by The Practician » Fri 16 Sep 2011, 15:17:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The Practician', ' ')because dependency isn't any less serious a problem than addiction.
Its certainly every bit as serious, but it is different, and any approach to fixing it will be quite different. You can't make oil and gasoline use less desirable to use and hope for success, because their use isn't based upon desire. You have to change the reason for the dependency to have a hope of success, and in this case, that would imply completely changing our transportation infrastructure.
Which can't happen.
Which means not only acknowledging the dependence, but also accepting that it will be with us till we drop.
I Don't disagree. The cornucopian clown who wrote the article this thread is about probably would though. The gist of the article is that yes, the U.S. is dependent on oil, not addicted, and in that respect the author is correct. However, he contrasts the scariness of "addiction" with what he considers to be benign dependence on oil. You and I obviously have very different opinions from him on this issue, and that's why I referred to it as semantics: It doesn't matter if you call it addiction or dependence, because we're screwed either way.