Oil Will Be Cheap And Plentiful For At Least 100 Years

[cells]

Thanks for replies.

Any means of storing 'off peak' electricity generated by wind or solar will be very inefficient, this is one of the main drawbacks of these sources of electricity I believe.

Also, petrol is highly volatile and potentially dangerous as are 250v plug sockets!

In terms of infrastructure, when the internal combustion engine was first invented who could have envisaged the global network of filling stations, refineries, garages, car factories, huge drilling platforms or million ton supertankers?

My main concern about battery driven vehicles is having to replace the battery pack every 4-5 years at a cost equivalent to say 25-75% of the value of the vehicle itself depending on whether the car is a 'base' model or a luxury model.

Perhaps manufacturers will have to be forced to provide a free replacement battery for the lifetime of the vehicle, but I don't know what the cost implications of this would be.

All in all, I don't think it is possible to write off hydrogen as a fuel at this stage, because in 50 years time it could be a cheap and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels IMO.

The difficulty is, it is impossible at this stage to anticipate future developments in the field of energy storage that could revolutionise how vehicles are powered.

Hydrogen will never work as an energy source.

It could potentially be used as an energy store for solar/wind etc but that would be very inefficient and very costly. Instead you would just ues water in dams to buffer peaks and low in demand as we already do.

I can say with 99% confidence hydrogen has no future as an energy source or energy store.

You can think of it another way. Energy has a “qualityâ€. Its a little complicated but it boils down to “flame temperatureâ€. The higher the flame temperature the higher the quality of the energy. Electricity can generate near infinite flame temperature and is a very very high quality source of power. Hydrogen has a flame temperature of ???1000 centigrade??? which is decent quality but crap vs electricity.

So you would under very few circumstances want to convert high quality energy into low quality energy.

[Game_Over]

With regard to global population.

As a nations oil consumption rises a point seems to be reached where population growth peaks, then levels off and starts to fall.

This should now happen in China, as a result of it's one child policy.

As a result I expect that the rate of Global population growth will slow and that population may eventually peak at some point in the future, but unless some global catastrophe occurs such as a major impact event, population will not fall from present levels IMO.

[cells]

My main concern about battery driven vehicles is having to replace the battery pack every 4-5 years at a cost equivalent to say 25-75% of the value of the vehicle itself depending on whether the car is a 'base' model or a luxury model.

But other parts are cheaper on an electric car and in theory there would be less things to go wrong.

Also don't underestimate the power of mass manufacturing. Lots of electrical goods go down in price 10x once mass manufacturing kicks in.

plus we don't need to use batteries, something else could take over.

One idea I suggested and would be viable with government support is capacitor electric cars.

Enough juice to go 10 miles a charge but you have strips on the road that charge the car as you drive over it. Thus if you place these strips every say 5 miles you have near infinite range and the car can go “off grid†for 10 miles.

The advantage of capacitors is that they can last a lifetime of a car and can charge extremely quickly. They can also be made very cheaply. Other advantages to that idea would be lighter, cheaper, more power output possible, etc

or more simply we could have most electric cars with capacitors and they only do say 25 miles before needing charging. But that is probably fine for 90% of people and as the charging is very quick (perhaps just 1 min) it would be viable.

Lots of possibilities.

[Kurt Barlow]

From water by electrolysis.

Using electricity generated by s*dding wind turbines if you like.

Another problem solved!

In fact that would be an excellent way of storing off peak energy from wind turbines

I'm a bl*ody genius!

Perhaps you can elaborate on the efficiency losses at each stage - in particular electrolysis and compression?

[cells]

Perhaps you can elaborate on the efficiency losses at each stage - in particular electrolysis and compression?

He was talking about storage and you do not need to compress much to store hydrogen, just have a big container like an underground pocket. In theory you could replace the current natural gas pipework with hydrogen.

The energy efficiency can be improved. But even if it was 95% efficient at making hydrogen we would not really use it because hydrogen is a lower quality fuel compared to electricity.

Edit:

assuming a near zero fossil fuel world.

If we had 90% plus efficiency then hydrogen could potentially be used as a storage.

