End of the Binge

[Brad M]

The exhaustion of our energy supply may end affluence as we know it.

http://amconmag.com/2005/2005_09_12/cover.html

Don't let the name of the magazine scare you away.

[mtnroads]

Good article. A rather bleak assessment, but certainly one possible outcome if we do not get our head out of the sand. As he says - our whole society is predicated on cheap oil lasting a long time - if it is really peaking, we had better get our priorities straight. We tend to think of our economy, military forces, and technology as infallible but all you have to do is look at recent events to see that we are not as powerful as we think, and situations can escalate out of control pretty quickly.

[Thor29]

That's pretty funny - I never would have thought that Kunstler was considered a conservative. Its kind of odd that a conservative magazine would print such an article, considering that most so-called conservatives seem to believe that the earth's resources are unlimited and that economics and technology will always prevail in spite of much history (and current events) that prove otherwise. On the other hand, I think the terms liberal and conservative have been totally drained of their meaning anyway. Most liberals these days are almost worse because they think all they have to do is drive a hybrid, recycle a few cans, and the problem will go away. It won't.

There are tons of articles and books on the subject of peak oil. I recommend to anyone and everyone to look into it for themselves. My favorite books are the "Limits to Growth" series that used computer programs to try to predict the future. Pretty scary stuff. Also, check out www.dieoff.org. The site hasn't been updated for a long time but the information there is still valid.

We're going to hell in a handbasket, but at least on a bicycle you can enjoy the ride.

[lilHinault]

Kunstler's a neocon, read his blog and read all his comments, particularly the ones around 9/11 and around the time Bush jr. went over there. He can "neocon" with the best of them, going on and on about how them islamo-fascists are gonna killus all. I wish he'd just stick with his analyses of suburbia and peak oil etc because he's good at that.

And it's refreshing to see this stuff in that mag - I'm willing to bet it's a neocon not a paleocon mag, but the neocons have been the most stubborn in their belief in Empire as a way of life. Paleocons have been open to the idea of peak oil for a long time, after all, WWII and in fact most wars wre/are over resources.

[mrjon]

Best of all is the "petrocon," or petroleum conservative. I only need enough oil to keep my chain from squawking! :rolleyes:

(Until you start counting the oil that goes into the food I eat, and everything I own... :( )

[linux_author]

- while the rads rejoice in higher oil prices, wait until the cost of those high-end components and new Ti or carbon frames reach into the thousands of dollars...

- oh wait...

:-)

[FXjohn]

Kunstler's a neocon, read his blog and read all his comments, particularly the ones around 9/11 and around the time Bush jr. went over there. He can "neocon" with the best of them, going on and on about how them islamo-fascists are gonna killus all. I wish he'd just stick with his analyses of suburbia and peak oil etc because he's good at that.

And it's refreshing to see this stuff in that mag - I'm willing to bet it's a neocon not a paleocon mag, but the neocons have been the most stubborn in their belief in Empire as a way of life. Paleocons have been open to the idea of peak oil for a long time, after all, WWII and in fact most wars wre/are over resources.


It's Pat Buchanan's magazine, lilHinault

[lilHinault]

Best of all is the "petrocon," or petroleum conservative. I only need enough oil to keep my chain from squawking! :rolleyes:

(Until you start counting the oil that goes into the food I eat, and everything I own... :( )

Same here......... getting rid of the car is the single biggest step a person can make, but we still use oil for everything.

[lilHinault]

It's Pat Buchanan's magazine, lilHinault

Paleocon then. Kinda fits in with my theories, paleo's are often at least willing to look at things like natural resources and see that they're limited. Neo's tend to just leave that up to God, who has given them the mission to fight against the infidel etc etc etc yadda yadda although they won't often come out and say it in so many words. To give you an idea of this difference, look up the roots of the "ecology" movement.

[mike]

We can adjust to limited petrolium based fuels. What we would have a very difficult time living without is all the other uses for petrochemicals from shoes to medicine to fertilizer and pesticides.

