Do you believe the motivation for war would be reduced if the world had perfected

[Uncle Joe]

Poll question: Do you believe the motivation for war would be reduced if the world had perfected

the use of green, sustainable energy technologies?

Would there be less need for standing armies if society wasn't addicted to environment destroying fossil fuels?

Edit: For P.S. If not why not or if other why other?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. "Do you believe the motivation for war would be reduced if the world had perfected

compassion and understanding?"

:think:

[Uncle Joe]

2. Absolutely but that wasn't the question in the poll. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. if if was a skiff we'd all go for a boat ride

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Yes. And, the middle east would be an ignored backwater rather than a hotspot for wars.

[wildflower]

60. But it wouldn't prevent someone from going to war because he wanted to be a "war president"

to improve his political capital and get re-elected.

[Uncle Joe]

63. If you're thinking of Bush by your example, he wouldn't have run for *election

as a War President, as Al Qaueda wouldn't have attacked us in the first place because we wouldn't have been in Saudi Arabia, after kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, all because of oil.

* He never won the first election, he was appointed so I can't use the phrase running for re-election.

[T Wolf]

5. War has always been the tool by which one takes something from another. From

the kings of earlier ages waging war against their neighbors (usually a relative) for their land to the modern version where there is some non-financial "justification" put forth, the reality stays the same.

Even if we had Star Trek replicators and every human need was satisfied, there would still be many who would want to grab it all for themselves. Aggression and violence would be their tools. War would be inevitable.

We humans have not evolved (mentally and emotionally) enough to eliminate the basic human traits that make war-for-gain our main past time. Maybe in a few centuries, if we survive.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe agression and violence are in our DNA due to a need to obtain energy in one form

or another, even if it was just food.

It takes a certain amount of aggression and violence just to be a hunter.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. An interesting documentary on the Lost Pyramids of Caral

May open your knowledge to other theories

No trace of warfare has been found at Caral; no battlements, no weapons, no mutilated bodies. Shady's findings suggest it was a gentle society, built on commerce and pleasure. In one of the pyramids, they uncovered 32 flutes made of condor and pelican bones and 37 cornets of deer and llama bones. One find revealed the remains of a baby, wrapped and buried with a necklace made of stone beads.



They also found evidence of drug use and possibly aphrodisiacs. One theory suggests that the coca they found may be evidence that Caral sprung up as an organized coca growing and distribution centre.

Caral spawns 19 other pyramid complexes scattered across the 35 square mile (80 km²) area of the Supe Valley. The find of the quipu indicates that the later Inca civilization preserved some cultural continuity from the Caral civilization. The date of 2627 BCE is based on carbon dating reed and woven carrying bags that were found in situ.

It lasted for a thousand years in peace


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/caral.shtml


Google video a BBC production:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4092265217728346257#

[Uncle Joe]

65. Thanks for the links, Ichingcarpenter

I wasn't trying to suggest that every human or society has succumbed to their aggressive side but it's there nonetheless.

By your own link, Caral seems to be an exception, not the rule.

For over a century, archaeologists have been searching for what they call a mother city. Civilisation began in only six areas of the world: Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Peru and Central America. In each of these regions people moved from small family units to build cities of thousands of people. They crossed the historic divide, one of the great moments in human history. Why? To find the answer archaeologists needed to find a mother city - the first stage of city-building.

Civilisation through conflict.

They couldn't find one anywhere. Everywhere this first stage seemed destroyed or built over. And so, instead, scientists developed a number of theories. Some said it was because of the development of trade, others that it was irrigation. Some even today believe it was all because of aliens. Gradually an uneasy consensus emerged. The key force common to all civilisations was warfare.

