Re: Energy for everyone


K. Jones wrote:
> "William Mook" <william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1135547427.432225.96950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > K. Jones wrote:
> > > Thank you for the well thought out reply, but it doesn't address the
> issue
> > > that started this discussion, please see below.
> > >
> > > "William Mook" <william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1135412167.667017.223960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > K. Jones wrote:
> > > > > "William Mook" <william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1135194925.475069.185610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, my point would be that;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) People are being killed at far lower RATES than in times past
> for
> > > > > > their religious beliefs, or because of their race. Now the
> NUMBERS
> > > may
> > > > > > be higher because of the vastly larger populations involved - but
> the
> > > > > > rates are in clear decline.
> > > > >
> > > > > May be so. However there are still countless numbers that have
> been,
> > > and
> > > > > continue to be slaughtered over race and religion and "abundant
> energy"
> > > has
> > > > > nothing to do with it.
> > > >
> > > > Abundat energy does nothing to cause it certainly - abundant low cost
> > > > energy is the basis of a wealthy industrial economy - and that
> > > > translates ultimately to higher material standards of living - and
> > > > higher material standards translate to less violence.
> > >
> > > Hang on. The issue I had, was with your comment that your invention
> would
> > > "End warfare as we know it".
> >
> > No, rising standards of living, fueled by abundant low cost energy
> > provided by innovations in alternative energy technology combined with
> > a growing global economy will end warfare as we know it.
>
> Hasn't yet.

Yes it has! Sheez matease...

Look,the industrial world had two global wars before 1950 and zero
global wars after 1950. Care to hazard a guess why? Duh!

>
> > >
> > > My point is countries and societies *with* abundant energy sources still
> > > wage war.
> >
> > Those that have abundant energy sources AND the ability to create
> > abundance with them generally do not - until they deplete those
> > resources.
>
> Oh, bull***.

Hm, that's a reasoned argument. NOT!

> According to you then, it was a lack of "abundant energy
> sources AND the ability to create abundance with them" that led to the USA
> sitting around the campfire and singing "cumby-f***ing ya" in Iraq,

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/big-oil-pushes-the-white-house
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html

That's right. America's need for oil, and Iraq's abundant oil reserves
led America to invade Iraq despite the lack of credible evidence of
WMDs and any link to Al Queda. Korea's dictator admits to building and
having possession of nuclear weapons - (aka WMD) - and we didn't do
anything. The VP and the President himself, have said that its the oil
that makes the difference. The anti-American forces in Iraq are doing
everything they can to disrupt the production of oil. So, it was
thelack of abundant energy sources in the US and our ability to create
abundance with them that led the USA to invade Iraq. (IN PART)


> Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Haiti, Somolia, Panama,

Not really.

> Libya,

Did you read the reports on controlling acces to the markets of these
oil rich kingdoms? With the end of cheap oil in the 1970s, the US
engaged in a program of denial of reserves. Putting reserves in
storage so to speak by removing large tracts from the market - leading
to price rises - but sustainable price rises - and keeping prices
relatively stable over the period our supplies are diminishing. I
mean, as its clear that Saudi Arabia cannot maintain output, you'll see
increasing violence there against the ruling regime, and ultimately,
they'll be removed from the market - and voila' at that same instant,
you'll see sources in Libya, Iraq, Iran and the former Soviet
Republics, come on line - isn't that special?

> Lebanon,
> Greneda, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Dominican, Puerto Rico.....should I go on?

Um, Vietman has huge oil reserves under the Gulf of Tonkin. Didn't you
know that?

> Oh yes, clearly the USA was lacking in energy resources,

Yes, since the 1960s we hae known this.

> and the ability to
> create abundance with them, that caused them to "participate" in those
> "confilicts".

You have been rather catholic in your choice of conflicts and your
rating of them. There are a variety of conflicts - different sizes,
differing importance - and only a few directly related to controlling
the energy supplies of the world, and some indirectly related, and
others not related at all.

Or are you saying something really stupid and obvious, like, the US has
a multi-faceted foreign policy and therefore engages in conflicts for a
wide range of reasons? Clearly this is so, but equally obviously oil
is an important factor in our strategic strength.