Fruits, vegetables, and spagetti can be bicycle fuel, but without petrolium, those items would come at an increasingly high premium. Without petrolium, it is most probable that mankind could not produce enough food for today's populations - not to mention the fact that lack of fossil fuels would make it difficult to maintain today's level of distribution.

As much as we bicyclists fantasize about a world with fewer automobiles, there would be no real joy in a world without access to plentiful and cheap petrolium.

[lilHinault]

there would be no real joy in a world without access to plentiful and cheap petrolium.

Spoken like a true 'murrican.

Yep he's right, no joy unless there's tons of oil and cheap too. All the human generations before the 1870s or so were mired in deep misery, why, it's amazing they didn't kill themselves. I guess Gawd (the 'murrican God) musta come down from Heaven and told them to hang in there, because some, a very few, of their descendants would become 'murricans and have cheap oil to burn, burn, burn! And thus they'd be the only humans to not live in utter, desolate, misery.

Hot dang bruther, I owes ya a Budweiser, some time at the shootin' rainge, and a gud ol' feed at the In-N-Out or Micky-d's yer choice!

[Zee]

I heard Dubya say on NPR Friday morning that if other countries will eliminate monetary trade barriers, America will do the same. What effect do you think that will have on where American companies get their products made? Any? Do you think it will help farmers and small businesses to compete with big business, here and in some of the poorer countries, as he claims?

[mike]

Spoken like a true 'murrican.

Yep he's right, no joy unless there's tons of oil and cheap too. All the human generations before the 1870s or so were mired in deep misery, why, it's amazing they didn't kill themselves. I guess Gawd (the 'murrican God) musta come down from Heaven and told them to hang in there, because some, a very few, of their descendants would become 'murricans and have cheap oil to burn, burn, burn! And thus they'd be the only humans to not live in utter, desolate, misery.

Hot dang bruther, I owes ya a Budweiser, some time at the shootin' rainge, and a gud ol' feed at the In-N-Out or Micky-d's yer choice!

Life was not so grand in the 1800s or before that, despite what you might see on the Little House On The Prairie re-runs. Every continent experienced times of famine - petroleum products largely changed that with effective pesticides, fertilizer, and herbicides.

What is more important is the distribution of food and manufactured goods which allowed for better diets and economic growth. As a more modern example of failed food distribution, in China from about 1951 to around 1970, millions of people are estimated to have died simply because food could not be transported and distributed effectively. Many people in the USA suffered the same problem back in the 1800's because transportation and logistic limitations forced many families to eat very limited diets. Even many farm families suffered.

In the 1800's and earlier, people suffered and died from the simplest of diseases - diseases and illness that have been overcome or greatly relieved by petroleum based ingredients.

To this, add all the petroleum based lifestyle products that have clearly improved the lives of people like prosthetic limbs, clothing, vision assist items, surgical equipment and supplies, communication equipment.

So, your suggestion that "All the human generations before the 1870s or so were mired in deep misery, why, it's amazing they didn't kill themselves." is not so far off as your sarcasm had intended. Sure, some people did commit suicide, but most did not have to. Life was short enough as it was.

[Pampusik]

Fo' shizzle... that's a typicle neocon article. It does nothing but urge fear, panic, and an apologetic justification for U.S. American hegemony in oil producing states. People should be discussing solutions.

I wish the author would advocate for the development of a culture of innovation to drive our economy. We need to tap into peoples' creativity to find more appropriate (i.e., cheap and sustainable) sources of energy. The best place to invest in innovation, IMHO, is in our schools. Invest in kids that are creative and smart, and they will drive a more sustainable future.

[ViciousCycle]

That's pretty funny - I never would have thought that Kunstler was considered a conservative.

Well, Molly Ivins' column appears in some fairly conservative periodicals, but this doesn't make here a conservative. David Brooks' writing appears in the New York Times, but this does not make him a liberal.