Make hydrogen with electricity and store it in underground pockets throughout the year. Then pump it to homes in the winter for heating instead of natural gas.

Storing the type of energy required for heating over winter with hydro would be very difficult. It would be feasible with hydrogen if the efficiency was >80-85%.

more realistically you would have a worldwide grid. Say the UK connected to some country in the southern hemisphere. So when it is summer here and we have excess electric we send it to them. When it is winter here we take from them. etc

Edited June 1, 2009 by cells

[Guest Steve Cook]

He was talking about storage and you do not need to compress much to store hydrogen, just have a big container like an underground pocket. In theory you could replace the current natural gas pipework with hydrogen.

The energy efficiency can be improved. But even if it was 95% efficient at making hydrogen we would not really use it because hydrogen is a lower quality fuel compared to electricity.

Anyway, why do you need to worry about all of these energy alternatives? Surely you don't think we have or are about to peak in hydrocarbons do you?

[Kurt Barlow]

He was talking about storage and you do not need to compress much to store hydrogen, just have a big container like an underground pocket. In theory you could replace the current natural gas pipework with hydrogen.

The energy efficiency can be improved. But even if it was 95% efficient at making hydrogen we would not really use it because hydrogen is a lower quality fuel compared to electricity.

It needs to be compressed if used as a transport fuel - unless you want to tow a blimp behind you

Conversion of hydrogen to a compressed road full is only 40-45% efficient because electrolyis is typically 70% efficient and to compress sufficently requires about 40% of the energy contaent of the H. Basically 10kwh of electricity becomes 4-5kwh of compressed hydrogen. I agree with you, direct use of electricity is the way to go.

If hydrogen replaced methane in the NG network the entire network would need to be replaced as it is simply too leaky.

[cells]

Anyway, why do you need to worry about all of these energy alternatives? Surely you don't think we have or are about to peak in hydrocarbons do you?

we may see a peak in hydrocarbons but we will not see a peak in energy unless done voluntarily or imposed upon us via tax.

[Methinkshe]

With regard to global population.

As a nations oil consumption rises a point seems to be reached where population growth peaks, then levels off and starts to fall.

This should now happen in China, as a result of it's one child policy.

As a result I expect that the rate of Global population growth will slow and that population may eventually peak at some point in the future, but unless some global catastrophe occurs such as a major impact event, population will not fall from present levels IMO.

All the evidence suggests that we do not need wicked and cruel and authoritarian policies like China's one-child policy to control population growth. Wealth and education and medical care are natural limiters of population - witness the below-replacement level population growth in western nations. In fact, if it were not for immigration into this country, by now our population would have fallen to a critically low level that would have lead to economic decline apart from the recent financial crisis.

I get really angry when people glibly refer to China's one-child policy as though it were akin to just any other policy designed to affect supply and demand. (Nothing personal, Gameover, btw.) It is a wicked and cruel and evil policy as the following excerpt from the book "A Mother's Ordeal: Story of Chi An - One Woman's Fight Against China's One-child Policy makes clear.

And I know I've posted this before but I make no apologies for posting it again; people have to understand that to follow the eugenicist path is to end up with Hitler's Final Solution, Buchenwald, Dachau and this........................

One night near the end of my stay at the Beijing No. 4 Hospital a shivering young woman was brought in to the women’s health clinic. Flanked by two sturdy Beijing policemen, she was a forlorn sight, with her wan, dirt-streaked face and her large belly, enormous in proportion to her slight body. She was not much more than a girl, really, and very close to term.

“We found her crouched in an alleyway,†one of the policemen was explaining to the charge nurse. “She doesn’t have a residence permit or a ration card, and she won’t tell us who she is or where she is from. Probably a runaway from a village somewhere, to judge from her clothes. The sergeant thought it best to bring her here to the hospital first thing, seeing how bif her belly is. Even if we knew where she was from, we couldn’t send her back in this condition. She might have her brat on the way.

I inwardly agreed, judging her to be at the very end of her ninth month.