> (That was scarcasm, in case you missed it)

Oh really? Well, thanks for the heads up - ***.

> > > "Abundant" energy does not stop wars.
> >
> > Abundance does. Periods of economic abundance are generally peaceful.
> > Periods of economic hardship are generally not.
> >
> > > In fact, the crippling of a foe's energy supplies is an effective
> strategy
> > > to reduce his ability to wage war.
> >
> > Who has done that in the modern world? Providing an adversary with the
> > means to be abundant is a more workable strategy - as shown by the
> > policy of US toward Japan following World War II. Japan and the US are
> > now allies as a result.
>
> Oh bull*** again.

Hmm.. lets see, I ask a direct question, and you answer bull***.
Okay. I guess that means you don't have a simple answer. Duh.

> Go look up the terms "cold war" , "embargo" and
> "sanctions"

The cold war was about isolating the Communists regimes from world
trade until they collapsed from economic forces. They were denied easy
access to the oil and other supplies controlled by the US hegemony.
That's why we supported Europe and Japan - to keep Russia and China out
of the world's oceans, where international trade occurred. And why we
supported a hug US Naval presence - to maintain control over world
trade. Duh.

> > > So, in some cases, the *lack* of "abudant energy" reduces, or ends war.
> >
> > Please give me a concrete example drawn from the modern world?
>
> > > Lots of it (energy) allows him to wage war more fiercely.
> >
> > Please give me an example drawn from the modern world. Clearly by
> > controlling the energy resources of another we would have the ability
> > to constrain another's range of action and avoid warfare altogether
> > while both they and us grow rich together.
>
> Are you serious?

Yes.

> You consider "constraining another's range of action" a means to avoid
> warfare?

Yes.

> LOL!

Hmm... why didn't Johnson use nuclear weapons in Vietnam? Because his
range of actions were constrained by the possibility that either China
or Russia would respond with nuclear forces of their own directly
against the US. Duh!


> Newsflash: "Warfare" involves more than just shooting and bombing people.

Yes it does.

> It would take an extremely arrogant, egocentric, and meglomaniacal
> individual to suggest that "controlling and constraining" another, is a road
> to peace.

No it wouldn't. We do it all the time.

> Nobody wants, or desires to be controlled by another.

But it happens all the time. You don't tell your boss off because
you'd lose your job. You don't tell your wife she looks fat in those
jeans because you'd lose your priveliges for the evening. We don't tax
the *** out of Japan because they'd tax the *** out of us in
retaliation and they'd stop buying Listerine and we'd stop buying
Toyotas.

> What you postulate
> breeds the deepest of hatreds,

It can - and that's what the State Department is for.

> invokes extreme desperation,

It can - thats what the World Bank is for.

>and creates an
> environment where people would rather die than continue to submit to the
> constraints imposed upon them.

Riiight. NOT! You put up with your bosses bull***, and you put up
with your wife's bull***,and the US puts up with Japan's bull*** for
the same reason - the bull*** is worth putting up with.

> Google terms like suicide bombings,"freedom fighters", and terrorism, for
> examples to find the cause and effect of your path to "peace".

You are terminally confused. Suicide bombers are unhappy people who
have never been respected in their life - and see offering themselves
as a way to gain respect. This is all discussed quite scientifically
by Alice Miller in Drama of the Gifted Child - which explains why power
and prestige and money are all respected to the degree they are in the
modern world.

> Have you never considered what the "others" whose "actions" have been
> "constrained" think about that?

We are constrained by others throughout our lives! Its part of being
human. I don't search your out and put a bullet in your brain for
dissing me because of what my mother would go through if I did. Sheez.
Grow up and smell the coffee.

> Somehow I doubt it.

So what? You're a dim bulb at best. So, you have trouble getting even
simple things.

> > > > The trend over time is clear. Ultimately, this sort of crime will be
> > > > non-existent. Consider slavery - there was a period where slavery was
> > > > accepted and practiced universally, then, after a period of gradual
> > > > progress there came a time when slavery was abhorrent - and slavery
> > > > wasn't practiced at all - despite huge costs in ending it.
> > >
> > > Fine. The trend was there before, and continues, with or without your
> > > invention.
> >
> > What is this invention of mine you keep speaking of and what does it
> > have to do with the impact of abundance on a society's propensity
> > toward warfare?
>
> Err, let's see. You were flogging your companies in the newsgroup, as you
> frequently do:

You brought up my companies here, not me. Deal with it.

