$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')
I'm an American consumer, and I don't want more and fancier treatments. I'm willing to take most of the responsibility for my health. I just want someone to be available to suture my thumb when I cut it, and to be able to do so for a fair price. There's no rational reason why it should cost $1000 for an intern to spend 30 minutes cleaning and sewing up my thumb. I'm tired of having to pay for someone else's acromioplasty as part of the bill for my thumb.
PeakOil is You
Doomers gotta DOOM
Re: The Problem With Doomers...
by EnergySpin » Mon 07 Nov 2005, 14:29:11
I'm not really sure why you think that you are paying for someone's else acromioplasty. In that particular example you are (usually) paying for someone else's thrombolysis ( or intervention for MI), or someone else's antibiotics. That someone else = lost his insurance or could not afford insurance and had to use emergency medical services => they could not kick him out (fed law) => hospital picked up the tab => and decided to pass it on to other users of the system.
If you did not want to pay $1000 then you should be lobbying for a tax raise (taxing the really rich) to ensure that someone did pay for the MI treatment that you indirectly payed for . In addition you should demand that drug companies STOP direct consumer advertising AND crush them for paying kickbacks left and right. In addition you should be lobbying for an increase in publicly funded research with public (i.e. open source) dissemination of results , government owned patents which are subsequently leased to any interested party for medication development.
And you should be lobbying (at the state level) for subsidies given to any interested party to develop generics.
IMHO the public gets what the public deserves.
Last edited by EnergySpin on Mon 07 Nov 2005, 14:34:05, edited 1 time in total.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
-
EnergySpin - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Re: The Problem With Doomers...
by FatherOfTwo » Mon 07 Nov 2005, 14:31:06
One of my beefs with the doomers is they don’t recognize that in order for the doom scenario to truly materialize, the entire world would have to instantaneously encounter a rapid, systemic decline in oil extraction due solely to geological forces, and that the world would react to this realization in a non-constructive manor. Both of those must happen for the doom scenario to take hold.
The end of cheap oil isn’t sufficient in and of itself to cause the doom scenario.
Why is that? Because there are other ways to power this society (or some derivative there of), but we need time to transition to these other sources. The less time we have, the less successful we’ll be and the harder it’ll be to avoid resource wars.
So, are we going to encounter a rapid decline in oil extraction? Well, all anybody can do is speculate about the future and look at the past. Many doomers refuse to acknowledge the fact that oil production continues to increase. So, as of now, there are no signs of a rapid decline. Some, such as Lynch, rightly point that history is on their side and they are adamant that there is a ladder of more costly oil that we will continue to climb. I think it’s obvious that there is a ladder that we can climb, I wonder how tall it is and worry if we’ll see the last rung before it’s too late.
A successful transition away from oil will require several things go right: that oil remains plentiful enough and the price of that oil, on average, increases steadily and consistently. This will further ignite the investment in alternate energy and the construction of the corresponding infrastructure.
Aside from the doom scenario, the end of cheap oil is going to be world changing event, it’s too tied into everything for it not to be. I hope the problems that peak oil throw at us will wake us up to the fact that we shouldn’t be continuing on the same path - our current plan of infinite growth on a finite planet is ultimately a recipe for disaster.
PS
One other note which I’m sure will ruffle some feathers: the doomer attitude is particularly destructive. The typical doomer has already abandoned all hope, sees nothing but the negatives and is ready to bolt to the hills, gun in hand, to fight off marauding gangs of thieves. That’s the wrong way to approach the problem – in fact what you are doing is saying “bring on the resource war, I’m ready for it.”
edited to fix spellings etc.
The end of cheap oil isn’t sufficient in and of itself to cause the doom scenario.
Why is that? Because there are other ways to power this society (or some derivative there of), but we need time to transition to these other sources. The less time we have, the less successful we’ll be and the harder it’ll be to avoid resource wars.
So, are we going to encounter a rapid decline in oil extraction? Well, all anybody can do is speculate about the future and look at the past. Many doomers refuse to acknowledge the fact that oil production continues to increase. So, as of now, there are no signs of a rapid decline. Some, such as Lynch, rightly point that history is on their side and they are adamant that there is a ladder of more costly oil that we will continue to climb. I think it’s obvious that there is a ladder that we can climb, I wonder how tall it is and worry if we’ll see the last rung before it’s too late.
A successful transition away from oil will require several things go right: that oil remains plentiful enough and the price of that oil, on average, increases steadily and consistently. This will further ignite the investment in alternate energy and the construction of the corresponding infrastructure.
Aside from the doom scenario, the end of cheap oil is going to be world changing event, it’s too tied into everything for it not to be. I hope the problems that peak oil throw at us will wake us up to the fact that we shouldn’t be continuing on the same path - our current plan of infinite growth on a finite planet is ultimately a recipe for disaster.
PS
One other note which I’m sure will ruffle some feathers: the doomer attitude is particularly destructive. The typical doomer has already abandoned all hope, sees nothing but the negatives and is ready to bolt to the hills, gun in hand, to fight off marauding gangs of thieves. That’s the wrong way to approach the problem – in fact what you are doing is saying “bring on the resource war, I’m ready for it.”
edited to fix spellings etc.
-
FatherOfTwo - Tar Sands
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Re: The Problem With Doomers...
by DefiledEngine » Mon 07 Nov 2005, 16:38:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')One of my beefs with the doomers is they don’t recognize that in order for the doom scenario to truly materialize, the entire world would have to instantaneously encounter a rapid, systemic decline in oil extraction due solely to geological forces, and that the world would react to this realization in a non-constructive manor. Both of those must happen for the doom scenario to take hold.
')One of my beefs with the doomers is they don’t recognize that in order for the doom scenario to truly materialize, the entire world would have to instantaneously encounter a rapid, systemic decline in oil extraction due solely to geological forces, and that the world would react to this realization in a non-constructive manor. Both of those must happen for the doom scenario to take hold.
Simplify much? As both doomers and cornucopians point out, world systems are complex, and it's difficult to pinpoint exact critical scenarios, much less what they would lead to. The above is about as acurate as me saying optimists must understand that for their smooth transition to unfold, the world must face an non-bumpy, smooth, barely noticable down-slope, and not feel any pinch from other depleting resources, while people will understand that the economic growth must be kept going, and gather in good spirits and give to each other in the spirit of consumption.
Why do people automatically equate doomers to "I'm-here-to-kick-ass-and-grow-crops-and-I'm-all-out-of-seeds" movie image? To me, the old school doomers (e.g. Hanson), seem to advocate an iron-fist socialistic goverment, keeping controls throughout society.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The end of cheap oil isn’t sufficient in and of itself to cause the doom scenario.
Why is that? Because there are other ways to power this society (or some derivative there of), but we need time to transition to these other sources. The less time we have, the less successful we’ll be and the harder it’ll be to avoid resource wars.
Proof this works other than in theory? You seem to already know this for a fact.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Some, such as Lynch
As far as I have seen, that is the same people that advocate against starting preperations/research into oil depletion as soon as possible.
-
DefiledEngine - Lignite
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
