[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Solar Energy



Mati Meron <meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>nick@vu-vlsi.ee.vill.edu (Nick Pine) writes:
>><meron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

>>>It also completely ignores the fact that the Gulf War started not with
>>>the US attacking Iraq but with Iraq invading Kuweit, a country which didn't
>>>attack Iraq, threaten it or do it harm in any way.
>>
>>A country set up for a few shieks by Standard Oil in the 50's...
>>
>Your point?  If we go a bit further back (say, to 1917) almost none of 
>the countries that we know now in the Middle East did exist.  So, all 
>of them are free game?

I wouldn't say that. Now that all this desert is nominal sovereign countries,
I think we should mind our own business and let them do what they will to
each other, and take care of our own energy needs in some less violent way. 
 
>>Yeah yeah yeah, sure. All those people deserved to die. We had to invade Iraq.
>
>Yes, we did.

No, we didn't. (In rhetoric, an assertion demands no more than a
counterassertion :-)

>Else we would have to deal with a way bigger menace couple years later. 

I dunno about that. Seems like if we don't bother them, they won't bother us.
And if they do bother us (not someone else), we can easily smite 'em, from
high moral ground, but not before that. Consider the Swiss, whose last major
battle was some 800 years ago, when 1,100 Swiss killed 20,000 French soldiers
one night. Everyone died, but people don't mess with the Swiss anymore. We
have proved our military reputation over and over. We don't need to do it
again, or worry about countries like Iraq or Panama or Grenada conquering the
U S of A. We should also grow up and kick this ugly oil habit, at least for
heating houses. And stop being world police. That is arrogant and expensive.

>I trust you do read newspapers sometimes.

I avoid that. Very depressing and time-consuming. I used to read the NY Times
every day, which took about an hour. Then I only read the good news in the
Times, and that only took 5 minutes. Newspapers always seem to be reporting
on wars. I don't know if wars are always going on, and the newpapers have
to fill up space devoted to wars and just report the biggest wars du jour, 
or what, but it always seems that when one war disappears from the papers,
another appears right away to take its place. Armies need employment too.
Perhaps they can pick up litter in parks, when they aren't out fighting.

>>And Israel only defends itself from agressors,
>
>Well, doesn't it?

Not really. As I recall, the six day war started with one of those puny
attacks, with a massive over-response and permanent land-taking on Israel's
part. The phrase "excessive use of force" comes to mind, at least, altho
there is a part of me that says that any country that invades another
deserves whatever response they receive. But that war seemed like 3 or 4
eyes for an eye.

>>and we only invaded Grenada
>>to protect those poor medical students, etc., etc. 
 
>No. we didn't. There wasn't any serious justification for either 
>Grenada or Panama.

Gee, it's nice we agree on something. Perhaps this was military training.
Steve Baer suggests I should have given that ensign some on the spot combat,
eg a punch in the nose. But I was visiting his aircraft carrier at the time,
and that would not have been polite. And he might have punched back.

>>If your neighbor started acting uppity, and browbeating his family,
>>would you kill him, and install a new person as head of his family,
>>to help ensure neighborhood tranquility? 
>
>If I'm living in a place which has no law and no police (which is 
>exactly the situation of the world as a whole, taking your nations as 
>persons analogy)

I'd like to think the UN and World Court could fill that role...

>and my neighbor seems to be menacing me, I'll take 
>any steps within my ability to remove the menace. 

Oh I could see never inviting him to lunch, or refusing to let my kids
visit his house, or perhaps embargoing the mailman, but not killing
him and setting up a new husband in his place... That seems like too
big a step, if all he is doing to you is giving moral offense, or
refusing to sell you the oil in his basement.

>>Could you make him so angry
>>at you that he attacks you, and then "simply defend yourself," waiting in
>>ambush with ten times the weaponry? Would you perform training exercises
>>on the sidewalk in front of his house, with guns, and shine spotlights into
>>his windows at night? Would that be a neighborly thing to do?
>
>Certainly it wouldn't.  However, if you refere to Iraq than you still 
>ignore the fact that Iraq inveded Kuweit, unprovoked.

I don't know why they did that crazy thing, but it seems to me that was
none of our business. Too far away. Isn't Kuwait spelled with an a?

>Did you ever read anything about the history of this century or is 
>everything before Vietnam just a big blank for you.

In truth, I don't know much about history.

>How does the phrase "why should we send our young people to fight and die,
>for people whom we don't know in a country whose name we can hardly
>pronounce" strike you. 

Makes perfect sense. Bertrand Russell used to say something like, "All that
is necessary to bring about peace in the world is for enough good men to do
nothing." Everyone has to make his/her own choice in this. I like Chuang
Tzu's approach to government: if you must govern, do nothing.

>Sounds familiar?

Sounds like the chorus of ladies and policemen in the Pirates of Penzance.

>>>>   I think it's important to point out that a lot of oil is being wasted
>>>>   heating houses in this country, and that such waste is avoidable,
>>>>   and that avoiding such waste contributes to world peace. 
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's why there was always peace in the world, till people 
>>>strted using oil.
>>
>>I'm not sure how that follows. 
>
>But of course it follows.  You think that avoiding the "oil waste" 
>will contribute to the world peace. 

Absolutely.

>I disagree.  The world wasn't peaceful before oil appeared on the scene

I didn't say this would make it peaceful, just perhaps more peaceful.
The local analogy to this is that whenever you have rich and poor people
in the same place, there is crime. We are oil poor...

>>...I'd say they are lucky, or played their cards right. But we seem
>>to try to sway them a bit, unfairly I think, by murdering them by the 
>>thousands, as a part of this "competitive market" price-setting process. 
 
>No. we don't.  But, since you've already made up your mind, I doubt 
>whether you want to be confused by facts.

I do know people who seem to behave as if once you've made up your mind,
the reasons don't matter. This does make life simpler, in terms of cognitive
dissonance, but I'm trying to keep an open mind on this.
 
Nick


References: