What the world thinks of America

Great Debates
41

Are we to take it from this that you do not believe that Monsanto’s reactions today do not stem from the reactions to their original policies? If his is the case I’m sure I can provide evidence to the contrary.

Sigh.

The whole point of the terminator gene is that it produces infertile seed. The seed is perfectly nutritious, looks and tastes identical and ll that, it just wont sprout.

Yes, it could be passed to someone else’s crop. The absolute worst case scenario would be 2% of the seed being contaminated in this way. This is not enough to cause a crop to die out. In fact this is hardly enough to distinguish between normal germination rates.

This is real storm-in-a-teacup stuff.

Right, so Monsanto made more money than its rival. How does this support your assertion of control? There is a huge leap from success to control, and so far you have failed to provide anything to support your claims of control.

What would make you think that? I am implying what I am stating clearly and nothing more: How do you figure that American’s killing each other influence’s the world’s opinion of US foreign policy? Whether the figures are true of false is irrelevant. As far as I can see the whole topic is a red herring that serves only to detract from the discussion

Given the stick that Moore has copped for misquoting, selective editing and outright lying in that ‘documentary’ I don’t think that it would be called a reliable reference on these boards.

Then I ask : How do you figure that something if fundamentally wrong in the US influence’s the world’s opinion of US foreign policy?

This just seems like a total red herring. It doesn’t seem to add anything to the discussion at hand whatsoever.

42

But not with “US material goods”? What then is this “US level” you speak of? Well, you can’t have a house, or a car, or nice clothes, or a varied diet…but trust us, you’re livin the good life.

And, omfg, you’re defending Monsanto?!?!? I would love to hear your opinion on Nestle giving away free formula samples to infants in third world countries. (don’t see the relevance? I’ll explain if you like)

43

That poll was actually done by the BBC. The website on the program with poll results, plus a lot of relevant articles is here .

Personally, i think a great deal of anti US sentiment is down to Bush, and the policies he has pursued. Of the 11 countries, only the US and Israel, (and Canada by 1%) had a favourable opinion of Bush.

The new Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike makes the US look like a war monger. Note that more South Koreans think the US is more dangerous than North Korea, than vice versa (48% to 39%) This is astonishing. Taking averages of all people surveyed a majority thought the US was more dangerous than China, Russia, France, Iran and Syria. Only Al Qaeda was thought to be more dangerous than the US by a majority of people.

Please note i am not saying the US is a war monger. I just think this is how it appears to a lot of people around the world.

44

What makes you believe that?

Oh I do indeed. It’s a textbook ad hominem.

“A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person’s particular circumstances. For example:
“Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won’t argue otherwise, given that you’re quite happy to wear leather shoes.”

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem

What other esponse is there but :rolleyes:

45

Well, you said it…

Man, you’re like the boy who cried wolf. Never have I seen a more liberal flinging of ad hominem accusations. (and straw man, and red herring). BTW, expressing shock that someone would actually defend Monsanto using a “damned if they do” type approach is not ad hominem. It was, quite simply, shock.

The point about Nestle is extremely relevant to both arguments (what the world thinks of America, and the implications of us companies actions abroad). If you defend Nestle’s actions, then just say so, if not, then that’s fine as well, we can agree on a point for the first time and move on.

46

The US does not have enough oil to last 400 years on its own. In fact, although we have only 2% of the oil reserves, we consume 25% of the annual usage.

Oil is finite and I have no source, but I doubt, considerably 400 years for america alone. I would estimate we have about a few years worth without imports. For the whole world, we will be lucky to have 100 years (that is a very gracious estimate) at the current consumption levels.

www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

You talk about this import/export situation and gloss over the whole notion of neo-colonialism, that is ok. But, arguing on your turf, how can you justify the immense trade defecit. It was 42 billion 1/3 of our way into the year.

www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw266.shtml

Nevertheless, we have MORE than these countries. We practice Neo-colonialism. Even if we stop the argument about zero-sum game and carrying capacity, you cannot deny sweat-shops, cheap field workers, etc… These are all the people that allow Americans to live a rich life.

Why do we find it so appalling that people who have less get bitter, especially when they are oppressed? In America, people shoot each other for tennis shoes and a couple extra dollars. Why does it surprise anyone that someone who make 10 cents an hour at a factory making Nike shoes might hate us? Or, someone who knows nothing about America, has a crappy life and is sold on the notion that we are the great Satan.