When archaeologist Ruth Shady discovered her 5,000 year old city of pyramids in the Peruvian desert, all eyes were on the New World. Ruth's extraordinary city, known as Caral, is so much older than anything else in South America that it is a clear candidate to be the mother city. It also is in pristine condition. Nothing has been built on it at all. Instead laid out before the world is an elaborate complex of pyramids, temples, an amphitheatre and ordinary houses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/caral.shtml

I don't know why Caral was the exception, perhaps the high altitude, maybe it was the use of drugs to alleviate stress?

For whatever it's worth I'm against the so called "War on Drugs" as well.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. I voted other.

There's no doubt that resource competition is behind a lot of conflict, but it also seems obvious that many, many players in the game support war for other reasons...

1) During wars it's easy to suppress dissent and remove civil rights.

2) During wars, huge chunks of the economy are handed over to the MIC without any real scrutiny.

3) Religions (which rake in money, control people and even governments, etc) thrive on keeping everyone united against an enemy -- whether it's the "Devil" or someone branded as such by the lying weasel, I mean man-of-god du jour -- and that mentality leaks into everything we do. Including the starting of unnecessary wars.

4) Wars have been fought strictly to change another country's religion. Ann Coulter suggested just exactly that when she said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

In other words, people are dumb enough to start wars even when there isn't a somewhat compelling reason like trying to grab the last of the oil.

1 Chronicles 20:1
"In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, Joab led out the armed forces. He laid waste the land of the Ammonites and went to Rabbah and besieged it, but David remained in Jerusalem. Joab attacked Rabbah and left it in ruins."

[Uncle Joe]

12. That's why I didn't say the motivation would be eliminated, just "reduced"

Even money is a form of energy, converted to practically whatever use the owner desires.

I view wars based on religion as in fact largely based on consolidating/obtaining personal power and wealth; for those at the top and to a lesser degree the victor nation in general.

Religion is simply the opiate used to dumb down or enflame the masses, in that regard I view Ann Coulter's pronouncement as nothing but an attempt to arouse the passions of the believers as a means to overrule their reason. But if it weren't for their resources I don't believe Coulter would care one way or the other.

While your biblical reference didn't list the obtaining of resources, it was the elimination of competitors, which de facto left more resources for the victors.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. No. Not all wars are resource wars...

Between WWII and the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the wars were the direct or indirect result of competition between the great powers.

Wars for freedom occur where ever people are subjugated to a government they don't like.

There will always be wars. At best, you remove one reason to fight but that will make other reasons to make war that much more important.

[Uncle Joe]

13. That begs the question, why were those governments subjugating their own people?

Because they had come to to view their own people as nothing more than energy units; whether that translated or converted in to labor, power or wealth energy.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. No governments subjugate people because they are allowed to...

by their own people. Revolutions happen when people reach a critical level of misery. It has nothing to do with energy. We are part of an oil civilizaton, so oil is often part of reason for war. But if we lived in the bronze age we would fight wars for other reasons.

There will always be governments that do that.

Chimpanzees make war. That kind of conflict goes back to our common ancestors, and oil or the lack there of will not solve that problem.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Even during the Bronze Age they fought over energy but it was food (caloric) or people energy,

the same holds true for Chimpanzees they fight over energy or the threat of losing their energy due to encroachment by rival groups of chimpanzees.

Energy = life and that's hardwired in to our system, so creating methods of survival with limitless or virtually limitless forms of energy should reduce the threat level and motivation for going to war.

[Radical Activist]

57. They were a competition between powers for resources.

The cold war conflicts were certainly about resources. The Pentagon Papers made that plainly obvious.

[TheKentuckian]

9. Reduced but certainly not cured by any means

[Statistical]

10. Reduced yes. Eliminated no.

Also I would add low cost. If fossil fuels are "Cheaper" than green tech it would do little to reduce their demand.
I would also add open access. If green energy tech is monopolized to the benefit of the few and the expenses of the masses it wouldn't be useful.

Low cost, green, sustainable, open access energy would REDUCE global conflicts.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Thank you, I agree on all counts but I would add the caveat that

cost of fossil fuel must include environmental degradation as a quantifier.

