Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
16. Where in any of what I wrote would you come to the conclusion that ...
Fri Feb 14, 2014, 06:50 PM
Feb 2014

... I would even begin to suggest there's no sub for oil for energy? Please point it out.

That's number one.

Number two, the overarching objection to this pseudo-intellectual crap is that it presumes we can foretell the future.
We can't.
PLUS, the future ALWAYS has turned out to be better than what the Malthusian pessimists think.
To quote Arthur C. Clarke:

Anything that is theoretically possible will be achieved in practice, no matter what the technical difficulties, if it is desired enough. It is no argument against any project to say 'The idea's fantastic!' Most of the things that have happened in the last fifty years have been fantastic, and it is only by assuming they will continue to be so that we have any hope of anticipating the future.


- Hazards of Prophecy, 1962

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Collapse: What’s Happenin...»Reply #16