Text 2130, 89 rader
Skriven 2006-06-08 11:27:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2576.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Soylent Green (Re: At
=================================
* * * This message was from Mox Fulder to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <128ekg9ctf8c36c@corp.supernews.com>
@REPLY: <L_veg.878$VE1.89@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan Biggar <jon@floorboard.com>
wrote:
[...]
> Sure, set up a strawman and Stein looks stupid.  Actually deal with his

He did that all by himself. I just provided some facts.

> statement and he doesn't, you do.  Stein didn't claim that those
> resources are limitless.  His claim is that we aren't close to running
> out.  There's a big difference, and an honest examination would see that.

He said he didn't know what those limits are, so how the hell can he know 
we are nowhere near them?

[...]
> Clearly you don't understand what "proven reserves" means.  It means oil
> that has been discovered, determined as to the capacity, and *legally*
> ready to exploit.  ANWAR, for example, is not a "proven reserve",
> because it can't be legally extracted.

Clearly, you do not understand that the "new oil" we find is 
insignificant, compared to the demand.

[...]
> So?  Who cares where the new reserves are found, or their nature.  If
> they exist, and can be exploited, it's a new resource.

Brilliant argument. If you have $20,000 in debt, and you find a $1 bill 
walking down the street, your problems are solved!

[...]
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/deforestation_2.html
>  >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oldgrowth3.jpg

> Sure, some people with a vested interest in fear-mongering disagree.
> Who'd a thunk that?

Not worth a reply.

[...]
> Right.  Just dismiss it without though.

No, I thought about it, laughed, cried, and then I dismissed it.

[...]
> In that, you're correct.  Poverty is caused by *politics*, not by a lack
> of resources.

Wrong. There isn't "one" single cause. It's a complex problem.

[...]
> Yes, it's a place where we should put environmental fear-mongers like
> you so that they can't mess up life for everybody else.

What an inspiring, solid argument. Or not.

[...]
> Why don't we let the Alaskans decide?  Unlike you and your sterile urban
> evironmentalist buddies, they live there.

The last time I checked, Alaska was part of the United States of America. 
Why can't California unilaterally decide to grant citizenship to illegal 
immigrants? Same reason. We live in *one* country, *one* world.

btw, not that it's any of your business, but I'm not much of an 
environmentalist. I look at the cost/benefit ratio in the ANWAR issue. The 
cost is too high, the benefit is too low. Thus, it's a lousy deal.

[...]
> And where exactly* do you get those numbers from?  Oh, right, from your 
> imagination!
[...]

Wrong. It's called "infant mortality rate." Look it up. And go waste 
someone else's time.

-- 
20060607 1525
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
                                                                               
                                            
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)