On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 21:50:36 EST, you wrote:
><<For your edification:
>
>http://dieoff.org/page45.htm>>
>
>Consider me somewhat more edified.
>
><<Simon asserts that we will "dig deeper and pump faster" and find more oil.
>One wonders why the oil geologists hadn't thought of that, as U.S. production
>goes down and reserves decline>>
>
>Yet, there have been advances and success in new discoveries and recovery of
>oil since 1992, when Lindsey Grant wrote this article. its not pump harder
>and dig deeper, as the author indicated, but rather, know where to drill, use
>the proper geophysical model for extracting petroleum, and be prepared to
>wait until the right price comes along.
>
><<Cornucopians by their nature tend to emphasize solutions where
>environmentalists emphasize problems. An interchange can be useful. Do the
>environmentalists overstate difficulties and fail to recognize new directions
>that can be helpful? Have we explored the opportunities presented by the
>oceans, by recent breakthroughs in biology, and by electronics and data
>processing as thoroughly as we have explored the dangers from
>desertification, deforestation, and acid rain?>>
>
>Well, now the first sentence is a show-stopper for me. If one emphasizes
>problems, we now have a guidepost for what the writer is really about, which
>is making demands on whomever will pay attention to them. Anyone can present
>problems, but coming up with viable solutions is quite another thing. My
>admiration for Paul "Population Bomb" Ehrlich ended long ago.
>
>
>
Clearly the writer is saying that both sides need an infusion of the
other.
Clearly, both are religions of a sort.
Why is it that any person or group with a social or philosophical
cause always seems to adopt uncompromising, religious stances
regarding the issues of interest?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:24 MDT