> Mook says:
> "We have three operating companies involved in various aspects of the
> energy business.
> SOLAR PANEL BUSINESS
> The second company makes hydro-carbon fuels from low-cost hydrogen
> produced by the panels and other means at our disposal
> The third company makes use of hydrogen generated in the field to
> restart production of old oil and gas wells."

Yes, I said that. IN RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUESTION! You have copied
my reply here without reference to the question in an effort to
continue your disinformation campaign. So, what am I to say? That
you're a total loser? That would be most appropriate.


> All three of these companies are apparently involved in the energy business.

Yes.

> In the same thread, where you state "we will first do this with solar power"
> (Using Mook industries solar panels, no doubt), you go on to make the

Or any other solar panel that produces power at less cost than current
sources of energy.

> statement that I took umberage with,

That's your problem not mine.

> and which you have been dancing around
> ever since :

Oh goody, we get to see what motivates your senseless sense of
outrage...
(drumroll)
>
> "Each step up this path will result in far more energy available per
> capita at far less cost per unit energy, and result in far higher
> standards of living.

This is a clear trend in industrial development having nothing to do
with me personally, and only a fool would be angered by it - as you
claim to be.

> The first will bring an integrated global economy
> where everyone will have a real chance to live in abundance, and this
> will end warfare as we know it."

This is the clear trend geopolitically of what has transpired since
1950. Note, there have been no global wars since the end of WWII. All
wars have been regional since then, and even these have stopped. We
are now in a period of terror activities - where motivated individuals
take action to wreak havoc and are responded to by organized
international military forces. Again, the trend is clear. Compare the
attitudes of WWI and WWII to the attitudes of Korean Conflict, and
later the Vietnam conflict. Grenada wasn't really a war, it was an
action to rescue some US students. The war on terror moves the
characterization of war far along the arc of development I describe.
You can be angered by it - but your anger has nothing to do with me.
As I merely report what I observe happening in history.

> The snake-oil like sales pitch is clear:

No it isn't.

> Global use of Mooks energy
> inventions will ultiimately lead to the end of warfare as we know it.

Never said that dude. You did. You are angered by something happening
in your head and no where else.

> Everyone can sit in a circle around your panels, hold hands, and sing "It's
> a small world"

Um, Disney caused that song to be authored to increase sales. Coca
Cola caused the song - I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect
haromony - to be authored to increase sales of its products. Now...
consider, what that means. Global markets grow strongly and benefit
from global peace. So, ALL GLOBAL COMPANIES will promote peaceful
solutions to global conflicts in an effort to maximize profits!

Why does that piss you off?

>
> > My point is rather simple and straightforward. If people are advancing
> > in their personal affairs materially they generally don't want to do
> > things that screw up that advance. On the other hand if people's
> > conditions are growing worse and they see their future threatened, they
> > are willing to take violent action to reverse that trend - and are
> > likely to attach blame to others in the process. This clearly leads to
> > warfare.
>
> Bull***.

No, the facts support my statement. .

> Unless you believe, for example, that the USA is an impovished
> nation.

You're full of bull*** sir. Never said anyone was impoverished.

We do depend on foreign oil for the strength of our economy. That's
not in question.

This comes about because wealth is created every day. Our ability to
create wealth with reasonable effort is an important determinant of our
growth as a nation. Plainly if raw materials and other factors work
against wealth creation it hurts the ability of the USA to create
wealth. Obviously, if raw materials and other factors work toward
wealth creation - the ability of USA to create wealth is enhanced.
Depleted oil reserves in the US - whose output peaked in the 1970s -
made the middle east of paramount importance to the wealth of the US.
In the future, as the oil wealth of the middle east is depleted -
alternatives to imported oil will determine the future health of the US
economy.
>
> > Since economic growth is far easier in an industrial economy when
> > energy costs are low and falling, plainly low-cost energy is a positive
> > influence to maintaining peace.
>
> Here we go again, everyone hold hands, sing cumby-ya, while revelling in the
> material wealth provided to us by Mook industries.....