Its kind of odd that a conservative magazine would print such an article, considering that most so-called conservatives seem to believe that the earth's resources are unlimited and that economics and technology will always prevail in spite of much history (and current events) that prove otherwise.

The collapse of many empires, civilizations, etc. have taken place when resources were overused. Everyone thinks that Hitler's biggest tactical error in WWII was turning against Russia. But the reason he turned against Russia is less discussed. The Nazis were going through their fuel resouces quickly -- and they wanted the oil fields that Russia controlled.

[Platy]

The exhaustion of our energy supply may end affluence as we know it.Ultra cheap transportation has allowed many good American jobs to be exported to low wage countries. This has turned us into a vulnerable debtor nation and crippled our manufacturing capability. If transportation costs revert to a point where it again makes sense for Americans to produce the products that we ourselves consume, I'd see that as a good thing - a restoration of balance and common sense, not a disaster.

[ViciousCycle]

Kunstler's a neocon, read his blog and read all his comments, particularly the ones around 9/11 and around the time Bush jr. went over there. He can "neocon" with the best of them, going on and on about how them islamo-fascists are gonna killus all.

To be fair to Kunstler, in the mental confusion right after 9/11, a lot of people temporarily sounded neo-con, even people that are not normally neo-con. Since Kunstler is critical of the notion that the U.S. can use military might to maintain dominance over fossil fuels and since he believes we need to become less dependent on fossil fuels, it's hard to make the label of neo-con stick to him.

Of course, one awkard thing about language is that the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" have flipped around. The term "liberal" used to mean that one was quite liberal about having the government do favors for business, and the term "conservative" actually was related to conservation. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican and a "conservative", and he was concerned with "conserving" natural resources and national resources. Roosevelt conserved lands and national forests. By this older definition of conservative, it might be possible to call Kunstler a conservative.

[Roody]

Ultra cheap transportation has allowed many good American jobs to be exported to low wage countries. This has turned us into a vulnerable debtor nation and crippled our manufacturing capability. If transportation costs revert to a point where it again makes sense for Americans to produce the products that we ourselves consume, I'd see that as a good thing - a restoration of balance and common sense, not a disaster.It sounds like you wouldn't mind having a big smoke belching steel plant in your backyard to make steel for your bike frames? You also wouldn't mind trading your community's high tech jobs for jobs in a smelting facility? It's OK for your school kids to take voc classes that prepare them for careers working in a rubber plant to make your spare tubes?

If you're from the rust belt, you know this kind of development is a double edged sword.

[Pampusik]

It's OK for your school kids to take voc classes that prepare them for careers working in a rubber plant to make your spare tubes?

Here's a disturbing, off topic factoid... just under half of U.S. academicians believe technical/vocational education will become the primary form of education required by the market by 2015. Furthermore, only about a quarter of academic professionals believe knowledge production in higher education needed by the market will occur primarily through liberal arts education.

Yikes.

[Poguemahone]

" The Nazis were going through their fuel resouces quickly -- and they wanted the oil fields that Russia controlled."

Which he could have quite likely done, had he not decided Stalingrad was an essential prize. Hitler's grasp on strategy and tactics were at best erratic, at worst ridiculously inane. Many feel he wanted Stalingrad simply because of the name it carried, and not for any actual value other than propaganda. Much of the thrust of his forces was away from the oil fields, anyhoo, towards propaganda prizes: Stalingrad, Lenningrad, Moscow.

Part of this thrust was a thought that the Germans could cripple Soviet manufacturing, and thus hobble them completely. Hitler never realized that the Soviets would simply move many of their factories East, as they did in a massive effort. Much of his intital thrust was actually towards Soviet manufacturing, and not oil (although that figured into the equation). Hitler figured on crippling Soviet industry; it did not work.

Another mistake was declaring war on the USA after Pearl Harbour. Had the Americans concentrated on the Japanese, it likely would have delayed their movement into the European and African/mediteranian theatres of operation.

