Re: [energyresources] Re: Study: 9 guns for every 10 Americans
- On Aug 31, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Pedro Prieto wrote:
> Stuart Johnson wrote:Let us accept your argument for a moment that American gluttony
> Why all the resistance to looking at overpopulation?
> The resistance is to the people trying to
> seize the energy web page and reduce it to overpopulation.
> What I observe. . . is a big, a huge, a
> tremendous resistance to talk and acknowledge that gluttony and
> overconsumption is the main cause and the real driver of resources
is causing cruelty to poor people, world oil depletion, global warming,
human dieoff and death of the biosphere. Are you saying that if we
forced resource consumption of Americans back to 2000 calories per
person that there would be no more problems?
Perhaps you have not had the chance to see Dr. Al Bartlett's video
"Arithmetic, Energy, and Population" wherein he shows that the
ordinary growth rates of human populations are greater than
replacement rates (>2.1 babies per couple), and population growth
that fast will soon outgrow any food or other resources that we try
to obtain for human use.
I have some sympathy for your antagonism towards American
gluttony, but I don't think complaining about it will help.
Our society is structured so that our well-being is
determined by the ratio between energy available per person.
The energyresources discussion group continues to argue
whether we should produce more liquid fuels (bioethanol?),
generate more electricity from fission or fusion reactors, or wind,
photovoltaic, or other sources.
Thus we continue to attack the numerator of the fraction,
energy availability. But new energy sources will continue
to drive global warming to disastrous effect.
Should we not examine the denominator, population growth,
and try to reduce it? And get our per capita energy use down to
minimal levels as well? As Garrett Hardin might have said,
shouldn't we talk about population overages as well as
So now go ahead and tell me why this is another heartless
capitalist idea proposed by cruel Americans to further hurt
the world's poor people?
Stuart Johnson, USA, OR
- On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 20:31 -0700, Anona Mouse wrote:
> If it has to, it will. Imagine 1862. The North and the South areLooks like you have been writing the script for the US Air Force...
> battling it out, but the North has a couple of nukes. Boom goes
> Richmond. Boom goes Atlanta. Boom goes Vicksburg, Memphis, BIrmingham
> or some other city of your choice.
US B-52 'in nuclear cargo error'
A B-52 bomber flew across the US last week mistakenly loaded with up to
six nuclear-armed missiles, unnamed air force officials are quoted as
The missiles were unaccounted for during a three-hour flight from a
North Dakota air base to one in Louisiana.
Air Force spokesman Lt-Col Ed Thomas told Army Times the weapons were
"always in our custody".
Army Times said the missiles were to be decommissioned but were
mistakenly mounted on the bomber's wings.
The W80-1 warhead has a yield of five to 150 kilotons, the paper said.
A military official told AFP news agency that President George W Bush
had been informed of the mix-up.
The flight was reportedly on 30 August from the Minot Air Force Base in
North Dakota to the Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
Col Thomas told Army Times: "Air Force standards are very exacting when
it comes to munitions handling.
"The weapons were always in our custody and there was never a danger to
the American public."
Col Thomas said the loading crew involved had been temporarily
"decertified" pending retraining and an investigation had been
A full US military statement is expected soon.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2007/09/05 14:48:53 GMT