Joined: Jun 13, 2007 Posts: 3354 Location: Minniesotuh
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
Nickel wrote:
. I think that crawling with the other cultists into the cave and waiting for God to summon the righteous to Judgement is not the way to solve the issues that face us.
But, I have a feeling that there are going to be awful lot of people who are going to do just that.
In the News:
U.S., Britain warn of new Iran sanctions
Iran reportedly continues to deny access to its nuclear records
SUNNYVALE, Calif. - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday stepped up warnings to Iran to come clean about its nuclear programs soon or face new sanctions.
Ahead of the release of a new report expected to show that Iran is continuing to deny U.N. experts access to records of its past nuclear activity, the two leading diplomats said Tehran must comply with international demands to halt work that could produce atomic weapons fuel.
They also said Iran, which denies its programs are arms-related, must accept a package of incentives offered by major world powers that it has yet to agree to receive or face consequences at the U.N. Security Council and punitive measures from individual countries. …
Punitive Measures _________________ "RRrrruuuunnnn!!!" ~Apocalypto
Joined: Oct 06, 2006 Posts: 1011 Location: was rwwff
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
Nickel wrote:
AgentR wrote:
PO.com... There's not going to be a world economy worth spit to resign from.
There's no doubt in my mind that the transition from petroleum to less convenient forms of energy is going to be problematic and expensive, or that standards of living are going to suffer. But I also don't doubt that those changes will come, barring an apocalyptic war.
Barring the sun rising in the morning, it'll stay dark here from now on.
You know, just because solutions were found in the past, does not imply that solutions are available to be found in the future. The world never signed a contract with humanity that says, "once you guys have electricity, you'll always have electricity."
No, I think this is the end of the energy road. I'd like it not to be; I'm no ludite, and the prospect of spending my last elderly years at hard manual labor in order to slightly improve the odds of survival for Kin isn't exactly my idea of fun filled retirement.. But it is the probable reality as I see it.
The way we, as a nation, are expending our effort to hold bases near foreign oil supplies.... doesn't lead me to believe that those in power share your optimism. _________________ Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
I'd just like to point out that Olmert's idea is extremely old: we've been here before, in the year 1321 to be precise, and for pretty much the same reasons.
It’s well known that the main reason for Columbus search for a new trade route to the Indies was motivated by a desire to liberate Christian Europe from its dependence on the Muslim East. In Abbas Hamdani’s essay for the first volume of The Legacy of Muslim Spain,(Pub. Brill’s Scholar’s List) he puts the voyages of discovery into an Islamic perspective. P 279
Quote:
“Indeed some speculated that a trade blockade of the Middle East might well produce the economic strangulation and eventual political fall of all the Muslim countries, thus liberating jerusalem and opening the Middle East once again to the crusades an to colonisation.”
In 1321 a Venetian nobleman, Marino Sanudo presented his Liber Secretorum or Opus terrae Sanctae to Pope John XXII:
Quote:
“containing a world map and his concept of a new crusade, involving a maritime blockade of Egypt which would bring about its economic collapse, to be followed by waves of European military invasions.”
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 817 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
AgentR wrote:
You know, just because solutions were found in the past, does not imply that solutions are available to be found in the future.
Statistically speaking, it's a stronger indicator that they will than that they will not. I don't think breakthroughs come at appointed hours. Fusion is taking a long, long time to make practical. But solar power is simple and easily understood and the basics run back to the 60s. We got our wake-up call in the early 70s, but then oil got abundant and cheap again and we rolled over and went back to sleep. That's our great shame, and future generations will remember us for that. Things will be harder because we neglected that a generation ago. But I think practicalities are going to drive us in that direction, and others. It just isn't going to be as easy as it could have, should have been. The fundamentals are there for many other energy sources. We just have to accept that a lot of them aren't as practical as gas, and start living according to it. If we'd paid attention 35 years ago, by now some of those technologies might have been as practical. So instead, we have to work for them to be for the next generation. That's our cross to bear.
AgentR wrote:
The world never signed a contract with humanity that says, "once you guys have electricity, you'll always have electricity."
It also didn't sign one with a species that thinks burning God's diarrhea is the single and sole way to generate it. We've been sloppy about depending on it, but we already know what the alts are. We just don't want to budge on it because it's an effort, a hardship.
AgentR wrote:
The way we, as a nation, are expending our effort to hold bases near foreign oil supplies.... doesn't lead me to believe that those in power share your optimism.
This is spot-on what I'm trying to change. We're at a point now where the US is using three gallons of gas for every one it secures and produces. Sends not just the Army, but the National Guard abroad. Wastes hundreds of billions annually making contractors rich building weapons systems that can never be used, or can't be replaced if they are. Good Lord, if that fever would just break, many things would turn around immeasurably for the US, the world would be less volatile, and the coming financial crisis would ease and ameliorate. A big part of the world's problem right now is the rabies that seems to have infected the United States. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Joined: Oct 04, 2004 Posts: 5141 Location: Oklahoma
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
Nickel wrote:
We just have to accept that a lot of them aren't as practical as gas, and start living according to it.