Allied raids on Polesti had more to do with Axis fuel shortage than just about anything else.

[Thor29]

Regarding the overseas manufacturing problem... After peak oil hits and oil prices start climbing, the cost of shipping will begin to rise. Which means that almost everything we buy will get more expensive. Which will result in a serious economic depression. It is unlikely that there will be enough capital to rebuild the manufacturing base that America shut down, and even if the will and the money were there, it would take years to recover. In the meantime, energy prices will continue to rise thus hobbling any efforts to try to re-localize the economy.

In regards to the idea of big belching steel plants being placed near our communities, if these things are so horrible, why is it okay to place them near other people's communities? That is sick. Anyone remember Union Carbide and the deadly Bhopal, India accident? Why is it okay for American companies to rely on overseas manufacturing with lower pollution and worker protection standards? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. (Which reminds me of factory farming and bombing other countries and... well the list goes on for awhile).

If you wanted to build a steel framed bicycle that was as ethically pure as possible, not only would you have to pay your workers a living wage and make sure that your operation was as clean as possible, but you would also have to figure out exactly where the steel and all of its alloys (chromium, molybdenum, etc) were coming from. And don't forget all of the manufacturing equipment, who built it and how? And what about the electricity and water supply? We live in such a complex, intertwined economy that it is hard to keep track of everything. And unfortunately, there seem to be plenty of people willing to do whatever it takes to make money. Of course, the system is set up so that you cannot escape the monetary economy. If you live outside of it like the remaining tribal peoples of the world, then the system will destroy you because the land you live on will not be producing any wealth until someone can come in and cut down your trees for furniture, sell your wild animals as furcoats, and plant grass to feed cows for hamburgers in America's drivethrough burger heaven.

[cerewa]

We need to tap into peoples' creativity to find more appropriate (i.e., cheap and sustainable) sources of energy. The best place to invest in innovation, IMHO, is in our schools. Invest in kids that are creative and smart, and they will drive a more sustainable future.

All we need is some smart kids, and then they'll come up with a magic solution that will take away our need for petroleum. :)

Honestly, I think so many people are hoping for a quick fix. I think it's gonna be complicated and difficult to reduce our reliance on petroleum.

[Roody]

All we need is some smart kids, and then they'll come up with a magic solution that will take away our need for petroleum. :)

Honestly, I think so many people are hoping for a quick fix. I think it's gonna be complicated and difficult to reduce our reliance on petroleum.I don't think papusik was talking about a quick fix. Training children to deal with problems in 20 or 25 years is more of a slow and long lasting fix. I think papusik was alluding to the possibility that the search for new energy technology to replace hydrocarbons might have a stimulating effect on future economies. Perhaps the investment of capital and labor into research and implementation of alternative energy will mitigate the economic harm caused by more expensive oil. For example, aerospace research greatly stimulated the economy in the 1950s and 60s.

[lilHinault]

I'd say Kunstler was only "sounding" neocon because of, and shortly after, 9/11 if that's the only time he made those noises, but he makes them fairly constantly. I have his book, The Long Emergency, and it's got plenty of neocon ranting against those mean ol' Muslims who want to kill us all.

Tonto to The Lone Kosher: What do you mean "we", matzoh-man? :-)

Islam welcomes all, there was a show on PBS about the Haj, which is a pilgrimage to Mecca all Moslems aspire to make, and it's moving and wonderful. There's a lady from Texas or someplace who's converted and is there, no problems - obviously American by appearance and accent and language of choice, English, and welcomed. Kinda like Tonto and the Lone Ranger, all these Indians want to kill them, wait a minute, Tonto ain't their enemy, Ranger might be though.......... :-P

Radical Moslems want to convert before kill, although they do have some real problems with Jews/Israelis. As in, well, generally not wanting them to exist because they in turn don't want any of them in the Middle East any more, at all. It's complicated, but the upshot is, Kunstler gets his licks in where he can trying to convince us that those bad old "islamo-fascists" are out to kill us all, blah blah blah all the usual fear-mongering, and the truth is, the war's between them and the AIPAC crowd, they're not out to kill all of us, just the group that's got a long track record of killing them. And, Kunstler's family's political gripes have no place in a book, blog, page, commentary, about Peak Oil and the wastefulness of suburbia.

