Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're going to have to seriously consider marking those shoes, one with an L and the other with an R.

So since you obviously have no solution, you throw accelerant on the fire!

No, you have it reversed. Pollution is trapping the heat, so as for it not, to escape it's confines.

Who do you think you're talking to? You said "Anyway," this is what I addressed, understand?

You see Cassandras due to your apathetic lethargy. I for one have plenty of solutions, it's just, people are too selfish to even consider. They, like you, want to know what others can do for them, instead of getting off their rears, and confronting the issues, which, surprise, leads to solution.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you know the story of Henry Fords ethanol? Standard Oil and Shells moguls saw that he was going to compete with their product, OIL, and so they conspired to put their competition aside so as to take out this new comer. I guess they saw that ethanol was renewable thus ultimately unbeatable. So they dropped their prices so Henry couldn't compete because he was in the beginning phase's of tooling and thus required the previous pricing. Well they succeeded to put him out of business, I wish someone had taken them both out, and I don't mean to dinner, as specifically, Rockefeller, (Standard Oil), had already Massacred innocent women and children, if only I had a time machine I'd fix our problem. The point being that this "we" you speak of is just you and that mouse in your pocket, as we're talking of the rich, the ones that actually control things, and they only understand their bottom line, money..

You should have separated the text so that you didn't give this answer to a statement I made elsewhere, at first I didn't understand why you wrote that. But now that you're at it, ethanol is highly ineffective energy production when all matters are taken into account, it's a blessing it was never taken large-scale, it would've ruined the crops of the world and spread poverty (or at least hindered development) through scarcity of fuel and scarcity of places to grow quality food (and scarce access to food due to increased costs).
Not at all, you have simply taken his idea and super imposed it into today's environment, as if all other things would be the same. There are many things that could be done to make ethanol work, one of which is hemp, a weed, that yields more oil and cellulose per unit of land than most other plants.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not at all, you're just unaware of the facts that lend to my words, It's not that they're hollow, you're just ignorant of their substance, and I don't feel like writing a book, on the fly, here at PNF. Like I said before, I can't type for shit, for various reasons.

You're not very helpful.

Yes, in truth, this in fact could be said, in this case, with some level of certainty.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Why are we so quick to condescendingly label people, because we simply don't understand them?

Dunno. If you are referring to me: I usually don't label people unless they are metaphorically screaming for being labelled by quite clear ways of being, like a guy who says "I am God". Instead, I usually tell them what they've done, and if they think I'm labelling them, it's usually their own thoughts, and not mine.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not at all, you have simply taken his idea and super imposed it into today's environment, as if all other things would be the same. There are many things that could be done to make ethanol work, one of which is hemp, a weed, that yields more oil and cellulose per unit of land than most other plants.

Yielding more is not really a qualifier for any assurance of anything. Crops, of all kinds, are fundamentally highly inferior to oil in terms of energy efficiency. Even if it was several times better, it would still be pretty bad. Many things would be the same actually, because chemicals don't simply change because of time. My comment was in fact not against today's society, but towards the course of the last 100 years if ethanol had been used instead of oil. Ethanol would've held back the entire Western civilization, and all other civilizations for that matter.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You misunderstand my point, which is that one says nothing, if their words are premature, if they preempt understanding, the truth of ones conveyance. In calling me depressed, you failed miserably, in several ways. I see that any depression I experience is not a cause, but rather an effect. In addition the truth of your label was to be found in your lack of understanding, and not my abilities. Which is not to say that you failed to understand, just that you made a call before all the data was in.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, they lowered there profit margin because their tooling was in place, and business was thriving, so that he couldn't compete as he was just then tooling. It would seem the shoe's on the wrong foot.

Sorry, I was talking about why they won't change now and I agree that the oil producers will not invest in new technologies util its cost-effective, i.e. they can make a profit as currently the customer won't pay for it. With respect to ethanol, this one of those bio-fuels? If so the problem with this is that then land for food becomes land for cars.
Again, you have the shoe on the wrong foot, <- has this concept really stumped you, I understood you to believe you were very smart. It's not the peoples responsibility, to pay for it, it's the energy companies responsibility! They only have the right to absorb such costs. PERIOD!

Again, your apathy fuels the fire.

Thats the second time you've accused me of this, so tell me what exactly you are doing to alleviate this situation?
That's a foolish question, first I speak to everyone, of the problem as it truly is, with this follows change, as it becomes the movement, as multiple heads are always better than one, I am no necessary leader, you on the other hand, have either thrown in the towel, or have stock in big oil, as you verbiage betrays, which is it?