“It was good you brought her here,†the nurse said. “We have the authority to deal with such cases.â€

Beckoning to me she said, “Take the girl to Number Three Delivery Room and remain with her. The doctors will want to see her in the morning.â€

I did as told. In the delivery room I took a seat by the door, in case my temporary ward had any thought of bolting. “Where do you come from? I asked after a while, thinking to strike up a conversation and calm down the obviously nervous young woman. “Have you been in Beijing long? Are you carrying a legal child?†The girl gave no sign of having heard me. She sat hunched over in her chair, her pinched face fixed on the floor. For some reason she reminded me of my sister-in-law, Aiming.

Win the trust of those you counsel. I repeated the population control regulation wryly to myself. The regulations were certainly not written by anyone who had tried to make friends with a girl about to undergo a ninth-month abortion, I thought. It was going to be a long night. If she wouldn’t even talk to me, I could hardly obtain her consent for what was going to happen.

I awoke with a start. I must have dozed off. I looked quickly for the girl, and was so relieved to see that she had not stirred from her chair. Then I looked again. The girl was sitting rigidly upright, clutching the chair’s sides. Her face was contorted, and her breath was coming in short pants. I flew down the hall to the nurse’s station. “You had better summon the doctors,†I told the charge nurse. “Our country girl is in heavy labour.â€

By the time Doctor Wan and Doctor Yin arrived twenty minutes later, I had managed to get the girl disrobed and up on the examining table. With her contractions now coming every two minutes or so, she had offered only feeble resistance.

I knew exactly what they would do. They would wait until the cervix was fully dilated and the top of the infant’s head exposed. A hypodermic syringe would then be filled with formaldehyde. This would be injected, using a five-centimetre needle, deep into the brain through the soft spot. Even before it began its short descent down the birth canal, the infant would be dead.

Doctor Yin took one look under the examining sheet and cursed. “His mother’s……this sow’s baby is already crowning.†He motioned to old Doctor Wan, who had prepared the hypodermic. “Hurry up. Give the injection.â€

The woman screamed as Doctor Wan approached, and the baby’s head literally popped out of her body. The baby’s arms, trunk, and legs had followed its head in quick succession. He – it was a sturdy little boy – filled his lungs for the first time and echoed his mother’s cry. The baby lay in full view on the table; only its twisted white umbilical cord still connected it to its mother. The sight and sound stopped the older doctor short in his tracks.

“No way,†I heard Doctor Wan say softly to himself. “There is no way I can do this.†He put the hypodermic down as if it had burned his hand and backed away.

“If you won’t do it, I will!†Doctor Yin yelled at him. “I’m not going to get a reprimand and a fine for allowing this useless spawn of peasant scum to live.†He snatched up the hypodermic and approached the table. He looked down at the red, naked and crying baby with an expression of disgust. He gripped its head with one hand, and with the other plunged the needle into its skull. The clear, deadly fluid emptied into the infant’s brain. “I tell you we are doing this baby a favour,†he ranted as he did so. “What child would choose to be born in the squalor and misery of a village hovel? But I have spared him all that.†He withdrew the needle.

I waited for the convulsions to begin. Soon, I knew, the infant’s body would jerk and thrash in its death throes, and his cries would weaken and cease. But nothing happened. If anything, the little boy screamed all the more vigorously, letting out loud wailing shrieks that seemed to pierce my very vitals.

No one moved for a long time.

Finally, from the corner of the room, Doctor Wan whispered: “The little soul is cursing us.â€

“Don’t be ridiculous,†snapped Doctor Yin. “That’s ramk superstition.†But his eyes widened slightly, and he involuntarily took a step back from the baby. “What are these peasants but animals? They drag us all down to their filth and poverty.†His voice was now tinged with hysteria.

“He is cursing us,†Doctor Wan insisted. His voice was louder now and edged with panic. “The little soul won’t leave his body. He won’t leave until he has cursed us all the way to hell.â€

“You shut up!†barked Doctor Yin. “There is no heaven and no hell. The first injection didn’t take, that’s all. We must give it another.â€

“ You give it another injection,†Doctor Wan hissed. “I wash my hands of this….this…atrocity. Let his curse be on your head.†The door slammed, and he was gone.