[Dahon.Steve]

Life was not so grand in the 1800s or before that, despite what you might see on the Little House On The Prairie re-runs. Every continent experienced times of famine - petroleum products largely changed that with effective pesticides, fertilizer, and herbicides.

So, your suggestion that "All the human generations before the 1870s or so were mired in deep misery, why, it's amazing they didn't kill themselves." is not so far off as your sarcasm had intended. Sure, some people did commit suicide, but most did not have to. Life was short enough as it was.

I don't know about this.

I was in the library not too long ago reading old newspapers stored on microfilm about 100 years ago. I did not see any of this "deep misery" you mention at all or people suffering because they didn't have motor transport. In fact, people were happy as we were in the middle of an industrial revolution and jobs were abundant.

Just look at what petrol has done in the past 100 years. Millions have been killed world wide in motor car accidents yet this is considered insignificant for it is the price we must pay for hyper mobolity. Has petrol really improved our diet or is it full of fat and sugar killing tens of thousands each year? Is this considered progress? Did you know that obesity and diabetes were a small fraction of medical deaths 100 years ago but has become epidemic today? How many people have been killed or being killed over the past 100 years through wars to support our inexpensive oil addiction? How many millions are going to be killed when the Artic melts raising water level to unprecendented hights due to all the fossil fuels sent into the atmosphere?

In a separate issue, I suspect 500 years from now, people will be say how terrible it must have been to live in 2005 when they didn't have a cure for Aids or Cancer, actually had to use money for currency, couldn't fly to Mars or live to be 250 years old. Tell me. Do you think life stinks in 2005 because we can't travel at 100,000 miles per hour or your Ipod doesn't come with 100 billion Giga bytes? Hardly! Life was enjoyable 100 year ago and it will be 100 years from now with or without Petrol or anything else for that matter.

As I read through the New York Times 100 years ago, I didn't see any of this human sufferage people mention on this forum. I suspect if I go back 150 years ago, the result will be the same and I challenge you to read prior newspapers at the turn of the centry to see for yourself. People worked, dated, lived and shopped all without the use of a motorcar. It seems like people really believe that life in this country started after 1925 when the Model T became affordable to the mass population. We went throght two World Wars and two industrial revolutions and so much more with the majority of the population car free. When all the oil runs out, we will return just like the way we were 100 years ago in 1905. People will just have to live, work and shop within walking distance. Life will be simple again.

[Zee]

I'd say Kunstler was only "sounding" neocon because of, and shortly after, 9/11 if that's the only time he made those noises, but he makes them fairly constantly. I have his book, The Long Emergency, and it's got plenty of neocon ranting against those mean ol' Muslims who want to kill us all.

Tonto to The Lone Kosher: What do you mean "we", matzoh-man? :-)

Islam welcomes all, there was a show on PBS about the Haj, which is a pilgrimage to Mecca all Moslems aspire to make, and it's moving and wonderful. There's a lady from Texas or someplace who's converted and is there, no problems - obviously American by appearance and accent and language of choice, English, and welcomed. Kinda like Tonto and the Lone Ranger, all these Indians want to kill them, wait a minute, Tonto ain't their enemy, Ranger might be though.......... :-P