Whose responsibility? Who's got the money? I think you are again placing the shoe on the wrong foot.

Over here it used to be a nationalized industry so I used to be able to say us and our govt. Now they are all owned by shareholders ago so I guess the usual suspects own them, banks, pensions funds, savers, etc. If the customers got together and convinced the energy companies that they'd pay a higher price for clean coal then I guess the companies would do it. The reality is that you can't get the customers to do this.
See first answer above!

I'd like to hear your definition. So as to speak, but I seriously doubt you have a crystal ball.

Westerners, especially Americans, who pay fuck all for their energy usage as a percentage of earnings and consume most of the world fossils fuels, i.e. the energy wealthy. Although it looks like China is going to be doing most of the consuming from now on.
You speak with animosity, but have as yet, said nothing I don't already understand, as if relatively, I'm wealthy, indicating you fail to see the truth of things, I, like you, are bound by the masses, in which I was born, If I truly had any power, the way I talk, are you kidding, things would change instantly. That's the problem with people of small minds, they are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, and their bite is of empty presumption.

Obviously, I meant as it currently is, my way of indicating the need for a radical mastectomy.

And how do you think thats going to happen?
How has it happened in the past? Is revolution the only way things abruptly change? How does one deal with the selfish monetarily wealthy, because make no mistake, that's who we're talking about.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're going to have to seriously consider marking those shoes, one with an L and the other with an R.

And you need a grip on reality if you wish to make an actual change. So far you have offered no solutions to the issues you say you are concerned with.
Not your version of reality, as you know not what it is. You believe mans reality is tied down, as if in a headlock, by what has been, up to now. I see that the only true reality is that of the universe, and that what man calls reality, as it pertains to the subject at hand, is self serving tripe. When it comes to mans reality, his construct, it is completely arbitrary, and has absolutely no association to the one true reality of the universe, as it's only in the hands of the selfish few, it's simply a construct to appease the wealthy, as in the glittering prize of power.

So since you obviously have no solution, you throw accelerant on the fire!

I have lots of solutions but its still going to get hotter.
And there is your apathy again, I'm sure you're aware of the word "rate" and how it would apply to the crux of this particular matter, it would seem that you're too lazy. And again your crystal ball is a product of your limited vision, born of a state of apathy.

No, you have it reversed. Pollution is trapping the heat, so as for it not, to escape it's confines.

Nope, as I was talking about particulates and it appears that our warming figures may be out due to their shadowing effect.
More of your apathy, and laziness, Do you have a death wish to embrace/defend such an unnatural short lived bit of luck, in lieu of the natural cooling that the Earth has seen for billions of years? That's a fools game, my friend!

Who do you think you're talking to? You said "Anyway," this is what I addressed, understand?

I understand I'm talking to someone who likes to use emotive metaphors instead of talking about the issues.
And do you know why? Because I see a bunch of apathetic fools, that believe they somehow raise them selves above (selfishness) talking about what everyone already knows, as if by blowing their own horn, (look at what I know, look how commanding I am of the language), actually has any benefit at all, NOT!, and that due to this facade, they race towards oblivion. There is no longer any time to stroke oneself, to talk each other to death, better get busy with the power of your passion, emotion, adrenalin or else all shall be lost. Defending against the problem, as you do, serves no purpose other than to ensure it. We're wasting valuable time!
Do you understand body language? Something similar can be understood contained in the way one words their argument. To me, emotive metaphor, speaks more of the real person, than does dry facts, as it negates the ability to lie effectively, well in most cases at least. I have found this to be true, and have nurtured it, because of it's purity.

But I accept that I was unclear, so given we may be accelerating a process what solutions can you offer that the public will accept?
To hell with their acceptance, as unfortunately, the majority have a big problem looking into the mirror and seeing themselves clearly. If I only had the power, I would surely set things right, with no casualties. I would be a tyrant of justice, of what they needed, not what I needed. I would be cruel so as to actually be kind. In the aftermath I would be heralded, as they finally understood equality, thus true freedom. And of course you shall judge these words harshly, picking the worst of the past, as if that necessarily has any bearing on my future, as like everyone, you fear the unknown. I am different than most, as you have already acknowledged. I only require the love of a mate so as to share love, besides of course the necessities of air, water, food and shelter, except maybe dance and thus the luxury of music. All of those things that are emotive, as that is where happiness resides. Intellect merely sets the framework so as to ensure each has emotive freedom, as with my 'fundamental social axiom,' so that each can find their own version of life, at no one else's involuntary expense.

