the 1920s, the ratio for oil was 1/100.)

The cost in oil to construct a nuclear power plant is huge. (The cost in money reflects this, and runs into the billions of dollars.) A nuclear power plant has a limited lifetime, and thereafter must be abandoned, as it becomes highly radioactive in its core. These two facts together give nuclear power an e/e ratio (energy to produce/energy produced) much lower than oil's. What's more, one must consider the energy cost to protect nuclear facilities from terrorism, as they are obvious targets, especially if they are breeder reactors which produce fuel suitable for use in nuclear weapons with only a little further refinement.

Then there are the associated dangers and environmental costs. The biggest danger associated with nuclear power is that of catastrophic meltdown. With proper safeguards, the risk for any one plant in any one year is reduced to a small percentage, but of course this is amplified by the number of plants on line and the amount of time they are in use. We would need about 10 times the number of nuclear plants on line as we currently have (at a HUGE construction expense) and would be running them (or their replacements) in perpetuity. Extend any risk, however small, in perpetuity, and it becomes certainty. For the effects of catastrophic meltdown, see Chernobyl. Imagine a Chernobyl in the U.S., near a major population center. That becomes an inevitable future if nuclear power becomes our chief source of energy.

The storage problem of nuclear waste is small by comparison to that one, but could become more serious with ten times the waste currently being produced going on indefinitely into the future.

For all these reasons, nuclear power is nowhere near as promising as its advocates (and its high raw energy potential) would have us believe.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Are you saying that Christianity is a "modern" religion...

When one is truly "born again" one rejects "religion," modern or otherwise, for something far greater.

What's more, one must consider the energy cost to protect nuclear facilities from terrorism, as they are obvious targets, especially if they are breeder reactors which produce fuel suitable for use in nuclear weapons with only a little further refinement.

This is what FDR would call the "tired, defeatist attitude." It is the foxhole mentality of the weak and feeble. I call it the Madrid syndrome. And it is a disease that infects nearly all post-modern liberals.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Mark is entirely correct here. "Split Wood Not Atoms" was the slogan of fools.

Well, considering that wood and other biomass fuel is renewable while nuclear power is not, and has a Hubbell peak not very far beyond that of oil, perhaps it wasn't.

The real solution is a vast increase in efficiency, which would allow between 1/10 and 1/4 the energy currently produced by oil to give us 100% of the use thereof. Do that, and it almost doesn't matter where the energy comes from. I doubt if the "split wood, not atoms" folks had the knowledge to recognize this, but they were likely more open to the idea, once it was explained to them, than nuclear power advocates tend to be.

I know we're off topic here, but I'll add one more comment about nukes.

Part of my work as a researcher at Hanford was to perform comparative risk analyses on different energy systems--nuclear, hydro, fossil fuel, etc. As you know, all energy systems have their attendant risks, but some seem much safer or much worse than others to the general public. So I'll offer this as a relevant comparison.

If terrorists hijacked just one large-sized commercial airplane, let's say leaving SeaTac airport, flew it into the base of the Grand Coulee Dam and broke it open, here's what would happen. A 300-ft wall of water would come rushing down the Columbia River gourge. It would destroy everything in its path for 200 miles, including Chief Joseph Dam, Chelan and Wenatchee. Then it would pool up behind the Wallula Gap and flood over the Hanford Site and the Tri-Cities. Then Hanford's underground storage tanks would float up and break apart, along with major destruction of N-reactor, FFTF, and numerous other facilities. Tremendous releases of nuclear and hazardous wastes would render the the downstream river unusable for domestic purposes all the way to Portland and Astoria. Fisheries, agriculture, you name it, would be toast for a very long time. The Northwest infrastructure and economy would take years to recover.

Now, fly that same plane directly into any facility at Hanford, or any other nuke anywhere in this country, and the relative effects would be much smaller. As our studies indicated, even if Hanford were not there at all, the deaths, damage, and pollution by such an attack on the Grand Coulee would be huge (far exceeding those of 911).

I don't advocate nuclear energy on this basis alone, but the comparative risks are worth considering. Still, in the final analysis, Brian is right; reducing our consumption of energy of any kind would be our best choice for the future. How we get that to happen in a capitalist country like ours is not going to be easy.

--Croaker

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Are you saying that Christianity is a "modern" religion...

When one is truly "born again" one rejects "religion," modern or otherwise, for something far greater.

OK, I can accept that; it's a coherent position. I'm not sure if it's completely consistent with your earlier statements, but I'm not going to argue whether you believe as you say you believe. I would just point out, as before, that this position is very different from what the majority of Christians ("born-again" and otherwise) believe. The great enthusiasm for The Passion Of Christ clearly demonstrated, among other things, that American Christians are very comfortable in associating their own beliefs with those of the 1st Century CE. What ever reasons people may have had to attend the movie, at least one of them was definitely a show of solidarity for the view of Christianity as a "traditional" religion. When we are discussing the role of Christianity in the world, and its interaction with Islam, this is an important factor to consider.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Are you saying that Christianity is a "modern" religion...

When one is truly "born again" one rejects "religion," modern or otherwise, for something far greater.

OK, I can accept that; it's a coherent position. I'm not sure if it's completely consistent with your earlier statements, but I'm not going to argue whether you believe as you say you believe. I would just point out, as before, that this position is very different from what the majority of Christians ("born-again" and otherwise) believe. The great enthusiasm for The Passion Of Christ clearly demonstrated, among other things, that American Christians are very comfortable in associating their own beliefs with those of the 1st Century CE. What ever reasons people may have had to attend the movie, at least one of them was definitely a show of solidarity for the view of Christianity as a "traditional" religion. When we are discussing the role of Christianity in the world, and its interaction with Islam, this is an important factor to consider.