Radical Moslems want to convert before kill, although they do have some real problems with Jews/Israelis. As in, well, generally not wanting them to exist because they in turn don't want any of them in the Middle East any more, at all. It's complicated, but the upshot is, Kunstler gets his licks in where he can trying to convince us that those bad old "islamo-fascists" are out to kill us all, blah blah blah all the usual fear-mongering, and the truth is, the war's between them and the AIPAC crowd, they're not out to kill all of us, just the group that's got a long track record of killing them. And, Kunstler's family's political gripes have no place in a book, blog, page, commentary, about Peak Oil and the wastefulness of suburbia.
It's typical of the American media, and some writers, to target ALL Muslims, to point fingers and say "They ALL hate us, they ALL want all of us good ol' Americans DEAD." This is absolutely not true. The Bin Ladins and Saddams of the world want money and power, and use religion as an excuse for their behavior when they use any and all means at their disposal to get that money and power. Anyone can claim any religion gives them permission to take, to kill, and to destroy; but anyone with the will and ability to use their own mind and their own judgement will find out for themselves what the tenets of that religion really are, and see the truth.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government has gotten very good at creating their own enemies; look at what happened after 9-11: did Bush go after Bin Laden? Well, yes, eventually, but where is he? Why don't they have him yet? They KNOW he was behind 9-11, and yet that was their excuse for attacking Iraq. Yes, Saddam and his sons were murderous scum who committed heinous crimes; my husband is an Iraqi refugee (soon to be an American citizen!), his own brothers were tortured to death by Saddam's henchmen in Syria only two months after the war in Iraq began, while being accused of being American spies, and being questioned as to the whereabouts of my husband and his uncle. 90% of Iraqis where ecstatic to have him gone. But it's been proven he had nothing to do with 9-11, had no WMDs, and in the end couldn't even defend his own capital city because his own henchmen cut and ran rather than defend it.

So as soon as Bush declared the war to be over (um, the FIRST time he declared it over, 3+ years ago), we hear, "We won't occupy Iraq. We're going to capture Saddam and leave." Yeah. Uh-huh. So what's the result of the occupation that wasn't going to happen? Bin Laden's creeps, who were never in Iraq before (Saddam turned them away), suddenly have an excuse to swarm over the border and start killing American soldiers, peaceful Iraqi citizens (the majority of which are women and children, as usual), anyone who gets in their way. Bush says America can't leave Iraq until the killings stop; Al-Qaeda says the killings won't stop until America leaves Iraq.

Now Bush is sticking his nose into other ("coincidentally" oil-rich) countries whose rulers aren't his pals: Iran, Syria... where does it end? How many more enemies will Bush create for us to fight, to perpetuate his warmongering? He claims Iran wants nuclear weapons, when in fact Ayatullah Khameini, who has nearly complete (and in many cases unhealthy and unthinking) devotion from his followers, has ruled that nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic and that Iran cannot and will not build them or use them, ever. I'm no fan of Iran's "Islamic" state; if it was truly Islamic there wouldn't be so much prostitution, drug use, and underground (and illegal, in Iran) alcohol-bingeing parties.

At any rate, I'd like to do something I haven't done here yet, and likely won't do again in this forum. I'd like to tell you what Islam truly says about the Bin Ladens and the Saddams of the world.

Verses from the Qur'an (and hadeeth, the sayings and examples given to us by Prophet Muhammad {sa} and his progeny{as}), clearly state that in war, women, children, the elderly and non-combatant men are not to be targeted. To kill one person without just cause is the same as killing everyone in the world; to save one person is to save the world. Islam forbids us to be the aggressor, and only allows us to react to aggression in self-defense if our lives, the lives of our families, or our homes and property are at stake. Only 10% of jihad (which means "to struggle," not "kill kill kill") is outward; the other 90% of jihad, called the "greater jihad," is focused inward, between a Muslim and his or her soul. And finally, there is no compulsion in religion; anyone who tries to force their religion on another not only creates a hypocrite, but becomes one themselves, and will be judged for it.