This is all about the perceptions of other countries. My family lives better than every king before the 1900’s (minus the servants). Our food, facilities, comforts etc…, are superior than everyone else in the world. This leads to tremendous resentment. Add that to the other realities of global capitalism and it is impossible not to see why people may hate America.

Please read Kaplan and other works about neo-colonialism and make your own decision about why the third world people hate us.

47

Tastycorn you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding fairly simple sentences written in English. To make it worse you then construct arguments based on this misunderstanding. Now either you have trouble with English, or you are deliberately attempting to construct strawmen. Either way it is annoying.

Look at these two sentences:

If you genuinely do not see that these sentences refer to completely different scenarios, then admit to it and I will explain what you are missing. If necessary I will explain what terms like ‘propelled’ and ‘adopt’ and ‘new technologies’ mean.

But please cease constructing arguments based on your inability to comprehend.

48

I’m sorry I’m having difficulty understanding your seemingly contradictory statements.

Go ahead and explain the difference between “allowed them to live” and “propelled to”. Either way, you are raising the standard of living, right? And in both scenarios, you are talking about raising it to “US Levels” or “live with US material goods”?

I’ll admit, the part about “New Technologies” and “time to adopt” sounds completely meaningless to me. Why? Because it’s utter gibberish.

Now please, explain your position, and answer the original question. How exactly do you define “US levels”? How does that definition differ from “ US Material Goods”?

49

Cite!

That seems to contradict all the references I’ve ever seen.

I’ll refer you to this presentation as a good overview of world resources.

http://geology.ou.edu/library/aapg_oil.pdf

“Smith (1981) estimated that the Green RiverFormation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming contains 1,500 billion barrels of oil, equivalent to 250 years of 1998 US consumption. Duncan and Swanson (1965) estimated that if all oil shale in the US is considered, the size of the potential resource is 160,000 billion barrels, or 26,667 years of US consumption. ….

As production of unconventional oil resources in the form of tar sands has already begun, it becomes
increasingly difficult to define the size of the world’s oil and gas resource base. Unconventional oil resources such as tar sands and oil shales are sufficient in size to supply the world’s petroleum needs for about 100 to 1000 years….

Over the last 50 years estimates of the size of the world’s conventional crude oil resources have increased faster than cumulative production. The estimated size of the ultimate resource base will continue to increase in the future as unconventional fossil fuels come on line”

I said at least 400 years because that seems to be about the lowest reliable figure I’ve ever seen for US oil resources at current technological and economic availability and consumption rates. As you can see the actual resources are far larger.

Be careful not to confuse reserves, proven reserves and resources. It’s a mistake I made myself in the past, and they are very different things. That aside, if the US does only have 2% of reserves, and uses 25% of annual production, what does that really ell us about sustainability? What percentage of the total global reserves is actually represented by that 25% annual consumption? It isn’t 25% of reserves, it’s 25% of production so the two figures are only very tangentially related.

I don’t try to justify it. That isn’t my intention and I don’t have much interest in arguing economic policy. I am pointing out hat there is no legitimate reason for suggesting that the deficit situation is created through some physical restriction that cannot be overcome without reducing US living standards. I am pointing out that there is no justification for claiming that the US consumes resources at 8 times the sustainable carrying capacity usage.

Why would I want to deny them?

There are both positive and negative aspects to US industrial practices in the international arena. I doubt anyone would deny that. Some sweat shop conditions are abhorrent. Many are no worse than what is legally found within the US, or England or France. Many are better. There are also many other inductries in developing nations that are not ‘sweatshops’. These industries are providing employment, resources, training, education and generally improving the standards of living of these nations.

I don’t think that we do by and large. We only have your assertion that this is the case.

I must admit I haven’t read Kaplan. I have read Gann and Mohan in dribs and drabs. Mohan especially bores me to tears. There are a lot of valid arguments in there. My biggest criticism is that they overlook entirely the positive aspects of western influence, particularly the economic benefits.

They won’t get much argument from me that the west has exploited and manipulated a sizable portion of the world’s population. Where they lose me is when they start tying that exploitation to physical limitations and arguing that it is caused by physical rather than policy constraints.

50

OK Tastycorn.

You are utilising a strawman again. This is clearly not my position. As I said, this gets annoying. Mostly because I can’t determine whether you are simply incapable of comprehension and doing it accidentally.