You see Cassandras due to your apathetic lethargy. I for one have plenty of solutions, it's just, people are too selfish to even consider. They, like you, want to know what others can do for them, instead of getting off their rears, and confronting the issues, which, surprise, leads to solution.

Once again you accuse me of this. So tell me what you are actually doing to alleviate this situation?
I only accuse the words, you have thus far used, of this, I assume it an accurate reflection of your meaning, as you yourself have bragged of your education, and has been one that insists upon calling ones grammar/spelling into question. Not lately, it's true, but none the less you have. You must also remember that I understand that I can only address what it is you say, which has no necessary bearing on what it is that you actually believe, I always take words at face value, and 'try' never to read devil advocacy/sarcasm into them, unless it seems extremely apparent.

I have done much, in that I have minimized my impact more so than most Americans, that is, as much as my current position in mankind's construct allows.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not at all, you have simply taken his idea and super imposed it into today's environment, as if all other things would be the same. There are many things that could be done to make ethanol work, one of which is hemp, a weed, that yields more oil and cellulose per unit of land than most other plants.

Yielding more is not really a qualifier for any assurance of anything. Crops, of all kinds, are fundamentally highly inferior to oil in terms of energy efficiency. Even if it was several times better, it would still be pretty bad. Many things would be the same actually, because chemicals don't simply change because of time. My comment was in fact not against today's society, but towards the course of the last 100 years if ethanol had been used instead of oil. Ethanol would've held back the entire Western civilization, and all other civilizations for that matter.

In so believing, you have placed the cart before the horse, which is why the cart is out of control.

Held back?? Where's the fire?? Save the one, created by the unthinking rush. To build an empire on a finite resource, with no contingencies, for the continuing needs, of a then bloated requirement, was a fools game. look at the problems it's created.

Crude oil is exactly the same resource as crops, it's just an old large cache of those lives of the past. I see that it should have been used as a reserve, when it became unfeasible to no longer use crops, if at all.

You assume that our rate as it was, had to be that way, I see no requirement, as if a slower pace would somehow harm us, no, quite the opposite. A slower rate would allow for a more educated course/direction, which would have also meant a longer life expectancy for our planet, resources, etc. And still nothing would have been missed, it would just have been a more assured version, negating errors that now, cannot be withdrawn. The rate of the past was fed by mindless greed, and that's the truth of it. It was not done because we should, it was done because we could, which is clearly not a valid reason.

In truth, I'm no oil man, however it's dirtiness is retrieved, actually I'm a clean solar man, thought I have also embraced clean wind.

I was actually only speaking of oil as to lend to the fact that it's always been out of the control of this "we" of which you've spoken, and that actually it's always, and shall continue to be, only in the hands of the rich.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You misunderstand my point, which is that one says nothing, if their words are premature, if they preempt understanding, the truth of ones conveyance. In calling me depressed, you failed miserably, in several ways. I see that any depression I experience is not a cause, but rather an effect. In addition the truth of your label was to be found in your lack of understanding, and not my abilities. Which is not to say that you failed to understand, just that you made a call before all the data was in.

You failed miserably in understanding what I said. I never said you were depressed, I said, and I quote "it's the view of somebody stuck in depressed thought", suggesting in so saying that only depression can produce such miserable outlooks on humanity, in statements like "It's not all fun and games anymore" indicates a kind of ceasing, a stop, of "fun and games", which I find relating to depression, to not being able to enjoy life. Here comes my magical point, it is in your head that you heard me say you were depressed, I strictly speaking never actually said it, and presenting it in such a way, I challenge you to show me whether you are preaching the world-view from a state of depression (or at least a depressed outlook) or not. I don't judge you before proof has been presented, so never do I actually think you are depressed either.
Or did you fail miserably to present? While you try to split hairs as to your meaning, you fail, as still it is true that you attributed my way of presenting as being depressed. I tend to under state or over state to make a point, as how could I possibly know the exact rate, I do not believe in crystal balls. I do this to give attention of that which has/can run-a-muck, so as to cause one to see that to proceed with caution is the wisest choice. A thinking man's way is much clearer than a rash man's. My point was that you seemed, to only convey your concern with fun and games, as if this is of paramount importance, negating the consideration of anything that might reduce these favorite things of yours. Seemingly you made them the crux of the matter, and I quote:

