[northstar22]

Originally Posted by Bhaalspawn

In other words, the world is going to experience Malthusian problems. Perhaps one solution is to focus on promoting birth control and population reduction?

I'd be all for a one-child policy, as long as it doesn't involve abortion.

[Jasmin71]

Some people here need to lay off smoking the funny stuff ! lmao !!

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

I believe we HAVE been living high off the hog for a while now and that a little adjustment isn't going to hurt. A big adjustment WILL hurt and that's what I want to see avoided. It sounds all well and good to develop alternative technologies but they aren't where they should be at this point and the fact is we rely on oil and will continue to for the foreseeable future. If there is oil to be tapped domestically, it should be tapped in a reasonable manner. Problem is, my standard of "reasonable manner" probably differs from that of the environmentalists. We are simply going to have to decide what we want as a nation. Problem is, if we DO decide to tap resources at the expense of a little more environmental damage, it's getting a little too late if oil prices rise exponentially. You can't just decide to tap a formation and have oil coming out the next day.

Cities vs. rural? I'll take rural living any day. Don't like the cities and wouldn't want to be forced to live there. For one person who thinks NYC is "beautiful" there's another that thinks otherwise. Fortunately, at this point, we have choices. I don't want to lose those choices. Our previous president enjoys his rural space, our current one seems more comfortable in a more populous environment. If I were more conspiracy minded, I might think our current administration WOULD like to see America more urbanized (more shared services, more government dependence, more likely to vote Democrat) but I'd like to think he is above that and wants to promote economic stability rather than an oil shock that sets us back.

I know it seems like there is a set amount of oil underneath our nation (and coasts), however, there was probably a different (lower) number stated by the "experts" 20 years ago. We continue to develop new technologies to discover and take advantage of new finds. We can't afford to sell ourselves short. The domestic economy AND national security depends on it.

[Coldjensens]

It is funny that people seem to think that reducing our standrd of living will somehow raise the standard of living in other countries. It will not.

In fact, the skyrocketing standard of living has helped improve the standard of living in many other countries as they are able to employ workers to build things to send to the US. If we stop buying their things, they will not suddenly keep more of their products at home and allow everyone in their home country to have more of them, they will instead stop making those things and the people who used to make them will become unemployed.

Is the goal to bring down our standard of living closer to theirs so that we will not have to feel as guilty about having more things available and being able to afford more things?

No matter what we do, there will always be people with a higher standard of living than others. This has never changed and will never change. However, if we raise the bar at the bottom by raising the bar at the top, everyone benefits. It woudl be great if we could bring everyone's standard of living closer together at the high end, but it makes no sense to bring everyones standard of living closer together by making everyone as poor or nearly as poor as the people at the bottom.

However I think tht there may be some people who woudl actually feel better if we reduced the standard of living in US Japan and Europe to that of the people in Eithiopia.

[Coldjensens]

I guess we will find out what is going to happen very soon. Gas jumped about 40 cents a gallon this morning. couple more jumps like that and we will be at the $6.50 mark.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by danielj72

You are correct that drilling oil is a temporary solution, but I believe drilling oil gives us the time we need for a much more painless transition to improved energy technology --
Drilling new oil will buy us the time we need.
We need to preserve the American standard of living for the next generation.

Are Americans "us"?
Please keep in mind "we" don't drill for oil. The oil companies are not "us" - they entities unto themselves with no allegiance to any country. Some pay zero US taxes but receive subsidies. If we open the Alaska oil fields, it will not be "us" who is drilling. Same for the Gulf or anywhere else in the world.
The few oil companies which exist can charge us anything they want, there is nothing to prevent their collusion. Anti-trust is a thing of the past.

[northstar22]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

It is funny that people seem to think that reducing our standrd of living will somehow raise the standard of living in other countries. It will not.

In fact, the skyrocketing standard of living has helped improve the standard of living in many other countries as they are able to employ workers to build things to send to the US. If we stop buying their things, they will not suddenly keep more of their products at home and allow everyone in their home country to have more of them, they will instead stop making those things and the people who used to make them will become unemployed.

Is the goal to bring down our standard of living closer to theirs so that we will not have to feel as guilty about having more things available and being able to afford more things?

No matter what we do, there will always be people with a higher standard of living than others. This has never changed and will never change. However, if we raise the bar at the bottom by raising the bar at the top, everyone benefits. It woudl be great if we could bring everyone's standard of living closer together at the high end, but it makes no sense to bring everyones standard of living closer together by making everyone as poor or nearly as poor as the people at the bottom.

However I think tht there may be some people who woudl actually feel better if we reduced the standard of living in US Japan and Europe to that of the people in Eithiopia.

There are limited resources on the Earth. Unless we figure out a way to strip-mine other planets, we WILL harm others' standards of living by having ours obscenely high.

[michigan83]

There are limited resources on the Earth. Unless we figure out a way to strip-mine other planets, we WILL harm others' standards of living by having ours obscenely high.

Who gets to decide what's obscene? I'm not interested in being subjected to anyone's arbitrary opinion about what my standard of living "should" be.

Here's a little lesson about human nature: Human beings are selfish and jealous. It's naive to think that purposely reducing our standard of living will somehow make the world a better place. We would still be hated by some and appreciated by others, depending on the person's agenda. There would still be others that wanted to take what we have, no matter how much we gave up. We could stop reproducing, reduce our land area by half, get rid of every automobile, and use windmill power for everything, and there would still be someone out there who thought we should give up more for the sake of "fairness", or be wiped off the map for whatever reason.

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Who gets to decide what's obscene? I'm not interested in being subjected to anyone's arbitrary opinion about what my standard of living "should" be.

Here's a little lesson about human nature: Human beings are selfish and jealous. It's naive to think that purposely reducing our standard of living will somehow make the world a better place. We would still be hated by some and appreciated by others, depending on the person's agenda. There would still be others that wanted to take what we have, no matter how much we gave up. We could stop reproducing, reduce our land area by half, get rid of every automobile, and use windmill power for everything, and there would still be someone out there who thought we should give up more for the sake of "fairness", or be wiped off the map for whatever reason.

I pretty much agree. We need to take care of ourselves first but practice personal benevolence when we have extra. I thought I've heard that we are already the most generous nation on earth towards other countries...first to step in both individually and governmentally when disaster strikes wherever. Otherwise, it's dog eat dog and I'd like to stay the top dog because there's always another that wants to take your place and he doesn't give two licks about where you end up once he kicks your fanny.

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by kazoopilot

I'd be all for a one-child policy, as long as it doesn't involve abortion.

As an intransigent atheist, I don't have any problems with abortion and even support "paper abortions for men". However, I do think that forcing a one-child policy would be draconian. It's something to strive for, but I think there might be better ways such as offering birth control and voluntary abortion and offering payments for sterilization.