This statement was made by President Bush in describing the positive
effects of a successful liberation of Iraq. Sheez. I didn't mention
anything at all about me or my companies.


> Or maybe, instead, they'll invade yet another 3-world nation who doesn't
> have the resources to appose them, and tell them how it's the best thing
> that has ever happened to them, and all the while wonder why they're willing
> to die to get you the hell out of their faces, and be truely surprised when
> they strike back at you with every means available to them.

Well, US management of oil supplies in the global market to enforce a
period of relative price stability as we reach the end of our supplies
globally has nothing to do with what comes after supplies are fully
depleted worldwide. Clearly alternative supplies will come to
dominate. These include, tar sands, coal conversion, nuclear, and
hydrates under the ocean as well as solar and wind power.

> >
> > > It still has nothing to do with the wars that continue to be waged over
> > > racism and religion.
> >
> > Again, my point stands despite this observation.
>
> No, not "again". You've yet to make a point that stands up to even a
> cursory examination,

The rate of racially and religiously motivated killings has decreased
consistently over time. There is no reason whatever to believe that
this trend should not continue as we progress as a species.

> except for the strawmen you've constructed to knock
> down.

Actual data of racially motivated killings is not a strawman. Duh.

> Even then.......
>
> > All things being

> > equal, even a racist society would be hard pressed to risk prosperity
> > for their racist views - while that same society would be more likely
> > to blame the object of their racism when things are going badly
> > economically for them. Obviously a racist society in poverty is more
> > prone to acting out their tendencies toward violence than that same
> > society enjoying great abundance.
> >
> > > Advancing technologies and abundant energy supplies just allow it to be
> > > waged more effectively.
> >
> > Yet the trend is clear. As society advances technologically and
> > economically its tendency toward violence declines.
>
> That's why no "first-world" countries have engaged in armed conflict with
> other nations, right?

There have been no global conflicts since the end of World War II - and
the nature of the regional conflicts since that time have changed
character in the modern age - to the point where international armies
are going after international terrorists. Do you really not see the
huge trend in military forces becoming an international police force?
Sheez.

> This is getting tiresome, are you really that slow?

You are slow, that is a fact.

>
> > > > > Do you think solar electricity is going to stop those massacres?
> > > >
> > > > Low cost abundant energy is the basis of a productive industrial
> > > > economy. A productive industrial economy is the basis of a rich
> > > > material life.
> > >
> > > And the basis for a society to impose their will on others, or suffer
> the
> > > consequences.
> >
> > This is the exact opposite of what you described above
>
> No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

> It's exactly the point I made from the outset.
> Is this too complicated for you to follow, or what?

It is for you obviously.

> The more "abundant" the energy resources available to a society, the more
> effectively they can, and continue to, wage war with others.

You ignore motivation. One is not motivated by wealth to attack
others. One is motivated b the possibility of disaster. That's why
WWII followed the great depression for example. Without the great
depression the Wimar Republic would have continued to laugh at Hitler
and wouldn't give one *** what the Nazi's thought.
>
> - and is
> > precisely what I described.
>
> No, it's the exact opposite of what you described.

You don't get it.

> You've been claiming
> that abundant energy leads to everyone holding hands and singing the praises
> of the Utopia

Yes, like the Coca Cola commercials that have just that. Its the
profit in selling Coke to everyone that motivates this sort of thing.
You can't make a profit selling Coke to a war torn world. Similarly
you can't make a profit selling jeans, or corn, or anything - to a war
torn world. So, a strong global economy, backed by sufficient
resources, lead inevtiably to global peace.

> created as a result...to which I called "bull***" and this
> whole "discussion" started.

What is bull*** is your observations.

> Now who is making up rubbish from "whole cloth", Mr. Mook?

Oh that's easy - you are.

> >By controlling the fundamental energy
> > resources of a society you have a lever to moderate their tendencies
> > toward violence.
> >
> > > And the ability to build a more devastating war "machine".
> >
> > You make a pretty argument, but that argument falls in the face of
> > historical facts.
>
> History supports my assertations whole-heartedly.

Bull***.

> Those without abundant
> energy wage war with spears,

No, these are the ones motivated to use whatever they have available to
wage war.