...degrade their life quality,

Oh god forbid, one has to suck it up a bit and

Only when we can stop worrying about surviving can we have a decent enjoyable life

total bullshit, ever heard of an asteroid, checked recent Russian news lately? Earth Quakes, Floods, Tsunami's, Volcanic Eruptions, Hurricanes, etc, etc, etc. and of course, are you kidding me with this selfish "decent lifestyle" at the cost of rationality. and

...we don't actually strictly speaking loose anything

God forbid one has to back step or pause for a moment, neglecting their wants. and

quality of their lives

this is seemingly becoming your prime directive, selfishness, at any cost?
and

people who suffered

and

anybody at all suffers

etc, etc, you see that change should only proceed if it doesn't taint your lifestyle, this type of mentality is the biggest part of the problem, and is why man is doomed, because his selfishness will not allow leaner times that are required to set things right. Granted I see that it has to start at the top and work it's way down, but this mentality, of me, me, me, me, is a serious problem, throughout the ranks.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Quality of their lives... That's a joke! It's this, "anything for a buck," mentality that shall be mankind's ruin.

The products of oil you find anywhere in the world. The food you eat has been transported by oil in very efficient ways allowing for you to get enough food, when you want it and where you want it. Oil exporting countries have granted other countries a highly valuable resource and in exchange those other countries have helped lift the exporting country out of poverty and into wealth, granting them access to health care, advanced learning, technology, various items they didn't have access to before and items of higher quality than before, not to mention they've imported industry because entrepreneurs have found new markets to deliver their products to. Bad solutions by a few greedy bastards isn't worthwhile the argument it tries to present, you can't generalize a massacre done a hundred years ago by some bastards that all or even most oil producers or refiners are like that or that it is even a trait that belongs to them.
Already covered this in a newer reply.
Obviously, you you do not understand, the significance, most certainly, as long as you get your share, of it's contribution to your lifestyle, as you have made quite clear.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Money is not the bottom line, in actuality, truth is! And it shall knock one dead, in an instant, while they're assessing the worth of their glittering prize.

I don't understand these sentences. What are you trying to say? Are you on drugs or something?
So because you don't understand something, it surely has to be the problem of the one you don't understand. They must be on drugs, not right in the head. Classic selfishness!

Because you are preaching like a priest on ecstasy.
Or more correctly, that's what you project, of your mind, onto me, when you don't understand, what ever the reason.

What truth do you mean?
Why clearly, the truth that unfolds!

Does your truth constitute facts nested in arguments or are you talking truth like a religious or ideological truth?
I nor anyone necessarily has any truths, as the truth between men is often relative, and often merely belief. In this case the truth, was that of a man, or a few men, seeking wealth, and contained no real truth as to the correct way to proceed, so as to consider anyone's or anythings value, other than their own. But the truth of their greed, has and continues to unfold, and shall probably do us in. All my words are based upon facts, that are freely obtainable, just because you do not understand how the encyclopedia contained in this 55 years of existence, pertains to these few words of summation, is irrelevant.

The reason I have a problem reciting this information to satisfy you, is because, as someone earlier put it, as to my argument methodology, it 'jumps all over the place,' and 'that's not on topic.' The reason this is true is because for as long as I can remember, I've characterized the knowledge of the universe, thus us, as an extremely large jigsaw puzzle, from our human perspective. I see that some of the pieces are cut the same, such that when placed, they seemingly fit, but it's obvious the patterns of colors do not add up, but none the less, some leave them there, merely because the shape fits, focused only on that particular aspect, blinded by limited focus. This leads to false knowledge. My problem is that I only ever try and see the entire picture, not focusing on any particular area/aspect, this then allows for a better understanding of how pieces only seemingly fit. It also allows one to see how everything relates to everything. But it is extremely taxing then to try and see any one section, so as to impart what it is, as it's only periphery, blurry as you focus on everything in it's entirety. To do otherwise, one looses sight of the entire picture, and that induces errors. The problem I have then with such knowledge has been characterized as in the above paraphrases. And now I guess you have added to it.

As I have proofed the above, it's clear that the articulation is not complete, I shall continue here at PNF and thus shall continue to make clear that which I'm trying to convey.

