Ahw this video makes ecotards cry.

It's quite simple and I believe it was stated by a Saudi sheik "The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones, The Oil Age won't end because we run out of oil"

This means that long before oil runs out we will have a better way to power the world. And it will take long for all the oil to run out, much longer than the ecos predict. There a vast amounts of oil in tar sands and shales. Huge new oil fields have been discovered off the coasts of South American countries. Beyond oil there are still higher reserves of natural gas and coal.

If we don't want to have to resort to geo-engineering to restore a warming climate we must find an alternative to fossil fuels long before they run out. So what do we have, wind, water and sun. Only the sun could reasonably provide all the energy we need after a huge industrial effort to build these things in place like the Sahara.
However we also have nuclear energy. There are vast amounts of Uranium that are waiting to be discovered once the demand for Uranium increases. Using a Thorium reactor you could breed and burn fissile material out of Thorium. This process yields much less long lived waste because you basically burn up most of the radioactive materials. Also Thorium is three times as plentiful as Uranium.
This gives Fusion a lot of time to get its act together and finally deliver on the promise of nearly boundless energy.

Creating fertilizer doesn't need fossil fuels. All it needs is nitrogen, hydrogen and high pressures and temperatures (energy).
Al machines can still run on clean fuel cells which were charged with power delivered by the above processes of energy generation.

I'm quite optimistic, I think we are heading for a bright future if we invest in alternative energy and don't fuck up the World too much in the time it takes to get to that goal.

>> ^EDD:
I never thought I'd say this, but I have to admit: he's the only sane and realistic candidate the Republicans have for the 2012 presidency. Provided they can keep him from ditching the asylum for nutjobs that it's become, of course.


"The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born Citizens of the United States"

By far one of the Daily Show's best pieces. The real tugging part was seeing how many of the guys they had been in Iran joking with in interviews, getting arrested during the election unrest after. The series is something every westerner should have to see to understand that 'our' problem with Iran is the same one faced by most of Iran's people, their current government leaders.

While both the left and right over here argue about the tyranny we face here, and whether the solution is removing all sanctions against Iran or bombing it into the stone ages, the people of Iran are fighting to solve the problem themselves and literally risking their lives to change the direction their leadership is taking their country.

>> ^westy:
lol America is in the stone ages , i know its not the majority of the population but amerca has a real problem of uneducated people that simply dont have anny resaon or a clue as to what is going on.


For fuck's sake man, I have a hard time giving any credence to your argument about people being stupid when you can't spell. When you're accusing anyone of being clueless or uneducated, you might want to do a quick spell check.

lol America is in the stone ages , i know its not the majority of the population but amerca has a real problem of uneducated people that simply dont have anny resaon or a clue as to what is going on.

*face palm*

Honestly what are you going to say next? Bush actually cared about democracy while bombing two nations back to the stone age?

The GDR, The DPRK shit even my own nation says they are democratic and for the people while remaining entirely dictatorial.

There is a difference between saying something to again acceptance and power. Then doing something entirely contrary. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and every other great dictator has been a master at saying one thing while pursuing their own agendas.

>> ^alizarin:
>> ^zor:
Great sift! I've never seen anything like that before. Now, on to find the assholes who made those and sold them.

That'd be us - "mines found in Cambodia have been manufactured in the US, China, Vietnam, the former USSR and East Germany, the former Czechoslovakia, India, Chile, South and North Korea, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, South Africa, Bulgaria, the former Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Poland." - article
As of 2007, a total of 158 nations have agreed to [ban landmines]. Thirty-seven countries have not agreed to the ban, including China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
We deserve a swift kick to the nuts!


Actually, the particular mines this guy is defusing would NOT be us(the western world). The video description is clear that the Khmer Rouge(communists) were the ones that laid the fields he is clearing. The swift kick in the nuts is still shared with us for being the ones that carpet bombed Cambodia into the stone ages 'just in case', paving the way for the Khmer Rouge to commence their own even worse genocide of the country.

I know it may seem anal but the details of how these atrocities went down are important to remember and have straight.

And the biggest reason for opposing the landmine ban is situations like Korea were tonnes of explosives hidden in land mines along the border play a big role in PREVENTING violence.

And yes, this guy rocks.

^Psychologic:


Morality is usually a couple steps behind technology though, as the ages pass, the likely hood of complete annihilation increases exponentially along side it. Not that I am promoting living in the stone age, merely pointing out that our progress walk hand in hand with our doom.

( ya, and that hand is fracken swchweet!)

If you are eating high carb snacks that might be helping you cope with not getting enough sleep (6.5 hours is pretty light in my book) but can also contribute to depression. We will have more definitive answers in 20 years when the science gets out of the stone age. Until then, maybe hang a crystal in your window or something?

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
The Middle East has nearly 60% of the planet's oil reserves. If none of them have privatized their oil, wouldn't that make the privatized oil companies the underdogs?
Oh, nevermind, that just detracts from the simple answers people seem to want.
Iraq has oil. America is a corporation run by oil companies. America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil. Thank goodness it's that simple and no more thinking or complexity needs to be considered. baa, baa, baa.
No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts. And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.
And now we're only telling Iraq to either sign very long term leases with private oil companies who expect over ten times the going rate for extracting that oil, or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country after we bombed it back to the stone ages.
Oil companies the underdogs? Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.