Doctor Yin hesitated by the jar of formaldehyde for a few seconds, his hands visily shaking. Then he flung the empty hypodermic on the floor with a loud oath. “Cursed be you peasants, and cursed be your children!†he shouted as he disappeared out the door.

I was left alone with the mother and child. I tried to pray. Please, God, please. But the baby’s screaming and the mother’s sobbing jumbled the words in my mind until I didn’t know for whom I was praying – the baby, the mother, or myself – or for what. The I, too, cried, for there was no other way to pray an unanswerable prayer.

I frantically set to work caring for the exhausted mother, lifting her legs down from the stirrups, sponging her off with cool water, arranging pads to catch the steady flow of blood, findng a pillow for her head. But there was nothing I could do for the baby. I could only keep my eyes averted from its contorted little face. And, as best I could, I shut out from my hearing the sounds of its cries and whimpers, which only now beagn to weaken.

The little boy took half an hour to die.

Is this what you want to see, Steve, and those who erroneously believe that the world is over-populated?

[cells]

It needs to be compressed if used as a transport fuel - unless you want to tow a blimp behind you

Conversion of hydrogen to a compressed road full is only 40-45% efficient because electrolyis is typically 70% efficient and to compress sufficently requires about 40% of the energy contaent of the H. Basically 10kwh of electricity becomes 4-5kwh of compressed hydrogen. I agree with you, direct use of electricity is the way to go.

If hydrogen replaced methane in the NG network the entire network would need to be replaced as it is simply too leaky.

no chance for cars.

but it could be used for storage in a zero fossil fuel world. although unlikely.

i think hydrogen cars are even less efficient than you say. the best ones currently are some 8 times worse than a good diesel car and that is at the point of use.

[Kurt Barlow]

no chance for cars.

but it could be used for storage in a zero fossil fuel world. although unlikely.

i think hydrogen cars are even less efficient than you say. the best ones currently are some 8 times worse than a good diesel car and that is at the point of use.

If a source of cheap hydrogen can be produced (probably from off peak electricity) then it is best used as a feed stock for other compounds - notably ammonia.

[Guest Steve Cook]

All the evidence suggests that we do not need wicked and cruel and authoritarian policies like China's one-child policy to control population growth. Wealth and education and medical care are natural limiters of population - witness the below-replacement level population growth in western nations. In fact, if it were not for immigration into this country, by now our population would have fallen to a critically low level that would have lead to economic decline apart from the recent financial crisis.

I get really angry when people glibly refer to China's one-child policy as though it were akin to just any other policy designed to affect supply and demand. (Nothing personal, Gameover, btw.) It is a wicked and cruel and evil policy as the following excerpt from the book "A Mother's Ordeal: Story of Chi An - One Woman's Fight Against China's One-child Policy makes clear.

And I know I've posted this before but I make no apologies for posting it again; people have to understand that to follow the eugenicist path is to end up with Hitler's Final Solution, Buchenwald, Dachau and this........................

Is this what you want to see, Steve, and those who erroneously believe that the world is over-populated?

The only person w*nking on about eugenics (repeatedly) is yourself

[cells]

Is this what you want to see, Steve, and those who erroneously believe that the world is over-populated?

Very very sad.

Its a basic human right to have children. If a society gets rid of human rights we are nothing but animals.

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

[Methinkshe]

The only person w*nking on about eugenics (repeatedly) is yourself

YOU are the one who is constantly going on about over-population and a need for population to be controlled.

Now just exactly how do you propose that is achieved?

I propose it is best achieved through allowing third world countries to join the first world countries through free trade, NO imposition of nonsensical and impoverishing CO2 controls, and targeted help in terms of education and medical training of the populations. Wealth and education and a longer life expectancy will be natural controllers of their populations.

From what I can remember of your posts, you advocate enforced birth control (if not through threats than via almost irresistible carrots) and imposition of CO2 targets so that third world countries don't even get a chance to industrialise and catch up with the western world.