One further example, of which I have noticed, is contained in the following. Anything that I have done without reservation, has been extremely successful, while if for some reason I doubt myself I always fail. There has never been a time that I have failed that I have not doubted myself. And there has never been a time that I have not doubted myself that I have not been 100% successful. I noticed this phenomena some time ago, but never bought into it, as much as recently, which is not to say that I'm lost in it, just that I tend to explore it more often. Oh I wish I could grab a hold of this "not doubting," such that everything would work out, but at this point I still don't know much about it. I only know that some people have more or less of this, for some reason or another, which accounts for their success, or not. I know that some of you shall hear this, and then think whoa this guy is out there, but I assure you, I'm hard pressed, to be sold on anything, that's seemingly mystical. I tend to believe that it may have to deal with quantum mechanics as with this thread. The subject of which, I had been aware of, quite some time ago, I actually have that movie. And was fascinated by the possibility.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:only in the hands of the rich

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Again, you have the shoe on the wrong foot, <- has this concept really stumped you, I understood you to believe you were very smart. It's not the peoples responsibility, to pay for it, it's the energy companies responsibility! They only have the right to absorb such costs. PERIOD!

a foolish question, first I speak to everyone, of the problem as it truly is, with this follows change, as it becomes the movement, as multiple heads are always better than one, I am no necessary leader, you on the other hand, have either thrown in the towel, or have stock in big oil, as you verbiage betrays, which is it?

See first answer above!

You speak with animosity, but have as yet, said nothing I don't already understand, as if relatively, I'm wealthy, indicating you fail to see the truth of things, I, like you, are bound by the masses, in which I was born, If I truly had any power, the way I talk, are you kidding, things would change instantly. That's the problem with people of small minds, they are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, and their bite is of empty presumption.

How has it happened in the past? Is revolution the only way things abruptly change? How does one deal with the selfish monetarily wealthy, because make no mistake, that's who we're talking about.

The Voice of Time wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:only in the hands of the rich

I'm sorry if you're experiencing that in your country. I can't say the same about Norway, however. Unless an entire country can be called "the rich".

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Again, you have the shoe on the wrong foot, <- has this concept really stumped you, I understood you to believe you were very smart. It's not the peoples responsibility, to pay for it, it's the energy companies responsibility! They only have the right to absorb such costs. PERIOD!

You appear confused as I thought you said they were greedy capitalists only out for profit so what reason could you give them to do such a thing. Especially since their customers won't pay.
Then why make the point that customers won't pay, as neither will the suppliers. OK then, with this stalemate, which are the more responsible ones, for cleaning up their method of production? Which are the more capable to do so? And that is what I'm talking about. It's about what's right. I see that once CEO's and other such people of, way over inflated paychecks, are reduced to a more fair level, then, and only then, shall it be that the people should join in. In the US, I forgot what the stats were exactly, but the amount of profit the Oil companies made was unbelievably through the roof. In today's environment, there is no call for this, disparity. I see these people as vampires sucking the last bit of life from a dying carcass, as I've seen no real signs of their investing it into newer technologies.

I don't believe myself to be very smart just well educated.
OK, So do you see yourself as a mindless hunk of facts running around? I don't think so, but anything so as to argue, huh?

a foolish question, first I speak to everyone, of the problem as it truly is, with this follows change, as it becomes the movement, as multiple heads are always better than one, I am no necessary leader, you on the other hand, have either thrown in the towel, or have stock in big oil, as you verbiage betrays, which is it?

Neither, I voted Green, I recycle, I try to promote nuclear power wherever I can, I sign petitions where appropriate, I lobby my MP on these issues etc. Maybe you should step up to the plate then rather than expecting others to do so.
We've talked about this before, remember? And I was the one that brought up most of that. I bet I used less energy than you did these last few years. My thermostat has been set at 60° F for the last 3 years, through winters that have reached as low as -10° F WCF.

If this is true, then why the argument filled with apathy: 'why do anything at all, we're all going to die anyway?' Do you just argue for it's sake? Trust me when I say that if I can ever afford it, I'm buying the most efficient solar panels for my home. To run my home and charge my electric car.

You speak with animosity, but have as yet, said nothing I don't already understand, as if relatively, I'm wealthy, indicating you fail to see the truth of things, I, like you, are bound by the masses, in which I was born, If I truly had any power, the way I talk, are you kidding, things would change instantly. That's the problem with people of small minds, they are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, and their bite is of empty presumption.

