Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[roflwaffle]

That's the irony of everyone running around using the term "exponential" willy nilly IMO. A population that's growing will hit a limiting factor sooner or later, finite planet/solar system/whatever. If it was really growing "exponentially", it can't be limited by definition, unless we're just saying that's it will be exponentially growing until it won't (Nor really exponential growth then), in which case we could just as well say it will be exponentially, cubically, linearly, periodically, and so forth (Every function is a piecewise function? ) , growing, until it won't. The drop in population growth over the past half century or so indicates we're hitting some sort of bottleneck, although I don't think it's due to a limit in terms of the scarcest resource as opposed to a change in priorities.

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

SentraSE-R Agreed. Bush Administration decisions were all politically biased, and tainted. No other administration came close to Bush's corruption in my 34 year federal career. None.

Did I not get my point across? I was a federal regulator for 34 years. Bush politicized - actually, polarized - government policies far more than any other administration, bar none. Don't try to justify his meddling by saying everyone else did it. That's not true, and smears everyone with Bush's brush.

I had intended to drop out of this thread as logic was discarded shortly after I said there was considerable oil reserves in ANWR, nothing more, and was bombarded by emotional responses against ANWR drilling (which I never said was a good or bad idea, only that studies reported a -lot- of oil there). Don't drag politics into it, this thread wasn't about politics to begin with. Political viewpoints are forbidden barring specifically relative to efficiency... check the forum page rules. I have not invoked politics into the discussion, please abide by the same courtesy. The above is solely your emotional analysis, and I would imagine a quick check of the facts from past presidents, other politicians and the current administration would uncover equal claims of corruption (I won't provide my documented examples). Politics is a mudpit, you don't get to that level without getting your shoes dirty (regardless of party affiliations)... So far only one political affiliation has sounded off on their emotional evaluation of people no longer even in government, that had little or nothing to do with -facts- presented in one of the very few posts here that quoted a source other than their own two cents. The other political persuasions (from what I'm reading above) have been respectful and not responded likewise. Now please leave the politics out of it. Thanks.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

... but we're too "smart" for bottlenecks right? At least, so far....

...from my ex-military days, the only "good" bottleneck is that attached to a "...cold long-neck" (wink,wink)!

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

If we really WANTED to produce our own oil...

Now here's a place where some logical thinking can be applied. A good place to start is by looking to see if we are asking the RIGHT question. DO we actually want to produce our own oil? Or do we really want to keep on moving ourselves and our goods from A to B at a reasonable cost, and with a certain degree of comfort & convenience?

Now if you start expanding on that question, you can easily reach the logical conclusion that in fact we don't want to produce our own oil. For instance, internal combustion engines are noisy, inefficient, pollute the air, and require the user to financially support a large infrastructure (i.e. "Big Oil") at the mercy of a finite resource. So logically we'd prefer to devote resources to developing electric cars and such.

Or we might apply the logic to commuting: many jobs in this information age can be done by telecommuting. Why would we logically want to spend hours of our time and buckets of money travelling to do what can be done from our own homes?

The point I'm trying to make is that logic is a tool that depends on your starting assumptions. If those assumptions are faulty, so are the answers. GIGO, remember? Garbage In, Garbage Out.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by tim3058

I had intended to drop out of this thread as logic was discarded shortly after I said there was considerable oil reserves in ANWR, nothing more, and was bombarded by emotional responses against ANWR drilling (which I never said was a good or bad idea, only that studies reported a -lot- of oil there).

OK- at what point or percentage should we declare a quantity of oil reserves "considerable"? Is it arbitrary or can we use logic to define it?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

That's the irony of everyone running around using the term "exponential" willy nilly IMO. A population that's growing will hit a limiting factor sooner or later, finite planet/solar system/whatever. If it was really growing "exponentially", it can't be limited by definition, unless we're just saying that's it will be exponentially growing until it won't (Nor really exponential growth then), in which case we could just as well say it will be exponentially, cubically, linearly, periodically, and so forth (Every function is a piecewise function? ) , growing, until it won't. The drop in population growth over the past half century or so indicates we're hitting some sort of bottleneck, although I don't think it's due to a limit in terms of the scarcest resource as opposed to a change in priorities.

I'll hand it to ya, you're right on the definition. But then, the populace i.e layman (including me) should use what term- the population is expanding Liebigly? I think that, the definition of exponential being unlimited notwithstanding, it is commonly understood (?) that at some point there is a breaking point and the exponential growth slows/stops.

But you wouldn't know it after reading articles about shooting breeders off to space to populate the cosmos.

[chuckm]

One of the problems I've seen thus far in the discussion of ANWR is that we are tending to be US-centric. The assumption is that "Cheaper oil = Bad" since it leads to increased consumption has limitations.

When it comes down to it, why do we currently use fossil energy sources? Basically, it is the cheapest available and most thoroughly developed technology. Correct? But are coal and oil the most "evil" energy source? Not even close. I'd argue that the worst offender is cow dung. In sub-Saharan Africa, many of the poorest families heat their homes and cook over dung-burning fires. Such practices, being the only economic solution for those in such abject poverty, produce prodigious amounts of CO2, soot, and carcinogens per BTU (a problem further compounded by low efficiencies). Lower energy prices could potentially make electrifying such homes more possible. Until some "green" tech comes along and produces energy at a cheaper price, I'll err on the side of humanitarianism and oil.

Energy prices in third-world countries also greatly impacts their economic prosperity. When gas shot up to $4/gal here in the states, countries like Honduras faced $5-8/gal... a much tougher problem when the per capita income is less than $2000 a year. Economic development in such conditions is a hard sell.

If ANWR did increase world consumption, I'd believe that a good chunk of that increase would happen in countries that actually need cheaper energy. Americans didn't cut their driving in half when gas prices doubled.

I'm not pro-oil specifically. I am for improving living conditions for those outside the US.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I'll hand it to ya, you're right on the definition. But then, the populace i.e layman (including me) should use what term- the population is expanding Liebigly? I think that, the definition of exponential being unlimited notwithstanding, it is commonly understood (?) that at some point there is a breaking point and the exponential growth slows/stops.

But you wouldn't know it after reading articles about shooting breeders off to space to populate the cosmos.

Logistically or maybe periodically. If a limiting factor only increases seasonally, then population will go up and down w/ the seasons (periodic). If a species is invasive and is growing due to finding a larger environment then population will rapidly climb then stabilize somewhere (logistic). The limiting factor (social or otherwise) is what sets the maximum number of beings.

[Frank Lee]

Yeah- that's another one. Is it logical for orgs to "feed the children"... seemingly perpetually? Is there a basic imbalance between demand and local resources that is actually being made worse by that? Is it logical for the average Haitian to have 8 kids (I don't know what the actual average is) then have them grow up eating not much more than dirt?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Yeah- that's another one. Is it logical for orgs to "feed the children"... seemingly perpetually? Is there a basic imbalance between demand and local resources that is actually being made worse by that? Is it logical for the average Haitian to have 8 kids (I don't know what the actual average is) then have them grow up eating not much more than dirt?

And now you know why I don't donate money to bleeding hearts.

If I thought that money was going to something worthwhile, I'd probably send it out, but the thought that now, because I gave $0.30 a day to some kid in Africa, he's able to eat processed food and drink filtered tap water that could just have easily been boiled using a solar distillation tank... nah, I'm good. I think I'll keep feeding myself and not paying for 10's of thousands of dollars in ad campaigns.