> those with abundant energy develop weapons like
> nuclear missles and smart bombs.

No, these are the ones motivated to make money by selling Coke and
writing theme songs to bring about world peace.

> Which is able to wage war most effectively

The ones who are most motivated to do so.

> Mr. Mook?

Mr Jones? Who is most motivated to wage war? An executive of the Coca
Cola bottling company in Kuala Lampur? Or a starving muslim in the
deserts of Afghanistan? Clearly, the executive might be capable of
doing severe damage if he were motivated to do so. But equally
clearly, the impoverished muslim - seeking respect he has never gotten
- despite his lack of economic capacity - is willing to do whatever it
takes to gain respect and have an impact on those he sees as
responsible for his unhappy situation.

> Which nations have invaded others more devastatingly, as you like to say "in
> modern history", those with spears, or those with aircraft carriers?

Well, tell the owner of the World Trade Center that his buildings are
safe because you need aircraft carriers to wage an effective campaign
of war against New York. He'll say you're full of bull***. And he'd
be right.

Its motivation, not ability in the modern world that determines who
does the most damage. The sooner we address motivation as the core
issue the sooner we will make serious advances toward globalization of
our economy and vast improvements in our wealth as a species.

>
> > In periods of robust economic growth there is a
> > general tendency toward peace - hence the term peace and prosperity.
> > In periods of economic difficulties there is a general tendency toward
> > violence.
> >
> > > >Violence occurs at far lower rates in a wealthy economy
> > > > than in a poor one.
> > >
> > > We're not talking "urban violence", or the neighborhood kids beating
> each
> > > other up, we're talking warfare.
> >
> > Yes, we are.
> No, "we" are not. *YOU* are attempting to construct a false arguement
> whereby you equate all violence with warfare.

Not all violence is warfare. All warfare is violent however.


> Two kids having a fist fight, a drunk wife coming home and beating the hell
> out of her husband, a three year old smashing his toys in a fit, and some
> miscreant knocking little old ladies down to snatch their purses are all
> forms of violence,

Yes.

> but very few people would use the term "warfare" to
> describe these situations.

That's right. So, why are you confused?

> The ONLY thing I have been talking about, was your utterly false and niave
> comment that abundant energy will "eliminate warfare as we know
> it"....

Yet, it was during a period of unprecedented economic growth when the
Coca Cola company wanted to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
And, it was during a period of unprecendented economic turmoil that
led to the rise of Hitler in Germany.

Hmm... doesn't that suggest that economic growth leads to peace
whereas economic turmoil leads to war?

Or, the wealthiest nations on Earth harbor no ill will to any nation.
(before 9/11) - Yet it is one of the poorest nations on Earth that
launched an effective attack against one of the wealthiest nations in
history - because of a misplaced motivation! Doesn't that suggest a
correlation between wealth and propensity toward warfare? Absolutely!

>you've been throwing all kinds of red herrings up yammering about
> material standards of living reducing urban violence.....which has nothing
> to do with the discussion.

Yes it does. People kill people - its not societies that kill people.
Individual acts of violence are the result of individual points of
madness. Warfare, which is engaged in by the entire society - involves
a shared madness across the whole society. But the propensity toward
violence in both cases have much in common. Children who were not
afforded respect as children is one common factor. Universal poverty
is another. A narrow definition of self is another (that is everyone
identifies with a unique race, religion, what have you - and easily
differentiates from others) - ALL OF THESE ARE COMMON IN AFGHANISTAN -
they're remote and weird in the context of today's global economy.

That's why crazy assholes who want to destroy the world come from weird
impoverished backward places like Afghanistan.

> > So, I suggest you read up on your history of the 19th and
> > 20th centuries and see for yourself the correlation between economic
> > growth and the singular lack of violence during those times.
>
> I suggest you have no f***ing clue what I have, or have not, "read up" on.
> It's quite ignorant for you to assume you do know what I have studied,

I can only judge by your statements here - which don't do you justice
because they paint you as a narrow minded, stupid ***.

> humerously arrogant of you to imply you have a "higher" understanding of

I merely suggested you read the history of the Second World War and
look at well documented trends - both of which you are OBVIOUSLY
unaware of given your absolutely FOOLISH commentary.

