The Reason Why We Still Rely On Fossil Fuels

reply to post by michael1983l

I think it is grotesque to see how much we spend on war when compared to our sciences and out of the 5 nations I choose only France makes a reasonable show of themselves. War brings death but Science brings prosperity and technology. I wish that we could aqs a race invest much more in Science than we do, we have so much more to discover.

I hear you, brother, but wait just a moment and the Neo-Luddites will swarm this thread, noisily denouncing science as the cause of all the world's troubles.

reply to post by michael1983l


But these are your own words;

the figures alone, prove that we are a war mongering race and that we do not really care about advancing ourselves over agression.

So even if we develop more science over defense it will not change our nature. We, as you pointed out, are simply an aggressive race.

The only thing that makes us non-aggressive is the threat of someone being stronger than us.

I believe I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

reply to post by michael1983l


Sure I get all that man, but the reason we still use fossil fuels inst as simple as saying we just happen to spend to much on our military budgets and because of that starve scientific research denying us an alternative.

Its as vague as saying we still use fossil fuels because we are not 2 million years in the future and have not yet evolved into beings of pure energy, sure that might be the case, but, you know, context is everything and all that.

reply to post by michael1983l


another loony that thinks cutting defense budgets will save the world. How about make people responsible for tax evasion? How about making your government stop the spending on pork? How about stopping the entitlement programs from expanding at the speed of light? How about making the economy grow by deregulating business?

No, there is only one path for lunatics and liberals, cut the spending on defense. you squander national security and world stability for your fantasy utopia.

great choice.

reply to post by Tuttle


I am not saying it is because we spend too much on War, the military spending figures is to show just how little we spend on Science, when you compare it to that of something we do not really need, war. I wish we could spend just as much on science than we do war, if not more. I think that developments in Science would make the need to be agressive less and would eventually mean we can cut back our spending on Military. In my opinion.

Originally posted by Eavel
reply to post by michael1983l

 

another loony that thinks cutting defense budgets will save the world. How about make people responsible for tax evasion? How about making your government stop the spending on pork? How about stopping the entitlement programs from expanding at the speed of light? How about making the economy grow by deregulating business?

No, there is only one path for lunatics and liberals, cut the spending on defense. you squander national security and world stability for your fantasy utopia.

great choice.

Another looney that cannot read a thread.

I have not once said that we should cut spending on Military. That will happen organically when we advance as a race.

reply to post by michael1983l


Yeah pretty much man, if science and medicine were to be anything like our military budgets we would essentialy be living in a technological golden age right now, chances are money would not exist and it would indeed be a Utopian society.

Sadly as a people were just not as evolved as that yet, far too territorial and bound by this never ending dedication to evolve through competition, probably take maybe a good few hundred thousand years of society collapsing and restarting before we finaly figure it out, not in this cycle anyway.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Abiotic oil (theoretically) is the formation of oil naturally through processes deep in the Earth's crust and has been gaining a lot of attention lately, especially given the facts above. (Source)

Even if one accepts Gold's "Deep, Hot Biosphere" Model (and it is one of the "fringe" theories I am extremely sympathetic towards) it does not invalidate the Hubbert curve. If hydrocarbons are being produced by, say, subterranean micro-organisms, they are presumably being produced at a fixed rate. This raises the possibility that extractive industries are removing these hydrocarbons faster than they can be replaced. The analogy would be with pumping water out of the water table. If you remove it at a rate slower than the replenishment rate, the groundwater will last forever. If you exceed that rate, the wells go dry. China is having this very problem now.

Excellent point, and you are absolutely correct.

However, it would be better to understand and solve THAT problem than to keep people believing that once we use up the oil that is there, that there won't be anything left, therefore making it an unsolvable problem other than reducing our usage or paying more for it in the interim. It is nothing more than a way to create fear so that when you see gas go up fifty cents a gallon in a week, they will have us believe it's because there is a shortage and divert the attention away from the real problem.

