Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Okay this analogy jumped the shark, but the whole argument is really just another appeal to the mysticism of "something different" without a realistic plan for extracting the country from its reliance on resources. Usually this involves some vague, one-sentence commitment to "investing in alternative energy" or "researching other avenues" or "green jobs" or "new techology sectors" or some such nonsense which makes for a nice-sounding soundbite. There is no "there" there, there's no practical solution.
|
So the solution to you is, well, there's nothing practical yet. Let's just keep going along with what we're doing.
If we're going to talk impractical, how is it practical to continually pour obscene amounts of resources and research into something that has an endpoint, that negatively impacts the earth and our society (the fact that we worry about our prices being to high that other nations will buy it from human rights violators, murderers and really all around terrible people shows that this has a negative impact on our society) and actually causes conflict and violence? How is it practical when we have opportunities for real change towards alternatives that can help us? How is it practical that those alternatives receive a minute fraction of resources and investment towards research than the former?
We're going to have to change. And it's not going to be pretty any way you slice it. There's no way you can make a move to alternatives without the collapse of the old industry. It's going to happen. This has happened again and again throughout the history of humanity and we're still doing alright. How are all the jobs in the whale oil sector? Do you give a rats ass?
We can wait until we can no longer rely on our current energy sources, or we can make a proactive move towards something better. Things already in existence but severely underfunded.