The difference is not between “allowed them to live” and “propelled to”. The difference is between the whole world’s population as it is now being allowed them to live with US material goods and the world being propelled, allowing time to adopt new technologiesto a level where they have access to US material goods.

Can you comprehend that this is my position? You don’t need to take the big step of actually understanding it yet. I just want you to acknowledge that this is my stated position and not the strawman you presented above.

Until you do this we really can’t proceed.

Well that’s hardly a compelling argument: It’s meaningless because it’s gibberish. It’s an argument form assertion and completely logically invalid.

I suggest that you ask Lissa, I am following her usage of the term. “It is not possible for everyone in the world to live like we do.”

51

No, I don’t comprehend your position. You keep repeating the same meaningless statements without backing them up with any sort of logical explanation, even after repeated requests. There is nowhere near enough detail needed to form anything close to a “position”. The terms you use are far too imprecise without more definition, which is exactly what I am asking for.

You have yet to explain your use of the term “US Levels” or “US Material Goods”. I would also like you to explain, in detail, exactly what technologies people are adapting to, how it makes it “easier” (using less resources, cheaper, what?)

It seems to me that you are using delay tactics because you don’t have a logical argument to back up your “position”, but prove me wrong. Please.

52

There is no point in clarifying anything else until you acknowledge the strawman you created.

You posted:

The difference is not between “allowed them to live” and “propelled to”. The difference is between the whole world’s population as it is now being allowed them to live with US material goods and the world being propelled, allowing time to adopt new technologiesto a level where they have access to US material goods.

Can you comprehend that this is my position? You don’t need to take the big step of actually understanding it yet. I just want you to acknowledge that this is my stated position and not the strawman you presented above.

Until you do this we really can’t proceed.

Let me know if you can not acknowledge this as my stated position because you can’t find where I made those statements, or if it is because there are some words there that are giving you trouble. Those are the only possible reasons for not acknowledging this as my stated position.

If you choose not to acknowledge, I’m certainly not going to chase you.

53

Yet again, you just repeat the same thing over and over? I don’t know what you are trying to gain by forcing me to “acknowledge” your position before you explain it?

I’m not trying to twist your words.

YOUR POSITION DOESN’T MAKE SENSE! PLEASE EXPLAIN IT!

54

Or, to put it another way, your position is contradictory, which is what I was trying to point out. Please explain it in enough detail to remove the contradiction.

55

Enough.

Tastycorn has been asked twice to simply acknowledge what I posted. he has refused to do so. Given this state of affairs I will ignore him on this subject from this point on. There is no value in doing otherwise.

56

Actually, oil will never run out, there will always be something left. However, the key is when oil production starts to decline - peak - and neither the world or the US have 100 years. Almost every recent estimate is predicting that global oil production will peak in 10-20 years, barring new technology or new findings - of which none are very likely within this timespan.

Blake your quote about “1,500 billion barrels of oil” in the 3 states alone are dead wrong. Available recoverable oil in the whole world is around 2,000 billion barrels, of which 850 billion barrels had been used before the year 2000. In addition to the strategic oil reserves, the only “major” reserves the US has is 3-4 billion barrels in Alaska, which wouldn’t even cover US consumption for a year.

Granted, peaking is not “empty”, but have in mind that the oil with the highest quality which is cheapest to extract, is manufactured first. Also, it’s easier to find larger oil fields than smaller ones, - no large oil fields have been found for many years now.

One of best resources I’ve found about this:
http://www.wri.org/climate/jm_oil_000.html

"Taken together, the great majority of these studies reflect a consensus among oil experts that EUR oil reserves lie within the range of 1,800 to 2,200 billion barrels. As of the end of 1999, the world had consumed about 857 billion barrels of these ultimately recoverable reserves.

Given these estimates of recoverable oil, and plausible assumptions of moderate growth in demand (about 2 percent per year), we can use a simple model to calculate when world oil production might begin to decline, driven by resource constraints.

  • at the low end, for EUR oil equal to 1,800 billion barrels, peaking could occur as early as 2007;
  • at the high end (2,200 billion barrels), peaking could occur around 2013. (An implausibly high 2,600 billion barrels for EUR oil would postpone peaking only another six years – to 2019.) "
57

Alien you are making the common mistake of confusing reserves, proven reserves and resources. The page you quote refers only to EUR oil reserves, not resources. If you read the reference I linked to you will be able to see the difference.

