The sad part is we won’t even be able to burn them for warmth because combustion will have stopped functioning.
I can’t seriously engage you in debate until you’ve watched the following films:
[ul]
[li]Troll 2[/li][li]The Peanut Butter Solution[/li][li]Manos: The Hands of Fate[/li][li]The Barbaric Beast of Boggy Creek, Part II[/li][li]The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?[/li][/ul]
These films are crucial to the core understanding and formulation of my argument, so I implore you to view them as soon as you are willing to have an honest debate here.
ETA: You also need to watch Last Plane Out
If every drop of oil vanishes, the problem won’t be cars but food production.
Most of Tennessee gets its power from hydroelectric dams.
There used to be these things called electric streetcars, for commuting from the suburbs.
Back in the Teens & Twenties.
We could do it again.
No homework done here.
You are welcome to express your particular presumptions regardless of their total baselessness.
Hemp can be cross-pollinated with wheat to create a crop that grows twice as high using only 20% of the water. It could be grown in the Commons of a given bio region using surface water and locally organized fertilizer.
Cite? Doesn’t cross-pollination require something a bit more closely related? This sounds about as likely as cross-breeding cows and chickens.
Quite so. Not forever and imho not with suburbs and street cars. But shoring up the TVA hydro infrastructure for future use would be a good WPA project.
Why should I do your homework for you?
On the contrary, you have provided rock-solid proof that your cite is crap - it’s so worthless and irrelevent that even you refuse to quote from it. You yourself shout how worthless and stupid and wrong it is with every post you refuse to cite it, with every post you refuse to answer the arguments against you. (Your later refual also shouts that your entire position is crap, incidentally. When you refuse to make arguments you truly to make our arguments for us.)
I wonder of people actually think that the oil will just vanish - poof! Gone. One day the barrels are full, the next, they’re empty. All the wells are pumping full-tilt one day, and the next they all dry up all at exactly the same moment. That we are literally caught dry without warning, the way we will be when all combustion stops working and the campfires all go out, forcing us into small agrarian societies.
In reality-land, of course, the oil will run out quite gradually, an event which will inevitably heralded by gradually rising prices. This gradual rise in prices will spur alternatives to the market - and not just new theorietical technologies, but also old obsolete technologies! If it starts coming down to the wire people will build or restore steam engines to bring the food to market and the coal to the plants. And the decrease in oil supply will be amply slow enough for this to happen.
So no - barring some literally magic event, we aren’t going to have the societal rug yanked out from under us. Despite the hopeful dreams of those with guns wishing to be out from under the thumbs of repressive governments, and of those eco-agrarian yoga types who imagine that their neighbors with the bomb shelters and the food stores and the guns will leave them alone.
Enough said. And that goes for you, begbert2.
Did you even watch the videos?
What do you imagine he was actually saying? Because it can’t apply to me, since unlike what he was parodying and what you’re actually doing, I’m not hiding behind some crap cite. You see, I don’t have to - I have arguments, which actually have some bearing to actual reality. Unlike, apparently, you.
It’s a fool’s errand, Algo.
ETA:.
Don’t you already have a thread about this?
And some people watching video of Neil Armstrong’s one small step see it as a footprint in the sand of the Arizona desert. I find their arguments equally convincing.
It’s also a fool’s errand to argue against you, since it’s not like you’ll let mere facts sway you from your position, and it’s not like anybody would be convinced by your non-arguments anyway. But shooting down easy targets is kinda fun, so I’ll entertain myself for a little while by wasting the time doing it, and through that waste playing the fool. Why are you doing it?
It would probably be more reasonable for me to explain what relevance hours of video has to an argument I want you to refute.
(Apropo of nothing - the computer I’m currently on doesn’t have sound. I bet the video would be real informative to watch.)
No sound? It must suck back there in the 19th Century.
Meh, it’s a work box and I’ve got an ipod. My computer at home has sound, but it also has Portal, so my interest in addressing adhay’s non-arguments decreases with every step closer to it I take. Much less watching some long boring video that even he won’t cite from.