What is the true cost of oil or gas considering global warming climate change, ongoing war or the economic devastation from the Gulf Oil Gusher?

[slackmaster]

11. Yes, but people would still fight over ridiculous things like religion

And other forms of mineral wealth.

[Uncle Joe]

16. I consider religion to be just a mask for war as a means to demonize the other peoples,

making the thought of violence, destruction and the killing of innocent people more palatable for the public at large.

But the true motivation from those at the top isn't religion so much as the obtaining of resources and mineral wealth or for that matter any wealth is just another form of energy.

I don't believe war would be entirely eliminated but I do believe motivation and reasons for going to war would be greatly reduced.

[drmeow]

15. What did we fight over before

we discovered and learned how to use fossil fuels?

Some other resource would replace fossil fuels as the scarce/necessary resource du jour:

Water
Land
Metals
People (war often enslaves people making them a resource)

Coveting what others have is a chronic human condition.

And what are the odds that the green, sustainable energy technologies are equally distributed ... there would possibly be wars over the sustainable energy technologies.

[Uncle Joe]

17. It's like Statistical posted on post #10

"I would also add open access. If green energy tech is monopolized to the benefit of the few and the expenses of the masses it wouldn't be useful."

Of those things you listed, the situation with water and land would improve with sustainable green energy technologies versus the environment/resource destroying use of fossil fuels.

Metals translating to wealth translating to energy and the same held/holds true for enslaved peoples.

Re: Coveting what others have, I believe that to be part of the same genetic code of aggression and violence which led early humans to hunt for food which translated to energy.

If sustainable green energy technologies are to work as a deterrent against war, it must be a collaborative global effort leaving every nation feeling as a winner.

[drmeow]

24. "leaving every nation feeling as a winner"

exactly

As for water - I think it's going to take greening of more than energy technology to prevent that one from becoming a battle ground. Sustainable food production, control of factory pollution, reduction of demand for cheap plastic crap (reduction of demand for all fossil fuel dependent products), and population control are also important factors. The Citarum river in West Java is a case in point.

[Uncle Joe]

25. I agree, but I believe the switchover to sustainable green energy technology can lead

the way to those other critical changes you mentioned.

Humanity's mindset or attitude regarding our relationship to our only home in the universe must change and I see sustainable green energy development as an integral part of that global epiphany.

[drmeow]

27. Absolutely n/t

[Uncle Joe]

28. My biggest regret in the title of this OP was in making it past tense,

"had perfected" I should have just went with "perfected."

[drmeow]

29. If that's your greatest regret for a post

you're doing pretty good :)

[Statistical]

26. We have unlimited water.

Just not unlimited energy free water.

Green energy + desalination = limitless water. We just need to accept it will be more expensive that our current limited watersupply.

Recycling has the potential to give us near infinite refined resources. Theoretically some future civilization could use billions of tons of steel, aluminum, glass, gold, silicon, etc without every mining anything ever again.

Desalination + energy = water
Recycling + energy = resources
resources + water + energy = food

It all comes back to energy. We need a low cost, open access, green energy source.

[Broke In Jersey]

18. No

I would definately be in favor of invading the Kobe region of Japan for some Kobe steaks!!! mmmmmmmmmmmmmm nothing to do with green energy tech....just delicious yummy goodness!!!!!!!

[dtexdem]

19. Reduced yes, eliminated no.

[spanone]

20. we'd be fighting over the green shit

[Uncle Joe]

22. So long as the sun shines and the wind blows, once the green shit is up and running there would be

no reason to fight as it would be virtually unlimited.

Like air, what nations have went to war because they can't breathe the air?

None that I know of, of course the continued use of fossil fuel without regard for the consequences could change that record.

[MilesColtrane]

30. We'd find new motivations.

[Uncle Joe]

31. I'm sure there will be other motivations to fight for but oil isn't really new if you look at it as

energy and energy coming from varying forms since the dawn of humanity.