If I have not correctly understood your stance, then I apologise for my misinterpretation/misunderstanding/poor memory concerning your previous posts over the past two years - in whatever thread, and invite you to clarify and/or correct any misunderstanding on my part.

[Leroast]

The only person w*nking on about eugenics (repeatedly) is yourself

Are you incapable of having a debate without being obnoxious?

[Methinkshe]

Very very sad.

Its a basic human right to have children. If a society gets rid of human rights we are nothing but animals.

Yes, I wept buckets when I read this book.

But from the little acorn of an apparently reasonable desire to limit population growth (albeit for spurious reasons, imo) grows an oak of repression, murder, debasement of human life, perversion of maternal and child-friendly instincts and ....oh, I could go on and on, but you get the message.

[Methinkshe]

The only person w*nking on about eugenics (repeatedly) is yourself

I should also add that it is possible to see from the excerpt I posted how quickly population control becomes eugenics; note how the pregnant woman was referred to as a "sow" and the references to "peasant pigs" as though farmers/peasants were in some way sub-human. The doctors, of course, were a "master-race" by comparison.

I may have missed out a step or two in referring to your stance on over-population/population control as eugenicist, but it seems to be that one inexorably leads to the other. Imo, it is a very, very short slippery slope from enforced population-control to eugenics.

[Guest Steve Cook]

YOU are the one who is constantly going on about over-population and a need for population to be controlled.

Now just exactly how do you propose that is achieved?

I propose it is best achieved through allowing third world countries to join the first world countries through free trade, NO imposition of nonsensical and impoverishing CO2 controls, and targeted help in terms of education and medical training of the populations. Wealth and education and a longer life expectancy will be natural controllers of their populations.

From what I can remember of your posts, you advocate enforced birth control (if not through threats than via almost irresistible carrots) and imposition of CO2 targets so that third world countries don't even get a chance to industrialise and catch up with the western world.

If I have not correctly understood your stance, then I apologise for my misinterpretation/misunderstanding/poor memory concerning your previous posts over the past two years - in whatever thread, and invite you to clarify and/or correct any misunderstanding on my part.

Humans are animals.

At the species level, we behave exactly as one might expect. We consume resources until we run out of them. We then move on or die back. This has happened previously many times on a much smaller scale throughout human history and certainly happens in the rest of the natural world.

We also have evolved, entirely for reasons of reproductive success, very large brains. In this regard, this evolutionary development has been spectacularly "successful". However like all other life, when it is given the opportunity, we have overshot. The problem for us is that due to our brain-powered ingenuity, we have overshot on a truly stupendous scale. There will be no small oscillation around an equilibrium while our populations are brought back into line with our environment's carrying capacity. We are now hurtling headlong into a catastrophe for our species. Moreover, our species' environmental reach is now so profound that we may well take the majority of the other top feeders down with us.

Do I think that we can do anything about it now as a species? Almost certainly not. It's way too late and, even if it wasn't, our fundamental animal nature means we would not take the opportunity to plan ahead at the species level any more than we have failed to do already.

So, in answer to your question; I have no solutions because there are none that do not require a deep foresight that is not based on individual gain. Sure, some humans, some of the time are capable of this. But not the majority of humans and certainly not for the majority of the time (for "good" evolutionary reasons).

The best we can hope for is that we do not find an alternative to hydrocarbons. Our civilisation will collapse to be sure. however, what remains of us will have to re-learn how to live within their environmental means. It will be painful for us as a species. There will be terrible suffering. But, we will survive.

The alternative to the above is that we find a way of carrying on with business as usual. We bring about an environmental catastrophe that befalls the entire biosphere and not just ourselves.

Why do I even give a sh*t given my pessimistic outlook? I guess the only answer I can give to that is that I am philosophically addicted to the truth independent of what the consequences of that truth may be. I am not a religious man. However, if I were, I would be hard to pushed to face my maker if I did not speak this truth as I see it and also the growing evidence that so profoundly points to it.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Steve Cook

[SMAC67]

And so we reach the truth of the matter, in amongst all the discussions of energy usage the reality is that all populations within nature are controlled. We are not too bright monkeys with the same problems faced by every other living organism. We will continue to expand our numbers like every other living thing until we reach our limit, and then we will die-off in the required numbers.