We just don't want to budge on it because it's an effort, a hardship.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by these statements? What does "living according to it" mean? What kind of "effort" and "hardship?"
I don't hear too many people saying things that corroborate your statements. I think people don't do much to change because the changes required are so drastic that most of them don't know how, can't, or both. They aren't whining and complaining that it's "too hard" to change. They are used to being dependent on the whole system from birth, and are helpless without it, just like a fish out of water. _________________ "Every junkie's like a setting sun..." - Neil Young
Joined: Oct 06, 2006 Posts: 1011 Location: was rwwff
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
Nickel wrote:
Statistically speaking, it's a stronger indicator that they will than that they will not. I don't think breakthroughs come at appointed hours.
Statistics don't indicate anything about future behavior. They just don't.
Quote:
Fusion is taking a long, long time to make practical. But solar power is simple and easily understood and the basics run back to the 60s.
Scale, scale, scale. I think there are good odds that Fusion can not provide a sustained positive return on any scale smaller than a star. Solar turns radiated energy into electrical energy; that radiated energy is needed for plants in a world that will soon be doing without petroleum based fertilizers.
Quote:
If we'd paid attention 35 years ago,...
We just don't want to budge on it because it's an effort, a hardship....
Good Lord, if that fever would just break, many things would turn around immeasurably...
Nickel; hate to say it, but you've hitched your train to a boatload of "if-only"'s that are about as likely to happen as commercial mining of Asteroids.
There are already way too many people to provide food and power to, for solar or other "renewables" to ever hope to meet the mark. No; we're gonna burn every last drop of oil and every last ounce of ultra-low grade coal we can snatch out of the ground; and then... its gonna get ugly. _________________ Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
Joined: Jun 30, 2005 Posts: 668 Location: northern California
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
AgentR wrote:
There are already way too many people to provide food and power to, for solar or other "renewables" to ever hope to meet the mark. No; we're gonna burn every last drop of oil and every last ounce of ultra-low grade coal we can snatch out of the ground; and then... its gonna get ugly.
It's gonna get ugly way before that, as the rate of supply of these fossil fuels lags behind demand. When it does get ugly, the supply will be disrupted even more, so most likely the last dregs will remain in the ground.
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 817 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
Shannymara wrote:
Nickel wrote:
We just have to accept that a lot of them aren't as practical as gas, and start living according to it.
We just don't want to budge on it because it's an effort, a hardship.
Can you be more specific about what you mean by these statements? What does "living according to it" mean? What kind of "effort" and "hardship?"
Well, not really, because we're not there yet. I just think there'll be more limits on what we can afford to do, and the things we can have, and the way we deal with our personal resources. But exactly how that rash will come out, I can't really say. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 817 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Re: Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
AgentR wrote:
Statistics don't indicate anything about future behavior. They just don't.
Well, if you're not basing YOUR ideas about what we're facing in the future on existing trends, then pray tell us, what are YOU using? A crystal ball? The writings of Nostradamus?
AgentR wrote:
I think there are good odds that Fusion can not provide a sustained positive return on any scale smaller than a star.
That's absurd. Fission does, and it's a far less efficient process than fusion. But by nature, it's much easier to initiate and control. That's the problem for us. The fact that we don't have control structures efficient enough to give us a positive return is just a research problem, just as achieving a fissionable chain reaction once was, or building a plane that didn't shake itself apart breaking the sound barrier was. There's nothing physically impossible about it; it's simply a known unknown.
AgentR wrote:
We just don't want to budge on it because it's an effort, a hardship....
Exactly. Instead of sticking to strict limits, we've let idiots fill up the world with SUVs and minivans because the Big Three don't have to put the same emissions controls into them. Practical considerations are going to bring those days to an end.
There are already robots exploring Mars subsisting on 700 solar-generated watt-hours a day -- the amount of energy it takes to light a single 100w bulb for seven hours... and we get a lot more sunlight than Mars does. The point is, we can build things that lean and mean. But we'd rather get five miles to the gallon going 75 miles an hour. By no means is technology unequal to the challenge. WE are. Let's face it; that's going to require legislation.
AgentR wrote:
There are already way too many people to provide food and power to, for solar or other "renewables" to ever hope to meet the mark. No; we're gonna burn every last drop of oil and every last ounce of ultra-low grade coal we can snatch out of the ground; and then... its gonna get ugly.
For me, it's a matter of logistics. There's enough food; it needs to get to people. Or people need to be in more sensible locations. We need to really seriously limit fertility, and look after people who aren't going to have the kids to look after them as they grow older. The biggest energy asset we're ever going to have on Earth is the sun; oil is nothing but a tiny stored-up pool of that power. All of this is within our abilities; we understand it and we know what has to be done. But we're not doing it. We haven't found the will. The only issue for me is whether or not we'll find the will, or just give in to selfishness and diminishment. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
