[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[brad haslett]

Roger,

There was an echo of Thomas Malthus in what you just
said.  I'm not disputing your numbers or your theory. 
Politics has always been about distribution of income
and the search for resources.  In our lifetime we've
outlasted a lot of "isms'", now we're fighting
Wahabbism, a group that wants to take us back to the
12th century.  I for one am pretty happy with the
21st, but then again I personally burn about 700,000
lbs. a month of hydrocarbons just makeing a living. 
It always strikes me as being a bit odd when I fly out
of Sacramento and pass over an idle nuclear reactor
that was never finished because of the NIMBY's (not in
my back yard).  These same people are driving two
hours in traffic to work, calling in to radio shows
complaining about electricty prices and brownouts. 
Politics is a messy business.  Its been predicted many
times that there wasn't enough food to feed the worlds
population but then agriculture (using petro-chemical
fertilizers and machines) increases production.   But
then people eat better, breed more, etc., Thomas
Malthus again.  I sure as hell don't have the ultimate
solution but I know for damn sure those boys with box
cutters tearing down buildings don't.

Brad


--- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> Wally, Brad, et al,
> 
> Let me just add a chemical engineer's point of view
> to this discussion.  The
> world population is presently about 6.2 billion
> people & still growing
> exponentially.  It depends upon which expert you
> believe, but most estimates
> put the maximum world population that could be
> sustained on planet earth
> without modern technology at around 2 - 3 billion
> people.  So, we're already
> 2X - 3X beyond what can be supported without modern
> technology.  Think about
> how the infrastructure of civilization around you
> works and how the goods &
> services you depend upon are built & delivered.  How
> would you support the
> population of a major metropolitan area like New
> York or Los Angeles without
> it?  There is an intrinsic interconnectness or
> interdependency to modern
> civilization that makes it relatively fragile.  The
> engineers have done a
> marvelous job of making it all work pretty reliably
> & most people never even
> give it a moment's thought.  But, it's really a
> house of cards.  We in the
> US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, & a
> relatively few other
> places are sitting at the top of that house of
> cards.  It's a good life, but
> we should all be relatively nervous.  At the bottom
> of the house of cards,
> it all comes down to resources - water, energy, raw
> materials, etc.  Fossil
> fuels, like crude oil & natural gas, have a unique
> status in that they are
> both the world's primary energy resources & crucial
> raw materials for things
> like plastics, fertilizers & other ag-chemicals,
> pharmaceuticals, & other
> petrochemicals.  Like it or not, the unvarnished
> physical truth is that
> civilization as we know it would come to an end, 50
> - 67% of the world's
> population would have to die, & the standard of
> living for the rest of us
> would be very much lower if access to crude oil were
> cut off.  At present,
> the Middle East has something like 60% of the proven
> reserves of crude oil
> in the entire world.  You can say what you want
> about the sincerity of our
> politicians, the morality of our foreign policy, the
> justifiability of any
> given war, etc.  Any politician or foreign policy
> that does not take into
> account these physical realities is naive to the
> point of childishness.
> This is the way the world really works.  All the
> multinational corporations,
> politicians, & governments are contrained by these
> physical realities.  It's
> already way too late to back off from it.  Look
> closely at it.  Take
> ownership of it in your own mind, patterns of
> thought, & behavior.  Make
> your judgements re foreign policy with it in mind.
> 
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics
> ahead
> 
> 
> > Wally,
> >
> > First let me make a couple of minor points and
> then
> > I'll give you the answer you seek.
> >
> > "The President had consistently resisted the
> pressure
> > to stop the flow, lest total cutoff trigger a
> Japanese
> > invasion of the Netherlands East Indies, thus
> > extending the European war to Asia and makeing the
> > defeat of Hitler that more difficult.  Now, on
> August
> > 1 (1941), after long, serious discussions,
> Roosevelt
> > slammed an embargo on high-octane gasoline as well
> as
> > crude oil".... At Dawn We Slept, Gordon W. Prange
> >
> > "The Maikip oil feilds, producing annually two and
> a
> > half million tons of oil, had been captured on
> August
> > 8 (1942), ............On the thirty-first Hitler
> was
> > urging Field Marshal List......to scrape up all
> > available forces for the final push to Grozny so
> that
> > he "could get his hands on the oil fields".....The
> > Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, William L.
> Shirer
> >
> > Of course WW2 was more complicated than a quest
> for
> > oil but it was certainly a factor.
> >
> > Do we engage ourselves in Middle East politics
> because
> > of oil?  Well, it sure as hell isn't about the
> sand.
> > Did we have any business going into Somolia,
> Bosnia,
> > and all the other places we went during Clinton's
> > administration?  I have mixed emotions but I think
> its
> > a bit shallow and partisan to accept one invasion
> > because it was "the right thing to do" and a given
> > President decided to do it and then criticize
> another
> > President because he "did the right thing" but oil
> was
> > involved.  If someone wants to deplore or protest
> war,
> > fine.  Keep party politics out of it and be
> > consistant.  I don't remember the massing in the
> > streets of all the anti-war folks when "their" man
> was
> > in office.
> >
> > Brad
> > --- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Brad,
> > >
> > > Hitler's run over Europe was not about oil. We
> > > didn't like Japan's advances
> > > into China so we slapped strict trade sanctions.
> I
> > > think it more about steal
> > > than oil but I could be worng. Japan bombed
> Pearl
> > > Harbor because we were
> > > hurting them through these embargos. They got
> > > pissed, attacked Pearl Harbor,
> > > we were then in a war. We then kicked ass and it
> was
> > > the right thing to do.
> > > We probably should have gotten involved even
> > > ealrier. We were to stupid to
> > > realize our National Security was at stake and
> still
> > > gettin gover WW I. I
> > > have no problem with going to war to defend
> National
> > > Security.
> > >
> > > Brad you will admit that oil was the primary
> cause
> > > of these wars. Many will
> > > not and I think they are iin denial. I agree
> most
> > > wars have been over
> > > economic issues, border disputes and religous
> > > reasons.
> > >
> > > Wally
> > >
> > > >From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION,
> > > politics ahead
> > > >Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >
> > > >Wally,
> > > >
> > > >Lets go back a ways in history.  Japan invades
> > > China,
> > > >we do nothing (read "Rape of Nanching", Iris
> > > Chang).
> > > >Japan continues expansion throughout Pacific
> Rim,
> > > we
> > > >cut off their OIL.   Hitler invades Poland and
> > > France,
> > > >well, France sends him invitations. Japan bombs
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com