by JPL » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 18:26:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '
')
If I understand your point correctly, you are saying we are responsible for feeding these people because we have exploited them and their resources for so long. I can see your point, but I can't reconcile it with the other things mentioned. Sometimes there simply is no good solution to a problem.
Shanny, we can turn our backs on the rest of the world in two different ways. We can either say, "Hey, we goofed-up, we admit that, it was all about fossil fuels and now the experiment has failed, we're going to turn our backs on you lot." or we can say, "We goofed-up and we have no answers."
There is no difference of nerve between the two positions, only a difference of belief - that is to say, only a fool would choose the first one over the second, needless to say, there are a lot of fools in the world. A wise man might try and choose the second - but that would then give him a certain, shall we say - crisis of confidence?
Which would you choose? To be right, or to be casting around for solutions? Only the best of us would know his or her destiny right now - and they would probably be wrong in whatever case.
With regard to oil supply, and its's affect on our ability to feed the world's people, there is no definite solution, only an infinitely-recessive set of problems, each one with its own solution and it's own, paradoxical way forward. There is no 'way' forward that will suit us all - only a general way for all of mankind, and that has to be, as it always should be, the path of least suffering for the majority.
Beyond that I know not. But I will not say that the attempt to find this path is not worth making.
JP