While a shortage or us running out COULD be true, I could much more easily believe that we are being lied to by those who seek profit to continue their reign. If I put my diabolical hat on, that's what I would do.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


But regardless of wether we are being lied to about Peak Oil or not, do you not think it would be advantagious to diversify our energy supply anyway? Energy should be free, but at the moment we pay a high cost for it, morally, financially and depending on your scientific beliefs, enviromentally too.

reply to post by michael1983l


Does your analysis take into account science and research by the private sector,of these nations i.e
black budget programs.

reply to post by brick38


No it only takes into account, official government spending on the Sciences. Sciences are for all, private companies should not have the option to lock away a patent, if it is not financially viable to market, regardless of how much of a posative effect it would have on society.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

But regardless of wether we are being lied to about Peak Oil or not, do you not think it would be advantagious to diversify our energy supply anyway? Energy should be free, but at the moment we pay a high cost for it, morally, financially and depending on your scientific beliefs, enviromentally too.

Absolutely, I do.

We spend WAY too much money on the wrong things. While I understand the importance of protecting our country, the amount of money we spend on it is absurd. A huge majority of the cost for the military is on FUEL, so if we found a better way create energy, that cost would drop significantly.

What we pay for food is not the cost of growing the food, it is the cost of petro derived fertilizers, gas for tractors, electricity for machinery and gas to ship it to your nearest grocery store. If you removed all of that from the equation (or lowered the cost for energy), we would all be paying pennies for food and could feed the entire planet, but that would reduce profit for those who use their money as a way to control things.

I believe that there is technology available that can remove oil from the energy equation, but it has dire consequences for the cartels, especially the US since oil is traded in dollars and nothing else. If a new source of energy were released to the public, there would be no use for the dollar anymore and those who use it as a form of control would lose their grip over us... and they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. Hydrogen is the most abundant source of energy in the universe, and we have companies like Blacklight Power who are finding innovative ways to convert it for regular use.

I see (and hope) the evolution in energy happening in a garage somewhere by a group of kids or young adults who will post their findings and information somewhere like Youtube, sparking a complete world-wide revolution overnight. That is the only way the giants in control will fall, otherwise, they will just be snuffed out like the rest.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Very well presented and very valid points. I think that maybe we can agree that it is our race being held back scientifically by those clinging onto power. It saddens me to just sit here and accept that this is the case.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well humans are what nature intended us to be.

Our nature will not change simply because we spend more on science as compared to war. We will just find more scientific ways to kill each other.

No this is how TPTB want you to think. Are you a killer or have you ever killed anyone? Do you know anyone personally that is a killer or has killed someone?

It is not our nature, it is the nature of Governments, not humans. Sure Governments are run by humans but greed gets in the way and greed drives those that will do anything for greed to go to the top.

We are not killers.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Like proving once and for all about religion, making resources go further ect ect.

So to prove we have no soul is that what you elude to about religion? What a dead feeling that is...doesnt seem to fit. It does fit if you want a race of robots. What is the use of this existence if not the journey of the soul? We may as well end the suffering now because no matter what one day we will cease to exist, the universe will cycle and collapse and everything we have done and will do physically will be gone as if it never existed.

Whats the use in that? Might as will just go out now...no matter what science does we will always suffer in one form or another.

You are not a bio-robot, do not let them make you think that.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by Tuttle
So why do we rely on Fossil Fuels?

Because of over inflated defence budgets?

No because our nations lack the foresight to actually invest into the Science and potentially end the need for fossil fuels.

It's funny you ask because we just have THIS debate over in the "solar thread".

Someone was very, very hyped and happy that "we still have coal for the next 200 years".

And this is exactly why this country will be going down the gutter I mean, the above statement speaks for itself.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


Science could prove religion as fact, I have not indicated which way I think science would go because I lack the knowledge and understanding to make an informed opinion on this subject.

I just have that picture in mind of someone filling up their car, paying $3.90 for a gallon, while at the same time saying that alternative energy is not really our concern since we still have plenty of natural resources. Seriously, it's hilarious

reply to post by michael1983l


Are you forgetting about the Atom Bomb?? Which budget gave is that little slice if death hmmmmm???


MmmKay....

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


The science that lead to the atom bomb will be a major part of the science that will lead to cold fusion and fission technologies. The Scientists didn't use their technology for death, the Government did.