> your strawman construct (that has nothing to do with the discussion),

Right, actual data has nothing to do with the pretty arguments you wish
to make - based on your 'logical' view of the world - rather than real
data.

> and
> extremely presumptious of you to suggest what I should read......

Okay, then, don't read a damn thing and just rant on without a clue. I
don't give a damn.

> but thanks
> for the chuckle.....

Riiight.... laugh all you want you weird sonofabitch.
..

> in the same way I would chuckle at someone else's kid
> scribbling on the walls with crayon, and then proudly pointing out his
> "art".

<shrug> Whatever.

>
> > > > In a world made rich through technical means
> > > > competition over resources becomes less of an issue and so, the dirty
> > > > tricks major powers engage in to assure preferred access to low-cost
> > > > materials become less attractive. One of those dirty tricks is to
> > > > exploit local conflict to keep a continental power locked into
> > > > localized conflict so they don't challenge the dominance of major
> > > > powers. With abundant solar power available at very low cost power
> > > > will be more likely arrived at by being of service to an enlarged
> > > > global economy.
> > >
> > > How much of a military "super-power" would any country be without vast
> > > energy resources?
> >
> > You means a nation like the US?
> >
> > > I could argue that your invention would enhance the ability of society
> to
> > > wage war.
> >
> > What invention are you talking about? You make it seem I'm saying
> > something about me and myself - when in fact I'm merely talking about
> > an unremarkable general trend obvious to anyone with even a modicum of
> > historical knowledge.
>
> > > I'm not suggesting in any way that if you do manage to bring your
> invention
> > > to fruitation, that it would be a bad thing.
> >
> > I'm suggesting you are making things up out of whole cloth here in
> > order to spin things a little differently. This is really a quite
> > sophisticated technique and it makes me wonder about you.
>
> Errrr, no.

Yes. You quote *** from another discussion as if its germaine. Why?
Because you want to create the false impression I've said something
about 'my' technology which I have not said. NOW WHY IS THAT?

> I've been the one focused on the topic,

No you haven't. You've taken great pains to bring in all sorts of ***
having nothing to do with what I've said - and taken equally great
pains to ignore staightforward simple questions.

> while you've been
> wandering all over the map building stawmen and kicking them down.

Not so much.

> You're the one spinning this irrelevant "arguement" about urban violence and
> economic prosperity, when the topic is energy and warfare.

No, you've applied the term urban to my discussion of violence in an
effort to derail and defuse what I've said.

> I can't say the same about you, your tatics are transparent , not very
> sophisticated, and I have little "wonder" about you, anymore....

I'm having an honest discussion and you are attempting to spin what
I've said into something that I have not said.

>
> > > I'm suggesting you're reaching a little far with this waxing poetic
> about
> > > "ending warfare as we know it".
> >
> > I'm suggesting something quite unremarkable.
>
> This is true.

I'm glad you agree.

> You've been suggesting all kinds of things that have nothing
> to do with the topic,

Oops. I thought you were saying something real there. I see you are
not. Bullshitter.


> and are hardly insightful or original. Sociology
> 101......

Duh! Its quite obvious that economic turmoil generally leads to
warfare whilst economic growth leads to periods of peace.

>
> > Look at periods of peace
> > during the 19th and 20th centuries - and look at periods of warfare.
> > You will see the periods of peace preceded by periods of robust
> > economic growth. You will see periods of violence preceded by periods
> > of economic devastation. With access to abundant low cost energy our
> > global economy has the capacity to sustain a long-term period of robust
> > economic expansion. This suggests that we are about to see a period of
> > long-term peace. If so, this will mean an end to warfare as we know
> > it. A global economy, with global political paradigms shared by all
> > nations will lead ultimately to a global system of governance that will
> > enforce this end of violence brought about by economic growth.
> >
> > > > > Suggesting racism is largely a thing of the past is a very niave
> > > viewpoint,
> > > >
> > > > The trend is clear - ultimately, like slavery and socialism your
> > > > current views about nearly everything mentioned here will undergo
> > > > dramatic and positive change in the face of a rising tide of technical
> > > > innovation that benefits all people.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > I think the belief that things in the future will be exactly like
> > > > things in the past is the naive and uninformed view.
> > >
> > > Strawman
> > > Who postulated that "things in the future will be exactly like things in
> the
> > > past"?
> >
> > You
>
> Bull***.