And this is the trouble with those who have big ideals, they actually do fuck all. One person can change the world. Oh! And I speak truth not animosity.
You can speak of none of this, as if it's universally true, you have merely seen instance, and projected, as if all circumstance is equal. This is a falsehood, your generalization. And you do speak with animosity, before you know that it's required, which is a problem. 'With knowledge, comes great responsibility' and this can be a problem for some.

How has it happened in the past? Is revolution the only way things abruptly change? How does one deal with the selfish monetarily wealthy, because make no mistake, that's who we're talking about.

Not quite, we're talking about us, as its us who have promoted this energy intensive lifestyle as an ideal, That you wish it be some nebulous others is an abrogation of responsibility.
Wrong, my generation did not request this construct, they were unfortunately born into it, those greedy initiators created it and through nepotism and buddy sucking, it still remains in their friends/families hands. And any particular generation of these rich could make things right, as they have the power to do so, whereas the little people, are told they need things through the media's demographic advertizing, brainwashing, even subliminal suggestion. You do know that psychologists are employed by advertizing firms, right? No, make no mistake, the people at the top (rich) are responsible, as they are usually more educated, yet they, lie cheat, and steal to ensure their empire never crumbles. Obviously you see yourself as one of them, to plead their case, so adamantly. Conflict of interest? Case in point! But unless you own something much bigger than, lets say, this magazine, you are actually one of the little people, relatively speaking of course. But I guess you have hopes of owning a much bigger empire, owning more people, huh?

homegrown wrote:Malthus predicted starvation because while population grows geometrically, agriculture can only grow arithmetically. Critics argued - people are problem solvers, and for a while that seemed to hold true. Population is now over 7 billion - and all else being equal would double and double again this century. Only all else isn't equal. While spiralling demand for energy supports the global economy - agricultural productivity is already suffering from changing weather patterns, seasonal shift and an increase in extreme weather events. When that bubble bursts billions will starve, governments will fall, economies collapse and default - spreading economic contagion and political instability through warfare and mass migration.

Right now - we could avoid such a future, but the window of opportunity is closing quickly. Even if all nations accepted a scientific understanding of reality in common today...

http://youtu.be/5FLEwwtibW0

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Then why make the point that customers won't pay, as neither will the suppliers. ...

OK then, with this stalemate, which are the more responsible ones, for cleaning up their method of production? Which are the more capable to do so? And that is what I'm talking about. It's about what's right. I see that once CEO's and other such people of, way over inflated paychecks, are reduced to a more fair level, then, and only then, shall it be that the people should join in. In the US, I forgot what the stats were exactly, but the amount of profit the Oil companies made was unbelievably through the roof. In today's environment, there is no call for this, disparity. I see these people as vampires sucking the last bit of life from a dying carcass, as I've seen no real signs of their investing it into newer technologies.

OK, So do you see yourself as a mindless hunk of facts running around? I don't think so, but anything so as to argue, huh?

We've talked about this before, remember? And I was the one that brought up most of that. I bet I used less energy than you did these last few years. My thermostat has been set at 60° F for the last 3 years, through winters that have reached as low as -10° F WCF.

If this is true, then why the argument filled with apathy: 'why do anything at all, we're all going to die anyway?' Do you just argue for it's sake?

Trust me when I say that if I can ever afford it, I'm buying the most efficient solar panels for my home. To run my home and charge my electric car.

You can speak of none of this, as if it's universally true, you have merely seen instance, and projected, as if all circumstance is equal. This is a falsehood, your generalization. And you do speak with animosity, before you know that it's required, which is a problem. 'With knowledge, comes great responsibility' and this can be a problem for some.

Wrong, my generation did not request this construct, they were unfortunately born into it, those greedy initiators created it and through nepotism and buddy sucking, it still remains in their friends/families hands. And any particular generation of these rich could make things right, as they have the power to do so, whereas the little people, are told they need things through the media's demographic advertizing, brainwashing, even subliminal suggestion. You do know that psychologists are employed by advertizing firms, right? No, make no mistake, the people at the top (rich) are responsible, as they are usually more educated, yet they, lie cheat, and steal to ensure their empire never crumbles. Obviously you see yourself as one of them, to plead their case, so adamantly. Conflict of interest? Case in point! But unless you own something much bigger than, lets say, this magazine, you are actually one of the little people, relatively speaking of course. But I guess you have hopes of owning a much bigger empire, owning more people, huh?