Of course, having a slightly underused large brain we have foresight and can see the train coming down the tracks. Of course we could try to control population growth, and many have, with frightening results.

So we have a choice (actually we don't), we can control the population itself of our own accord using the tried and tested methodologies, or we could wait for nature to take it's course using it's tried and tested methodologies. Either path is unpleasant and leads to much death and mayhem.

If we are so brilliant then how come so many people on this planet live in such desperate conditions? We could feed the world, but we chose not to. We will never change, therefore nature at it's most brutal will deal with our hubris.

The only way to stop population growth is to educate people (women in particular), and share the wealth. The richer people are, the less kids they have, kids are poor peoples pension plan. We all want our genes to survive, Unfortunately we are incapable of doing "the right thing" as Gordon Brown would put it.

Our economy is based on exponential growth, both numbers of people and their resource usage, we will cling onto this model until it collapses, then we will fight over the scraps. The Balkans war in the 90's will seem like a picnic. Expect large scale death and destruction.

We seem incapable of avoiding this conclusion, like yeast we do what we programmed to do, the fact that we are aware is our gift/curse (delete as applicable).

Discussions about population are always emotive, so we ignore it, whilst we cheer on our boys in the latest resource war. We are hyporcrites, we might get emotional over one particular case in point, but are happy to live in the knowledge that 2 billion people live in absolute poverty.

We can empathise with one death, but millions dead leaves us cold and uncaring.

We are stuck on this planet, for better or worse, with ourselves. That means more death destruction, war, famine, and disease. It is our world, we made it this way, therefore we must like it the way it is.

The population is always controlled.....................that is nature.

Edited June 1, 2009 by SMAC67

[Methinkshe]

Humans are animals.

You know I disagree with this statement. Humans are ABOVE animals in any hierarchy you care to name.

At the species level, we behave exactly as one might expect. We consume resources until we run out of them. We then move on or die back. This has happened previously many times on a much smaller scale throughout human history and certainly happens in the rest of the natural world.

Let us confine ourselves to that which we can evidence and see with our own eyes. Sure, we can learn from history, but there has always to be an element of interpretation.

However, your contention is that we, as human-animals will consume all our resources and then become extinct.

Looking at history, how do you square that with the progress from flint-age to iron age to our present nuclear age? Isn't it the case that required resources for the particular time in history were abundant and then, when technology moved on, the need for those resources became redundant and the resources that the new technolgy required were abundant?

We also have evolved, entirely for reasons of reproductive success, very large brains. In this regard, this evolutionary development has been spectacularly "successful". However, like all other life, we have overshot.

What evidence do you have for this overshoot apart from your own opinion?

The problem for us is that due to our brain-powered ingenuity, we have overshot on a truly stupendous scale.

Are you unable to comprehend that this is purely your personal opinion? I disagree, others on this thread disagree, and I am sure that many the world over disagree. Why do you believe that you are right?

There will be no small oscillation around an equilibrium while our populations are brought back into line with our environment's carrying capacity. We are now hurtling headlong into a catastrophe for our species. Moreover, our species' environmental reach is now so profound that we may well take the majority of the other top feeders down with us.

Steve, you have this particular (as in especial) catastrophe embedded in your mind to the extent that you exclude all external pointers in any other direction. You exude hopelessness, helplessness, and worse still, a dogmatic desire to cling to your misanthropy regardless of ANY argument to the contrary.

Do I think that we can do anything about it now as a species? Almost certainly not. It's way too late and, even if it wasn't our fundamental animal nature means we would not take the opportunity to plan ahead at the species level any more than we have failed to do already.

I'm so glad I'm a Christian and not an atheist. Oh, the hope I have - not only in this world but the next! I sow good seed, they multiply, I reap!

You are welcome to your "species" this and "animal" that. Know what - I rejoice in being human! I am no animal! I have choice and intellect and wisdom which I can apply to make a difference to my life and the lives of others. I am not led by the nose by mere animalish instincts.