No, you are angered by the notion that the future will be more peaceful
than the past. You are upset by my pointing out that there is a
general trend toward globalization.

> I've never stated anything of the kind. Nor have I inferred, or
> implied, anything remotely approaching such a statement, and I do not
> appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth and then argue them.
> I'd tell you to "stuff it", but it's abudantly clear you're already "full of
> it".

Whatever. You have said directly here that you are angered by my
statement that warfare will end. Such a statement says that as a
species we are capable of fundamental change. Your opposition says
that we are not capable of such change. You can't have it both ways -
arguing that this change is impossible and then saying you are not
arguing change is impossible.

Fact is, humanity has undergone fundamental changes in its attitude
toward things. Slavery was an accepted fact of life 300 years ago.
Today it is uniformly decried. We are seeing a transition over the
past 50 years from global conflicts to global markets - and ultimately,
warfare as we have known it- will not exist in the world.

> > > The issue was about your invention "ending warfare".
> >
> > You made up the marlarky about 'my invention' (whatever you mean by
> > that) for your own ends. What I'm talking about is a rather simple
> > and uncontroversial trend that has exhibited itself over the past 200
> > years and will likely continue for the next 50 years or so - which in
> > the end will result in a world at peace and an end to warfare as we
> > have come to know it.
> >
> > This is unremarkable in that warfare changed dramatically between the
> > middle ages and the industrial age. Why wouldn't we expect it to
> > change again in a period of robust global growth and the emergence of
> > what some have called a noosphere - which puts everyone into direct
> > economic and political contact with everyone else?
>
> Oh, I'm not arguing that the methodology of warfare wouldn't change.

But, as you pointed out with your urban violence bull*** - IT WILL NOT
BE CALLED WARFARE! Ha!

> If you were arguing honestly, you'd acknowledge that I've been arguing
> against your premise of "ending warfare" as we know it.

Sheez. When international military forces are chasing down individual
terrorists instead of fighting one another in global conflict - that's
a fundamental change. Ultimately, we'll have an international police
force and the end of warfare as we have come to know it in the 20th
century.

>
> >
> > > I suggest that abundant energy enhances a societies ability to wage war,
> or
> > > dominate their rivals.
> >
> > To have war you must first have an impulse toward war and violence.
> > What propels that violence? First and foremost are rising levels of
> > poverty. In a period of economic growth this is absent. In fact, the
> > fear of losing one's improving position will lead people to avoid
> > violence wherever possible. This is not some pretty theory I'm
> > proposing - its based on a review of history during the industrial age.
>
> Really? So during the "industrial age", no violence was commited by a
> weathly country in Iraq, Afganistan, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Haiti, Somolia,
> Panama, Libya, Lebanon, Greneda, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Dominican, Puerto
> Rico, world war II...et al?

Global conflicts have been absent after 1950 in case you hadn't
noticed. The two global conflicts of the 20th century occurred before
the invention of nuclear weapons. And WWII for example, was preceded
by an intense period of economic turmoil called the great depression.
Perhaps you've heard of it.


>
> > > > > Ditto for apparently "religious" motivited hate and killings.
> > > >
> > > > The belief that things in the future will be exactly like things in
> the
> > > > past - or worse than in the past - is the naive view.
> > >
> > > I suppose you can take that up with whoever you think suggested that.
> >
> > You did when you suggested that my views were naive.
>
> Again, no I didn't. Your being niave has nothing to do with my views about
> the changing future.

Hmm.. so are you arguing that the future of war will be the same as
the past? Or are you accepting that the future of war will be quite
different than the past? Cause it seems here that you are saying that
the future will be the same - and this stands in stark contrast to the
bull*** you spewed above about it not being the same.

> My not believing the future will be changed in the manner that YOU claim,
> does not equate with me believing there will be no changes.

Okay, so will warfare in the future be recognizable to someone coming
off the battlefields of Europe in World War II? I say not - not merely
because of tactics, but because of a deep understanding of MOTIVATION
and what leads one to be motivated toward international violence of the
type associated with warfare.

