That’s what we are doing now. At this rate – with SUVs, long commutes, and plentiful air travel – we’ll have completed the project of using up the affordable oil by 2050 or so. If we implement energy saving measures, we might be able to stretch that out to 2075 or so.
I was just clarifying what you were confused we were talking about previously.
True. God, being omnipotent, has no limits.
Who was talking about demographic suppression previously?
Michael David, fighting the fire was an absolute priority in that instance, I was first on the scene with water, my neighbor being second. Between the two of us we had the flames largely knocked down, but when the fire department arrived they ordered us back when they saw more flammable cannisters on the floor. (The fire was caused by some bright fellow arc welding in the garage, right next to propane cannisters.)
Most of the bigger towns (up here) have city buses for bringing people in, or to major areas in town. Also, the cities has a rail line with plans for expansion to various sub-communities. The ole Greyhound still goes between cities and states, as the ole train does on certain routes, as does flying. Perhaps if more would use these, where available, we could push that running out of petro out till 2100? Of course, living closer to where you do things is better yet.
Reread posts 201-207 or thereabouts.
I have yet to participate in an irretrievably sad Catholic funeral. that does not compute.
Yes. And?Reread posts 201-207 or thereabouts.
It did compute for me… once.
Methinks someone is being deliberately obtuse.
Michael David, thank you for your beautiful and eloquent post. I know that only someone who has gone through what you have can even begin to comprehend it. My prayers for you both, and for your son.
Please explain what you mean – don’t just refer people to a series of previous posts and expect divine illumination to take over! As I tell my Master’s students at the beginning of every graduate seminar, mature discussion involves not forcing discussion partners to play guessing games but clarifying your post when it seems not to be understood, even if you believe your meaning should be apparent to everyone else.Reread posts 201-207 or thereabouts.
You asked who is talking about killing people. I asked what you thought the phrase, “demographic suppression” meant. You have been hesitant to give an opinion ever since.
No, I haven’t been hesitant. I’ve just been trying to discover why the term “demographic suppression” was suddenly inserted into the conversation about the approaching end of affordable petroleum.You asked who is talking about killing people. I asked what you thought the phrase, “demographic suppression” meant. You have been hesitant to give an opinion ever since.
Sigh. Well, I feel like you just don’t want to consider what it is you are really supporting.
I’m not sure what in your imagination you suspect I’m supporting, but your fantasy of “demographic suppression” is not part of it
Michael David, it is a mathematical certainty that Earth cannot support an infinite population of squirrels, elephants, humans, salmon, fungi, condors, oak trees, or any other species. At some point all species reach ZPG --zero population growth – although most bounce around in some zone of equilibrium, rising and falling as food supply varies from year to year. Humans too will reach equilibrium, I hope with as little suffering as possible.
Sure it is - you support the reduction of family size, for one. How do you suppose that happens, especially using organizations like the UN?