I imagine during the Stone Age some less adept cave people attacked others to steal their fire (energy), food is also a source of energy and the battles over territory for expansion had to to with obtaining more food (caloric) resources to feed growing empires, in this regard even wealth or money is a form of energy.

From Ancient Egypt to Imperial Rome to the Colonial Age, enslaved people by their forced labor served as a form of energy, the dawn of the Industrial Age both expanded slavery and served to bring about it's end at least from an institutional standpoint as machines took over, however that required fossil fuels to serve as energy.

I also believe there will be other motivations to fight about but if green, renewable energy can be perfected giving humanity unlimited amounts of either cheap or free energy; that will greatly reduce or eliminate a major motivating component for aggression.

[Romulox]

32. No way. There is a will to destruction behind the war, and the most craven greed.

Green technology doesn't solve any of that. WE are the problem. :hi:

[Hubert Flottz]

33. Greed is the seed of war.

[Uncle Joe]

35. But craven greed is an addiction to personal energy in the form of money or wealth.

[Uncle Joe]

34. We are the problem because violence and aggression was a required component for survival

to obtain; by hunting food (caloric) energy and to defend productive vegetative resources; (caloric) energy from aggressors.

I believe the vast majority of all wars have been fought over energy; in one form or another, all that demonization of the opposing peoples or nations was an emotional requirement to activate their people for the coming death and destruction, but the true motivation was virtually always obtaining energy.

Craven greed is an addiction to personal energy; in the form of money or wealth.:hi:

[Romulox]

36. Indeed, we are a product of our evolution (both genetically and culturally.)

That said, evolution makes no guarantee that our previously adaptive characteristics will continue to ensure our survival into the future. We live on the bones of far more magnificent creatures than we!

"I believe the vast majority of all wars have been fought over energy;"

Well, if by "energy" you define it as "territory, food, fuel, minerals, captives, zenophobia, rite-of-passage, prestige, and profit of the arms industry," then you and I agree. War is fought over "resources", but just what those "resources" are is constantly in flux. For example, the present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought over the right of various multinational corporations to profit from the US taxpayer. The various weapons and ammunitions needed to allow this transfer of wealth are almost secondary.

[Uncle Joe]

39. Yes and of those things you listed, how many of those needs and fears could be reduced or eliminated

should the world perfect and utilize green, renewable virtually limitless energy?

"Well, if by "energy" you define it as "territory, food, fuel, minerals, captives, zenophobia, rite-of-passage, prestige, and profit of the arms industry," then you and I agree. War is fought over "resources", but just what those "resources" are is constantly in flux. For example, the present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being fought over the right of various multinational corporations to profit from the US taxpayer. The various weapons and ammunitions needed to allow this transfer of wealth are almost secondary."

Would the world's general economy and environment improve?

I believe the answer is obviously yes, while wrecked economies and environments aggravate some of those non-energy fears you cited ie: xenophobia coming to mind.

Al Qaidea presumably attacked us because we had a base in Saudi Arabia; (their holy land), we were in Saudi Arabia because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait over their energy. Those dynamics would never have come in to play putting us in Iraq and Afghanistan to enrich the multinational corporations if the world had perfected green, renewable energy in a non-monopolistic manner.

[Hubert Flottz]

38. Men will even fight for the love of love.

Just like most other animals will. We would like to think that we are civilized, but all we do is become ever more efficient and more comfortable with fighting and killing. Mankind expends more wealth and energy on killing than we do on making the world a better place for everybody, even though we have more brain power than the rest of the animal kingdom to improve things.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Mankind is young on the scene, I don't believe we've come close to tapping

our brain power or maturing in regards to making the world a better place. While it's true we expend inordinate amounts of wealth and energy on death and destruction, I know of no other species that actively works to save other species.

