Obama permits off-shore oil drilling

That's a distortion, America has long used a disproportionate share of the world's oil.

.

That is true. And we have also created a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and good life. Without the United States, where would the antibiotics have come from. Or the polio vaccine? Or the new cancer drugs. (All of which could not be made without oil).

True indeed, I know we are stuck with oil for the time being, but I don't really see much attempt at reducing personal dependence by the general public. Are we just gonna go on like this to the bitter end, it seems that way.

I would not call the discovery and creation of new antibiotics, and new drugs against cancer, "being stuck". I would use that term if we could not eradicate or ameliorate disease and pain. "The bitter end" would be if we had deadly epidemics with no means to combat them. That end (like the bubonic plague) really would be bitter. Doesn't it seem justified for us to use a disproportionate share of the world's oil if we produce a disproportionate share of the world's good and services? It seems so to me.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put new oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska.

A welcome and astonishing decision. It makes me rethink my view about Obama.

Something about that just doesn't sound right. I don't think the amount of petroleum product used to find cures is even close to comparable to our over use in other areas. I am not an opponent of wise use of resources. However, this country long ago developed a lifestyle that is unsustainable in a global world. We can't blame 3rd world nations for wanting it too, it's just that we're gonna need about 4 more planets.

Don't we have some responsibility to lead the way? I'm not seeing anyone making any sacrifices yet.

Don't you think we might have found some cures without oil ,if we had none? What about all the cures that come from rain forests?

I did not say that petroleum was used to find cures. I said it was used to make antibiotics and vaccines, and other cures. If you think we an manufacture things we need without oil, you had better hurry up and invent such ways. There are none now.

We do use other things, such as sesame oil in the manufacture of vaccines. But that's beside the point, 71 % of our oil consumption is transportation, the statistics for antibiotics and vaccines are so small I can't even find any.

I will repeat, I am not against responsible use of resources.

I said that we can probably find cures w/o petroleum, not that petroleum was used to find cures, although it is.

Not only is oil used in antibiotics, but it is used to manufacture antibiotics, to run the factories which make antibiotics, to get technicians to the factories that make antibiotics, to transport antibiotics to hospitals where they can be used, to make needles to inject the antibiotics, etc. etc. This is a complex society. We cannot, and, of course, will not, return to the Dark Ages. We had better stop complaining and adjust.

Adjust is the proper term, I think. Just how are we going to adjust our consumption ? I have seen little in the way of effective adjustment since the shortages of the 70's.
Of course petroleum is woven into the fabric of our society, no one said we should return to the dark ages.

To adjust by simply drilling for more oil seems very short sighted, and apparently much of the world feels the same, thus the low opinion of U.S. on the world stage.

I did not mean "adjust our consumption" although I suppose that would be a good thing as far as it were possible. But it is not on the top of my list. Finding and getting oil would be on the top.

I don't think that the world has a low opinion of the United States. Envy is not low opinion.

Envy is a very dangerous opinion.

Maybe, but it indicates a high opinion, not a low opinion.

How does it indicate a high opinion? I am not even sure that envy can be qualified as an opinion.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins isn't it?
Aren't we causing our brother to sin?
Religious or not, I can't see that as a desirable effect.

Your post does not answer the question why you think we have the technology you think we need.

By the way, we already have the technology to help do what you want, namely nuclear power.

You said this...



Then in the very same post...



As usual, your argumentative style is bizarre. You just answered your own question. We do have the technology. You just said so yourself. So why did you try to hold someones feet to the fire for a claim you apparently agree with? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I know why you did it. You're an ass.

Did your mother never tell you that unless you can say something nice, you should not say it at all? The trouble is that although we do have nuclear power, the environmental extremists are preventing its full scale use, so that it is not a real substitute for oil. You must know that. If the environmentalists could be made to see reason, then, of course, we could do as France and other countries do, things might be better.

That's politics. Your question was about technology.

I did not say it was an opinion. I said it indicated a high opinion. It is not our doing that others envy us. So we cause nothing in that respect. Of course, it does show that those who envy us show good taste. For the United States is enviable. As Madeline Albright (Clinton's former Secretary of State) said, "America is the world's one indispensable nation". So, those who envy us at least show good taste. I can say that much for them.

I can't really argue with that. I must admit I am glad to be American, although I am still concerned about the danger behind that envy.

By the way, I kind of enjoy warm feet, for the reason stated in my signature.