A recurring tendency in Western Civilization is the notion that any advocated change is actually a 'return' to the basics, to the uncorrupted original. It isn't restricted to religious matters, it shows up everywhere, and has done so recognizably for over 1000 years, and commonly ever since the Protestant Reformation.

A result of that is that many Christian sects in the West tend to see their own beliefs as being the beliefs of the 1st Century, stripped of later corruptions and add-ons.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I don't advocate nuclear energy on this basis alone, but the comparative risks are worth considering. Still, in the final analysis, Brian is right; reducing our consumption of energy of any kind would be our best choice for the future. How we get that to happen in a capitalist country like ours is not going to be easy.

--Croaker

Even with greater efficiency, energy demand for the near future (next 50 years) is essentially certain to keep increasing. The only way to prevent that would be to condemn the majority of the human race to lasting, permanent poverty.

The environmental cost of powering the world using 'renewable' energy would be at least as great as that of using nuclear fission, since renewbable power sources (at least the ones we know about now) are all low-density, high-footprint techniques.

A photovoltaic panel may be clean at the site of use, but the silicon to build it has to be mined, processed, etc. As they get cheaper, I suspect we'll start seeing a lot of solar power panels on residences and buildings, and they'll help. But to provide a major percentage of high-density power uses like manufacturing or mining, we'd have to cover huge areas with collector panels and mirrors, along with the associated power lines, protective equipment, etc.

Hydroelectricity is marvelously clean, but it's far from environmentally friendly. You need a good sized river and you have to dam it. In the lower 48, America had already dammed most of the suitable sites, and there are major environmental consequences to such dams, including by some analyses a mildly increased earthquake risk. Further, in rivers like the Colorado, siltation provides a potential time-limit to the useful life of a dam.

Wind farms are wonderful (and have the advantage that they can be combined in many cases with other land uses such as agriculture), but they're big, and if they're going to provide more than a modest fraction of the energy the world uses in the future, there will have to be a lot of them.

Tidal power? It's doable, but suitable sites are not common, and the tidal power gear has a significant local 'footprint'.

Geothermal power? In many places, it's quite workable. Iceland, for ex, gets some of its power from geothermal sources, and could get more. Other places could do so, too. But geothermal power is far from cheap, and it tends to have a high environmental impact locally. It's not really very useful in Kansas or England, either.

Biomass? Again, it has applications, but we're not going to run the world on it without massive environmental costs, and we're simply not going to reduce energy use to the level where we can run the world on it practically, at least not in the foreseeable future.

None of these technologies are 'bad', all are useful, and could probably be made more useful. But they aren't going to displace the basic choice we currently face for long-term power, which right now looks strongly to be between coal and uranium/thorium. (Transportation fuel is a separate but related problem).

Other technologies might alter that, of course, such as success and economically workable controlled fusion, but right now they aren't available, and the past track record of fusion efforts is not encouraging.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

...as the New Left was hysterically attacking the nuclear power industry, which would eventually force many areas of the country back into the stoneage of burning coal.

...not to mention burning oil, and I'm not talking about patchouli.

Mark is entirely correct here. "Split Wood Not Atoms" was the slogan of fools. I cannot forgive the Left for its stupidity on this matter. It was one of the major factors, if not the major factor, that continues to plunge us into war. Damn those idiots!

They weren't fools, it's just that they weren't even reacting to facts, as such. Nuclear technology was just an emotional symbol. That's why no calculations, no safety efforts, nothing could change their minds.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Hydroelectricity is marvelously clean, but it's far from environmentally friendly. You need a good sized river and you have to dam it. In the lower 48, America had already dammed most of the suitable sites, and there are major environmental consequences to such dams, including by some analyses a mildly increased earthquake risk. Further, in rivers like the Colorado, siltation provides a potential time-limit to the useful life of a dam.

I should add that there was a study a couple of years ago that indicated the slightly startling result that methane and other gases released from the decay of vegetable matter that tends to settle in dammed lakes might actually release more greenhouse gas than a comparable-power-output oil-fired power plant.

I don't know if that's been shown to be inaccurate to date or not.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We can only lose this in our heads.

Correct. We can't win it, but we can avoid losing it by stubbornly pouring good lives and money after bad and taking casualties in Iraq from now until the Sun goes nova.

The insurgents can't actually defeat our forces militarily, so the only way they can win is if we wise up and cut our losses.

Either way, the outcome depends on our heads, specifically how dumb we are.

Brian, surrender will only make the later violence worse.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by msm

Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail. What makes you think this will be one of the rare exceptions?

So cite me some of that guerilla history. But you better not include Vietnam or Korea.

What you don't seem to understand is that guerllia insurgents don't have to win outright; they simply win by not losing. But we, on the other hand, must win outright, because we lose by not winning.

One of the first rules of battle (please check me out on this, all you military experts) is not to let the enemy decide how you're going to fight. Didn't we win the Revolutionary War on that basis? Clearly the insurgents are deciding the terms of these battles. And I think they will win in the end.

It all boils down to whether we're willing to defeat them.

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by msm

Again, historically most guerilla insurgencies fail.

Historically, virtually all attempts to suppress guerrilla insurgencies have failed. In many cases, the insurgents achieve their military goals. Recent examples: Afghanistan, Algeria, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Vietnam, Congo.

More often, the insurgency eventually collapses from lack of any success at all, and is forgotten, unless it has reliable outside assistance.