There is an effort now under way to transport millions of baby turtle eggs from the threatened Gulf Coast to Florida's east coast just so those species can survive.

I believe as our societies evolve to their higher states, ie: in regards to the environment individuals will be dragged along, or visa versa but this is not to say there won't be setbacks.

[harun]

40. We have an unlimited desire for energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

I think the real question to ask is:

"If we didn't have a government of, by and for the Corporations, would this change the motivation for war?".

The biggest oil companies fight very hard (and have the most money), to keep alternatives from coming to market. United States foreign policy is determined far more by big oil than it is the people who live in the United States.

[Uncle Joe]

42. From what I gather, Kardashev's scale only rates capabilities of harnessing energy, not desire.

"On a more direct level, since the Kardashev scale rates a civilization according to how much energy it is capable of harnessing, it "penalizes" a civilization that invents ways of making more efficient use of the energy already available to it, instead of simply harnessing yet more energy. An extremely advanced civilization might also choose to forgo either the projects or the materialistic growth (expansion) humanity associates with high energy demand."

[harun]

46. My point was simply that if we had a green way to provide for the

energy use of today, it wouldn't be like we wouldn't strive for more use and likely un-green sources tomorrow.

[Uncle Joe]

49. The way I see it, if we had perfected a green environmentally friendly way to use energy,

in a most cost effective manner, there would be no driving motivation to strive for ungreen sources tomorrow except in exceptionally rare cases as in space travel and I'm not sure whether it would be required then.

There is much motivation against nuclear waste, coal ash, black lung disease, and oil spills/gushers destroying the environment, the only reason they're accepted is because modern society is built on those energy sources.

I also believe if humanity used green, renewable sources of energy, we as a species would be more in harmony with nature and have a greater appreciation for the environment.

[harun]

51. I agree, and there are plenty of very green alternatives.

[killbotfactory]

43. We wage war because there is money to be made, resources to plunder

And we can get away with it because we are a powerful and influential nation.

We have a huge industry set up to profit from war, huge numbers of people who are employed by the defense industry, and the major players involved have more influence in congress than anybody who wants us to not engage in war.

[Uncle Joe]

47. The primary resource is "energy," without it modern society couldn't exist.

I agree in that we can get away with it because we are powerful and influential and that we have a huge industry which profits from war, but if energy were virtually unlimited and cheap or free, the profit motive would in large part be removed.

The primary reason such an industry is tolerated now and has so much power is because modern society is so dependent on these fossil fuel resources to sustain itself.

[Llewlladdwr]

44. It seems to me that cheap and easy to obtain energy...

would make for cheap and easy to obtain weaponry. Thus making it easier to fight with one's neighbors over diplomatic slights and imagined dangers.

If the "green, sustainable energy technologies" aren't cheap, then we'll fight over them.

[Uncle Joe]

48. That's why it must be a monopolistic free, global, collaborative effort.

In regards to "diplomatic slights and imagined dangers" I see both of those human frailty dynamics as being magnified during tough economic times, just as the issue of "illegal immigrants" aka: undocumented workers is today here in the U.S.

I believe cheap or free and easy to obtain green, renewable energy would be a major plus for the economy, thereby reducing overall stress.

[Octafish]

45. The Great Game.

The black gold makes the war machine go-go.
The war machine protects the status quo.
The status quo owns the gold gold.
It's ironic, in a way, we get trickle down and they get numbered Swiss bank accounts.

[Uncle Joe]

50. That's a nice circle of links, Octafish.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Octafish]

53. Thank you, Uncle Joe!

Really appreciate it, my Friend. The links I added contain lots o' info -- mostly from DUers. Thanks to you and DU, this place is a great Truth Center.

[Octafish]

52. What a dummy I am...

Meant to make this go above. Dagnab contraptions.

