Jeremirroer said:
Oh yes, moderation, what a difficult concept to understand....
Evidently.
What's wrong with a little moderation? Nobody ever died from resource depletion as a result of exercising conservative practices. But quite the opposite has been ovserved several times throughout history.
Easter Island being a perfect example.
Do you have a life insurance policy or ever plan to get one in the future? if so then why? I mean, you're dead so what do the beneficiaries menan to you? You will be dead, after all.
Using that logic then I guess there would be no cause or principle you would be willing to risk your life in order to uphold or preserve since your philosophy doesn't seem to extent past your own selfishness.
Man am I glad that my country had heroes willing to put it all on the line for a greater cause so we all can enjoy the freedoms we have today and weren't just greed-driven self-centered externalizing machines.
Baron Max said:
But what if we want to blow it? Should YOU make those decisions for all of the rest of humanity?
As opposed to the person that wants to blow it and we all have shared money? Hell yes.
Of the 2 courses, mine is much less likely to have everyone out in the street, so if it's anyones judgement we should be trusting, either by looking at historical precedent previous examples, examining the soundness of the logic, and using a little common sense to see what the end results of the decisions are, then it would be mine/those with a sense of preservation. Not this wanton suicidal binge of destruction nonsense we see being advocated here.
Which person would you want dictating the energy policy of your country?
William Simon, Energy Advisor to President Ford:
"Energy industries agree that to achieve some form of energy self-sufficiency the U.S. must mine all the coal that it can."
"We should be trying to get as many holes drilled as possible to get the proven (oil) reserve . . ."
The faster we can get the last bit of those resources up out of the ground and finish using them, the better off we'll be, according to him.
Or would you rather have President Carter:
"We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us."
handling the situation?
Following in the footsteps of "depletion is good!/Strength through exhaustion" William Simon is an invitation to distaster. Listening to conservative President Carter is the road to sustainability. So the logical choice is clear.