<<
Dhlazare wrote:
> Is this serious? Or have you overdosed on "Mad Max" movies?
>
Hmmmm. Dan, if Mel Gibson hadn't existed he'd have been invented just to console
you and Jordan for losing an argument. But like all global warming denialists and
energy-entropy denialists, you respond to serious arguments with unconsidered
jibes. Why is that?
Mark
>> Sorry, just an attempt at levity, didn't mean to be rude. But my point still stands -- nature is not going to impose a solution on human society by causing energy supplies to run out. Only humanity can impose a solution on humanity. Your scenarios about auto traffic grinding to a halt are much too apocalyptic. Much more likely, from my point of view, is that, due to excess gasoline supplies, we'll all wind up immobilized in some mega-traffic jam on some mega- LIE (Long Island Expressway to all you non-Americans), the gas fumes rising, the outside temperature hovering at 125 degrees F. due to global warming, and some Howard Stern-like shock-jock screaming at us over the car radio for not fulfilling our daily consumption quota at the local mall. Shelley thought hell resembled 19th-Century London. Brecht thought it resembled the L.A. of the 1940s. I think it resembles the Nassau County of the 1990s.
By the way, according to today's NY Times, the price of Saudi Light is approx. $12.50 / barrel. This is the equivalent of $3.40 in 1973 dollars, which is pretty much where things stood on the eve of the first Arab oil embargo. Once again, I insist: the long-term trend in energy prices in a period of chronic over-production is downward.
Dan Lazare