[nyc 4 Biden]

54. No. MIC spending is the major impetus. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

56. MIC spending has drastically increased as a direct result of competition for energy.

The Industrial Age requires energy to exist and for the last 150+ years that's increasingly been fossil fuels oil, coal, gas.

The MIC exists to protect the status quo; our and other nations' standings in the light of the Industrial Age, the MIC's ever expanding budget has grown conversely to that of diminishing oil reserves.

If the humanity stays on the current track of being addicted to finite fossil fuels, MICs can only be driven upward.

If energy were environmentally friendly, renewable, relatively cheap or free, the impetus for MIC would drastically decrease as domestic spending considerations took priority.

[malaise]

55. Yes in the short term

but men will find others resources they want badly enough to slaughter others.

[Uncle Joe]

58. If humanity had abundant green, renewable, cheap or free energy, other resources

would lose their value as they would become cheaper to obtain, grow, produce, manufacture, harvest, mine, hunt or fish.

Virtually everything is tied to the cost of energy, including the dollar and the price of gold.

I'm not suggesting the motivation for waging war would be eliminated, but my logic dictates it would be greatly reduced.

I don't believe slaughtering or torturing people is easy or acceptable to the vast majority of people, that's why political leaders and the corporate media are so loath to expose it for what it is, at least when it hits close to home, we have no problem in seeing the splinter in other nation's eyes.

Fictional TV, ie; CSI will show dead bodies galore with every imaginable mutilation, but the corporate media and Cheney/Bush fought against showing anonymous flag draped coffins, not because of sensitivity to families but to avoid showing the true cost of war to the American People.

Before going to war against other nations and peoples; they must be demonized first and while some citizens; may see through the propaganda, they may still tacitly go along with the war, because they perceive it as a national interest.

I'm convinced many in the Republican Party knew Bush and Cheney were lying but they believed we needed the oil.

So if virtually everything drops in value and the vast majority don't normally want to wage war or slaughter other people, the impetus to wage war should be greatly reduced.

[The2ndWheel]

59. Maybe, but we'd have an even greater environmental impact

It's not the kind of energy we use, but how much energy we use. Humanity, in our self-appointed-stewards-of-the-planet-type hubris, has defined green energy as sustainable. So the war on nature would continue, and probably war between people, as long as there was too much diversity. Too many ways of doing things. That's really what organized war is. Trying to make more of the world into your own image. Culturally, economically, politically, whatever. With green energy, we would certainly attempt to make more of the physical world work only for humans.

[Uncle Joe]

62. That's why I used the adjective "perfected."

Any green, renewable, energy technology must be in harmony with nature.

I believe as the world industrializes under green energy, populations will stabilize.

The growth rate in industrial nations is much lower than developing nations where the infant mortality rate is higher and human labor energy is more intensive.

I do disagree with you on one aspect, it is the kind of energy we use, solar, wind, geothermal would not do anywhere near the environmental damage of nuclear with it's toxic wastes and potential catastrophe or fossil fuels and their own toxic waste.

[The2ndWheel]

66. We don't get to perfect things

There will always be a downside.

"Any green, renewable, energy technology must be in harmony with nature."

But it won't be. Our environmental impact increased when we used sharp sticks to hunt. Let alone what we'll end up doing with our green, renewable, energy technology.

"I believe as the world industrializes under green energy, populations will stabilize."

There will have to be some downside to that as well. We'll have to give something up to get that. Something that we like. Not just giving up too many people on the planet.

"I do disagree with you on one aspect, it is the kind of energy we use, solar, wind, geothermal would not do anywhere near the environmental damage of nuclear with it's toxic wastes and potential catastrophe or fossil fuels and their own toxic waste."

From the toxic waste perspective, sure. That's not the only way we do damage though.

[Uncle Joe]

67. From a technological standpoint as perfect as humanity is capable of making it.

A modern airplane may not be perfect; they still crash every now and then, but in regards to transportation, they beat the hell out of Orville and Wilbur Wright's contraption.