Whats ironic is that you and others who make comments like this seem not to have cared a whit about what was happening to Iraqis and Kurds whilst under Saddam. Aside from the issue of "stealing" oil or whatever the case may be I challenge anyone to say that Iraqis and Kurds lived great lives under Saddam. Americans went in there stirred the Hornets nest and now are trying to make lemonade out of lemons. If it works (still a long road) then it will be one of the greatest things ever but if it doesnt (with the help of people who are blinded by their indignance) then it will be a disaster. Point is....no saddam is good stuff. But perhaps people like you are removed and immersed enough in your pacifist dreamland to not have cared about the wives, sisters and daughters who were regularly stolen and raped while their siginficant others were fed feet first into wood-chipers by Saddams sons. I suppose the gasing of thousands of Kurds was awesome too so long as we weren't "stealing" oil. As long as its not close to home right? Maybe Neville Chamberlain was right in how he handled Hitler and to follow that example we should have just let Saddam take Kuwait as well.

Well I guess Americans could have just sanctioned Saddam into compliance. Seems to work great so long as the UN gets involved right? Maybe he would have slowed down with the mass graves, the torturing of families and other potential non-compliants and the utilization of what was the 3rd largest army in the world. I agree with your thought-process....as long as the slaughtering of thousands is kept in house and perpetrated by the local tyrant then we should never...under any circumstances....interfere. The loss of lives is never acceptable especially when made in the name of other less fortunate people. And asking for any sort of compesation in return, in whatever form, is always a big no-no as well.

>> ^bcglorf:

The Middle East has nearly 60% of the planet's oil reserves. If none of them have privatized their oil, wouldn't that make the privatized oil companies the underdogs?
Oh, nevermind, that just detracts from the simple answers people seem to want.

Iraq has oil. America is a corporation run by oil companies. America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil. Thank goodness it's that simple and no more thinking or complexity needs to be considered. baa, baa, baa.


No, we did it to save the 6.5 million Kurds out of the kindness of our hearts. And we only had to kill a million Iraqi's and turn another three million into refugees to do it.

And now we're only telling Iraq to either sign very long term leases with private oil companies who expect over ten times the going rate for extracting that oil, or we won't give them the $120 billion dollars we promised them to help rebuild their country after we bombed it back to the stone ages.

Oil companies the underdogs? Keep clutching at straws you racist war monger.

hi, sorry about the tone of the previous comment , it just get's very very frustrating living in a place like this and being confronted with this thing while the majority of people keep quiet because you're not allowed to say anything about traditionalist culture ... seriously , we're heading into the stone age here and the majority accepts and almost worships it. ... -frustrated in south africa.

That's going to be so embarrassing in a couple of decades to see our current tech look so stone age.

the study of Animal emotions help autism (to study emotions u need to have them..)

http://researchnews.wsu.edu/health/141.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4595810.ece

makes some good points....if people chose to believe animals have no emotion then its ok to slaughter and torture them. Points out how we used to assume babies didn't feel pain...weren't we. Also points out how many scientists now DO believe animals have emotions....so let see your counter studies? "Many people will reject this as sentimental nonsense, but scientific evidence is increasingly providing support for such ideas."

http://petcare.suite101.com/article.cfm/study_says_dogs_detect_emotions_on_human_faces

speaks of a study that revealed that dogs can read and react to human emotion. so tell me, how does on know emotion if one does not feel it? Can you know what the color yellow looks like if you have not seen it? Do you know what pain is if you've never felt it?

another study... "Researchers working in neurobiology and behavioral observation seem to be learning what pet lovers have known all along: animals have feelings.

New evidence gathered from actually studying dogs, chimps and other animals, supports pet owners’ firm convictions that animals experience fear, jealousy, grief and love.

"Five years ago my colleagues would have thought I was off my rocker," said biologist Marc Bekoff. "But now scientists are finally starting to talk about animal emotions in public. It’s like they’re coming out of the closet." "

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-10-2003-44071.asp


get out of the stone age. its been proven. or get a degree and disprove it. good luck

With the increasing cost of energy, the demand for it will be reduced. Economics 101

World & US power demands will increase. The economies, populations, standards of living, manufacturing, production, and distribution models of every developed nation depend on it. Emerging nations need it even more. Developing nations need more energy to move out of the stone age & thereby eliminate thier political instabilities.

Increasing the cost of something does indeed reduce its consumption. That is a fact that you have correctly identified. What you are not recognizing is the results of that truism when it is applied to energy.

If Obama (or anyone) successfully increases the cost of energy 4X-5X then the result will be reductions in GDP, tax revenues, manufacturing, production, and agriculture. It will create impossible debt obligations with resultant decreases in education, public works, medical care, transportation, standards of living, and (finally) population.

Only a luddite would that. The cap & trade proposals and carbon taxes would not be so much a tightening of the energy belt as they would be a disemboweling of the U.S. way of life. Maybe that's the goal given the neo-lib socialist background, education, upbringing, philosophies, and associations of most environmentalists like Al Gore et al. Though they never include themselves on the list of people that need to 'scale back'.