As for “Blake your quote about “1,500 billion barrels of oil” in the 3 states alone are dead wrong”, I m calling you out. Prove that i is wrong. Dispute it with something, don’t just say that it is wrong. That is a very reputable piece of literature and there is no reason to believe it is wrong.

It’s not even as though using these other resources would result in an increase in gas prices. At the moment prices are modulated via OPEC and are artificially high, as your own reference states. As reserves diminish these alternative sources wil simply take up the slack.

As that page you linked to says, the model they use is based on reserves, not resources, and calculates a decline, driven by resource constraints, not by resource supply.

Interestingly the page doesn’t seem to address alternative oil supplies such as tar sands and oil shales, which are by far the biggest resources.

58

Just to clarify your error Alien, the same organisation you cited says that those figures fail to take into account tar sands and oil shale:

“Oil production will continue, though at a declining rate, for many decades after its peak, and there are enormous amounts of coal, tar sands, heavy oil, and oil shales worldwide that could be used to produce liquid or gaseous substitutes for crude oil, albeit at higher prices”

http://www.wri.org/wri/climate/jm_oil_007.html
Your assertion that my quote about “1,500 billion barrels of oil” in the 3 states alone is dead wrong is simply based on a seriously flawed understanding of what you are reading. The WRI page you mention does not even address oil shales such as the Green River Formation.

Then there is still the fact that their scenario is based only on that portion of ultimately recoverale oil that exist in current reserves, which is only a tiny fraction of the total ultimately recoverable resource.

Whille the scenario is doubtless accurate enough it tells us very little about how much oil exists in the US and how long before world resource are depleted to a degree suficient to incraese prices.

59

We have had trade deficits for as long as I can remember and if they reflected the entire picture then the U.S. would have spent its way to the poor house long ago.
Also, if we are taking such unfair advantage of other countries by importing so many of their products, why do they want to be on the list of “Most favored countries”? Is France happy that some of us have stopped drinking French wine and visiting their country. Why is China building more and more facilities to manufacture items to export to the U.S.? Would the world economy prosper if the U.S. cut its consumption in half?

This statement is untrue. It is an insult to many other countries in the world. Go to Costa del Sol in Spain and tell me you live better than most of those people do. Visit Amsterdam and tell me they aren’t living as well as we are. I unfortunately haven’t been to Australia, but I know they live as well as most of us in the U.S.

What wars twenty years ago? Where are people walking around seeing craters and have never rebuilt the buildings? :confused: I remember wars fought 50/60 years ago. One half of the population of Iran does not remember the taking of the American Embassy in Tehran. Most people in Europe don’t remember Hitler or Stalin.
Is it **
the people of Grenada** that have the visual reminders?

[ul]:rolleyes: [sup]Sounds like “Workers of the world unite” logic.[/sup][/ul]

60

I’m sorry, but you are making the mistake of confusing recoverable resources with available resources. Even though there are many liquids which could be used to create energy, that doesn’t mean it will be economically profitable to extract those resources. You can’t just put tar sands in your car, just as you can’t put ordinary car gas in an aeroplane. And, given its economically profitable at all to recover alternative resources, you’ll still have to replace or modify the entire infrastructure. BTW, I just wrote a post about the problems with hydrogen fuel:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=192687
About the “1,500” billion barrels: I disputed that with my cite & my quote of EUR. Here’s another quote:
"In the case of the coterminous 48 states (the “lower-48” states in oil-industry language), imported oil turned out to be the cheapest and most convenient replacement source when production began its decline in 1970.

  • Ultimately, these curves suggest, recoverable crude oil in the lower-48 will total about 190 billion barrels (bbl).
  • Of this amount, 166 billion (87 percent of the total) had been produced by December 1999. "

These are all very well known data. They vary, but not by much.
About alternative resources, from the cite:
"This analysis does not imply that the world will soon “run out” of oil or hydrocarbon fuels. Oil production will continue, though at a declining rate, for many decades after its peak, and there are enormous amounts of coal, tar sands, heavy oil, and oil shales worldwide that could be used to produce liquid or gaseous substitutes for crude oil, albeit at higher prices.

But the facilities for making such synthetic fuels are costly to build, and environmentally damaging to operate, and their use would substantially increase carbon dioxide emissions (compared to those from consuming products made from conventional crude oil)."
And also consider that estimates of available world oil resources has not changed since 1979, staying at around 2,000 billion barrels (minus what’s already been used) for year after year. No new large oild fields have been found for decades.