So, in answer to your question; I have no solutions because there are none that do not require a deep foresight that is not based on individual gain. Sure, some humans, some of the time are capable of this. But not the majority of humans and certainly not for the majority of the time.

It is a Herculean task for man to attempt to work out his own salvation.

The best we can hope for is that we do not find an alternative to hydrocarbons. Our civilisation will collapse to be sure. however, what remains of us will have to re-learn how to live within their environmental means. It will be painful for us as a species. There will be terrible suffering. But, we will survive.

Woe is me! I don't know what else to say in the face of such hopelessness.

The alternative to the above is that we find a way of carrying on with business as usual. We bring about an environmental catastrophe that befalls the entire biosphere and not just ourselves.

Why do I even give a sh*t given my pessimistic outlook? I guess the only answer I can give to that is that I am philosophically addicted to the truth independent of what the consequences of that truth may be. I am not a religious man. However, if I were, I would be hard to pushed to face my maker if I did not speak this truth as I see it and also the growing evidence that so profoundly points to it.

Imo, I have never met anyone more devoid of truth than you.

We are polar opposites in terms of just about every belief we hold. If you claim truth, that makes me a liar or a believer in lies. If I claim truth, that makes you a liar or believer in lies. Because, for sure, we are so diametrically opposed in terms of belief concerning just about everything that we cannot both lay claim to truth.

Edited to make meaning clear in para 1.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Methinkshe

[Guest anorthosite]

You know I disagree with this statement. Humans are ABOVE animals in any hierarchy you care to name.

So we're top of the hierarchy of animals?

Stick a naked human in Antarctica and the penguins will be above him. Stick him in the plains of Africa and the lions will be above him. Stick him in the highlands of Scotland and the midges will.

Sorry, but humans ARE animals, by every definition. If you disagree, can I suggest a visit to any city centre on a Friday night?

[Methinkshe]

So we're top of the hierarchy of animals?

Stick a naked human in Antarctica and the penguins will be above him. Stick him in the plains of Africa and the lions will be above him. Stick him in the highlands of Scotland and the midges will.

Why does the human have to be naked? You have cited the penguin, an animal adapted to its climate, so why not allow the human to be equally (if artificially) adapted? Given that level playing field I would argue, show me the penguin that catches and eats the human for dinner.

Sorry, but humans ARE animals, by every definition. If you disagree, can I suggest a visit to any city centre on a Friday night?

I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of yourself that you feel compelled to project it onto others.

Edited for clarity and typos.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Methinkshe

[SMAC67]

Human beings, the naked ape, like any other species, was born, will live, and will die. Our entire existence on planet earth is but a blip in time. If you are here to witness life, then say "thank you", it is a temporary state. We are simple animals, with rather large egos. Clever enough to bring about our own premature demise, too stupid not too. If we are in God's image, then we have one pretty mediocre God, can we replace him with someone competent. Human beings are naturally optimistic, even if this optimism isn't borne out by reality.

Now back to this interesting video that I found on another thread, our future.................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whVSw5X2pVU&NR=1

It is about the collapse of Argentina, all brought about by excessive debt, the greed of banks, and the incompetence (and/or corruption) of politicans, sound familiar?

Edited June 1, 2009 by SMAC67

[Guest anorthosite]

Why does the human have to be naked? You have cited the penguin, an animal adapted to its climate, so why not allow the human to be equally (if artificially) adapted? Given that level playing field I would argue, show me the penguin that catches and eats the human for dinner.

Like you say, its artificial otherwise. The penguin might not eat the man, but the penduin will survive.

I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of yourself that you feel compelled to project it onto others.

Nice bit of ad hominem there! Animals are not bad things, and I'm happy to be counted as one of them. I realise that certain religions consider animals their personal playthings, to be used and abused as they see fit, but some of us aren't that nasty.

Tell me, do you go for creationism or evolution?

[Long Way Down]

Very very sad.

Its a basic human right to have children. If a society gets rid of human rights we are nothing but animals.

It's sad that you don't have the same compassion for our older members of society:

This is easy.

Get rid of 2 million old people: �30B saved.

legalise euthanasia: �2B pa saved.