"Any green, renewable, energy technology must be in harmony with nature."

But it won't be. Our environmental impact increased when we used sharp sticks to hunt. Let alone what we'll end up doing with our green, renewable, energy technology.

Green renewable energy will be far more in harmony with nature than our current system of burning the remains of long dead corpses and putting that into the air, water and land. Green renewable energy relies on the ever giving properties of life, with finite fossil fuels we're reaching a dead end in both supply and environmental sustainability.

"I believe as the world industrializes under green energy, populations will stabilize."

There will have to be some downside to that as well. We'll have to give something up to get that. Something that we like. Not just giving up too many people on the planet.

Population stabilization is just one aspect of existing industrialization in general, having green, renewable based industrialization population stabilization would vastly improve the current situation, but if you can think of a negative or adverse aspect, name it.

"I do disagree with you on one aspect, it is the kind of energy we use, solar, wind, geothermal would not do anywhere near the environmental damage of nuclear with it's toxic wastes and potential catastrophe or fossil fuels and their own toxic waste."

From the toxic waste perspective, sure. That's not the only way we do damage though.

Toxic waste has the capability of wiping out large portions if not all of civilization, so I consider that a pretty big way to do damage and that's just by accident and/or everyday use while not taking in to account the effects from a terrorist strike. With global warming climate change, we're literally threatening our own existence, I have never heard of solar, wind or geothermal energy having the capability of threatening life as we know it, if you have please share it.

If you're coming to a fork in the road and down one path you can see imminent, overwhelming danger, it makes sense to go around the danger and change paths; if another looks much more promising without having to know every possibility about the new path, to do othewise would be illogical.

[The2ndWheel]

72. Not that we need to fly

"A modern airplane may not be perfect; they still crash every now and then, but in regards to transportation, they beat the hell out of Orville and Wilbur Wright's contraption."

They also give a good way to burn fossil fuels.

"Green renewable energy will be far more in harmony with nature than our current system of burning the remains of long dead corpses and putting that into the air, water and land. Green renewable energy relies on the ever giving properties of life, with finite fossil fuels we're reaching a dead end in both supply and environmental sustainability."

Except that we're trying to harness those energies. We'll be mining above ground, instead of below. That will give us the idea of limitlessness. I guess we'll just have to let that play out.

"Population stabilization is just one aspect of existing industrialization in general, having green, renewable based industrialization population stabilization would vastly improve the current situation, but if you can think of a negative or adverse aspect, name it."

Well, every human institution we have today exists because of the foundation of a growing population. More tax payers. More consumers. Spreading the risk as thin as possible. If we level the population off, or begin an actual decline, then something will have to change in those institutions.

"Toxic waste has the capability of wiping out large portions if not all of civilization, so I consider that a pretty big way to do damage and that's just by accident and/or everyday use while not taking in to account the effects from a terrorist strike. With global warming climate change, we're literally threatening our own existence, I have never heard of solar, wind or geothermal energy having the capability of threatening life as we know it, if you have please share it."

We haven't had the chance to try those energies on a global platform before. We do still live in physical reality. There is always a cost.

"If you're coming to a fork in the road and down one path you can see imminent, overwhelming danger, it makes sense to go around the danger and change paths; if another looks much more promising without having to know every possibility about the new path, to do othewise would be illogical."

That is the exact way we got to where we are as of July 29th, 2010. Maybe it'll be different this time. Hopefully not just because of the definition we give to the term green, or renewable, or clean, or whatever. We are going to find out though, one way or another. It certainly won't be a boring century.

[Uncle Joe]

74. Not that we need anything except fire, water, food and a nice cave.

Things are always changing.

"They also give a good way to burn fossil fuels."

That's another reason as to why we need to convert everything we can to clean renewable energy sources.

Airplanes and rockets have also contributed to our ability for space travel with the potential to eventually expand off this one little island in the universe, and the ability to gather resources from off planet, insuring the survival of the species for at least a little longer.