> Quit putting words, and false ideologies, in my mouth for you to argue

Quit saying stupid things.

> against, and then suggest that I fail to comprehend your "sociology 101"
> constructs.

Quit whining.

>
> > I'm suggesting a
> > fundamental change. You are suggesting that things stay the same
>
> No, I haven't.

Yes you are.

> Do you have an attention deficit disorder,

No.

> or are you
> dishonestly attempting to build my position into something it isn't?

No - and false choice by the way.

What's happening is you don't get what I'm saying because you are
attached to some words or ideologies that don't let you get what I'm
saying - and so you spout absolute bull*** in response to something
I've said that at core is quite simple.

Namely, that as the world grows wealthier it will become more peaceful.
And, that low cost energy will be a primary determinant in this coming
about. Nothing about me or my technology - nothing about anything else
YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP!

> > and
> > calling my views naive without a modicum of evidence to support it.
> >
> > > As for things being "worse than in the past", depends on your viewpoint.
> >
> > Things could get worse if we do not develop abundant alternatives to
> > our present energy supplies. They need not get worse however.
> >
> > > If you are a society with megre energy supplies, being utterly dominated
> by
> > > a society with massive energy supplies, things might appear to be
> "worse",
> > > to you.
> >
> > Dominated how? If anyone seeks to impoverish another they can expect
> > the negative attention of that other - and ultimately a resorting to
> > violence.
> > However, if anyone seeks to enrich another they can expect
> > positive attention of that other - and ultimately they will become fast
> > friends - even if the one gains disproportionately from the
> > relationship.
> >
> > You tend to see things black and white. A dominates B and so forth.
>
> Excuse me? You know nothing about me.

Yes I do. I know what you've said here. You are creating a red
herring out of nothing. What a bullshitter you are.

> However, it's apparent that one must speak very simplistically "A dominates
> B and so forth" to *you*, to get an idea across.

Um, you are engaging me in conversation - deal with it.

> Even then it's utterly hopeless, like trying to herd cats...you're
> everywhere but on topic, putting words in my mouth, building false
> constructs, even direct "A vs B" is lost on you,

Bull***, its you who don't want an honest argument. A direct
restatement of what I think you've said is greeted by a highly
emotional outburst having nothing to do with the topic - yet you accuse
me of wandering off topic. Sheez.

> as you presume to tutor on
> the social cause and effect of urban violence, in a discussion on warfare.

So? That's what conversation is about. I tutor you on the basis of my
statements, and you reply on topic. But, of course, you haven't,
you've gotten all emotional and now decry my presumption at trying to
have an honest and open discussion with you.

> > But things can be different. A can help B for example - even if A
> > gains disproportionately in the process - which is what the US does as
> > far as I can tell.
> >
> > > >The only
> > > > attraction holding such views has is the well documented fact that
> > > > people view pessimists as someone who is not easily fooled - and so
> > > > people easily voice pessimistic views evenn when they have no certain
> > > > knowledge - because this positive interpersonal effect - AND NO OTHER
> > > > REASON. Such people are foolish in the extreme.
> > >
> > > Do you have "certain knowledge" that your invention will end warfare?
> >
> > You're the only one talking about 'my invention' here. History shows
> > that periods of economic growth are periods of peace.
> >
> > > Do you have "certain knowledge" that your invention will not *intensify*
> > > warfare?
> >
> > You're the only one talking about 'my invention here. History shows
> > that periods of economic crisis precede periods of violence.
> >
> > > Learning from history is hardly pessimistic, but rather, pragmatic.
> >
> > Yes, you should try it sometime.
>
> LOL! Your comment would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.

I think everyone who had read this far knows who the pathetic one is -
its you Jones! Hahahaha

>
> I've had enough of your dishonest attempts to falsely claim my position,

Riight... NOT

and
> then argue (unsuccessfully) against it,

In your dreams.

> all the while insulting my
> intelligence.

You don't need my help for that sir.

> You may have the last word Mr. Mook.

goody.

> I won't be returning to this
> conversation,

What a relief.

> it's an utter waste of my time,

Ha, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

> and cannot possibly bear any
> fruit, whatsoever.

Yep.

> K. Jones

Bye bye birde.

.