"Well, every human institution we have today exists because of the foundation of a growing population. More tax payers. More consumers. Spreading the risk as thin as possible. If we level the population off, or begin an actual decline, then something will have to change in those institutions."

Two points on that.

1. As populations stabilize and decrease, costs to society will reduce as well.

2. I suspect humanity for a time will rely increasingly on automation, it seems to me Japan is leading the way in that regard.

"We haven't had the chance to try those energies on a global platform before. We do still live in physical reality. There is always a cost."

And should those green, sustainable energy sources prove to harmful to the environment, that will need to be addressed up front or corrected, but until that is proven, we have to go with the best course of action as we know it and we already know the present course of relying on fossil fuels is certainly not it.

"That is the exact way we got to where we are as of July 29th, 2010. Maybe it'll be different this time. Hopefully not just because of the definition we give to the term green, or renewable, or clean, or whatever. We are going to find out though, one way or another. It certainly won't be a boring century."

Not quite although I agree with you about the not boring part. We first saw this imminent danger fork back when Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House, but when Reagen came to power he disregarded the obvious implications, reversed course and took our nation down the wrong path, that's how we got to July 29th 2010 as we know it.

[wildflower]

61. Other...see my post (#60) above

I think the resources are a factor, but there are other reasons war is waged too.

[Uncle Joe]

64. See my post #63 above.

I also believe other factors come in to play, but the competition for finite fossil fuels is a major motivating factor.

[NightWatcher]

68. this isnt a War For Oil anymore, it's a War For Defense Contractors

Cold War Redux.

[Uncle Joe]

69. The Defense Contractors wouldn't be making the money if it weren't for the oil.

The oil is the primary reason we're over there.

None of the nations in the Middle East would pose a national security threat against us if it weren't for the oil.

[NightWatcher]

70. no one poses a threat to us, they have manufactured the "threat"

17 guys with boxcutters, or a 6'5'' guy with kidney failure in a cave.....

you believe that's a real threat to people in Nebraska?

It's all been about selling us terror.....and the 'tools' to fight it (at a cost)

[Uncle Joe]

71. Every administration at least for over the past 40 years

has believed the loss of that region to pose an economic national security threat because our society is so dependent on oil.

The price of oil which leeches away from our economy feeds theirs.

The only reason they attacked us, is because we were over there and the primary reason we were over there was to guard or procure the oil.

If oil wasn't so valuable and critical to society, the cost of having the military over there would be even more prohibitive than it already is.

If we weren't so dependent on fossil fuels and had cheap or relatively free green, renewable energy to sustain our nation, the political opposition to having our troops on the other side of the planet would be far greater and there would be increased demand for domestic spending in the budget.

[pitohui]

73. we're fighting over ideology

at the end of the day it makes no sense to spend all this blood and treasure to get oil out of the mid east while we're sitting on all kinds of offshore oil that most states think they're too "precious" to drill for

we have the oil, i have to admit having seen the oil pour out of the gulf of mexico has impressed just how MUCH oil we still have, so it ain't about that

it's abt whose religion, whose ideology is going to come out on top

we fought and killed over the same thing in the crusades before the first oil well was ever drilled

[Uncle Joe]

75. We're fighting because corporations make mega bucks and because oil is the lifeblood

of our status quo modern society.

The high price of oil has in effect helped enable our out-sized expenditures on the military versus the rest of the world combined, but that can only go on for so long before it collapses.

I'm not trying to say every war throughout history was fought over energy, human frailty played a part as well, sometimes religion, nationalism or other demonic propaganda dividers were used as the pretext to incite their people by stoking fear and hatred in order to wage war.

However resources in the form of land, water, enslaved peoples, food, minerals, wealth, power and fossil fuels all come under the category of energy for the purposes of this OP and I believe those dynamics have been the true black heart behind the motivation for vast majority of war throughout history.