And as far as Jews/Israelis are concerned, unfortunately Jews and Zionists are considered one and the same by too many Muslims (and many others) who do not know better. Personally, I see Zionism, which actually began as a secular movement less than a century ago, and which is to this day strongly opposed by many orthodox Jewish rabbis, to be just an excuse - claiming that the Jewish religion gives them permission to take, to kill, and to destroy. Christians and Jews are called "People of the Book" in the Qur'an because originally our religious texts were the same; Christianity, Judaism and Islam all sprang from the Prophet Abraham {as}, and we all worship the one and only God. For those who support the Bin Ladens and Saddams of the world, who use faith as an excuse to perpetuate evil, as well as those who create enemies like them, God will see to their fate. It's up to Him to judge, not us.



I hope I haven't said anything inappropriate or offended anyone, I just felt the need to say my piece. :o

[lilHinault]

Wow. Great "piece". Thanks for that, I could never write something that good, that explains the overall situation so well. Anything I could say here would be only to try to amplify that, and not do it as well.

[KrisPistofferson]

Kunstler's not a neo-con or a paleo-con. Honestly, I really don't know where you get that from. It would be super if you'd post a link to his writings where he says any of this. I'm not a neo-con, and I don't like Muslim terrorists, either. I've read a great deal of the guy's stuff, and he's not a neocon. Don't feel bad, I used to have it in my head that Ariana Huffington was conservative and Ezra Pound was female. We all make mistakes, but if you're not, please throw up some links. Thanks.

[lilHinault]

www.kunstler.com read his blog, esp. the time around 9/11 AND the time when el busho went back over there in 2003.

[Thor29]

In regards to Zee's apologia for Islam, I suggest checking out "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris. In this book Harris quotes example after example from the Koran where it basically considers nonmuslims to be more or less nonhuman and prefectly expendable. All three of the big Middle Eastern religions (Chrisitanity, Islam, Judeaism) have been used to justify tyranny and genocide and it is time to stop coddling them. I don't care what the Koran, the Bible, or the Tora says. We need to get past these ancient superstitions and start taking responsibility for our own destiny before the Christians get the apocalypse that they want so badly.

[Zee]

If you read those verses of the Qur'an (qoor-'ahn, not "koran") yourself, IN CONTEXT, you will see that they refer to current events taking place AT THAT TIME, at the advent of Islam, 1400 years ago, when the Muslims were under attack from all sides. Those verses refer to battles taking place then and there, not now. My parents are Christians, do you really think I'd walk into their house and kill them because they don't believe what I do? Give me a break.

There are verses in the Bible where Jesus refers to gentiles (all non-Jewish people) as dogs, swine, etc. Do you think he still holds that opinion? Or was he talking about the gentiles living in that place, in that day and age? If you like, I can quote verse after verse of the Qur'an which state just the opposite of what your book said.

Obviously, just like "Islamic" extremists, there are writers who will take any religious text out of context so that it proves exactly what they want it to prove. I'm not an apologist, and I don't consider any of those three religious texts to be merely "superstitions." You sound like my atheist brother-in-law. :rolleyes: I was simply responding to lilHinault's post regarding the radicals who pass themselves off as Muslims.

You're welcome to your opinion, just as everyone else is, but if you want to actually know what you're talking about, try putting down a book written by someone who apparently is extremely biased against Muslims and instead do some reading in the library (click on "Browse Library," top right button) at Al-Islam.Org (http://www.al-islam.org). An uneducated opinion is just that, and it carries no weight.

I was attempting to be informative, not start a religious debate in a bicycle forum. If that's what you're after, here's another great link for you: ShiaChat Chat Forum (http://www.shiachat.com/). If you like you can even talk to me there directly; I'm Sister Zaynab there :)

Peace.

[Satyr]

Petroleum as a necessary evil is a bit of an overblown conclusion. I would not underestimate the increasing production of plant based synthetics and plastics. Here are some links.

http://www.lightparty.com/Energy/Hemp5.html (some interesting history about industrial hemp)

http://www.hempplastic.com/newSite/index.htm (a company researching hemp plastics)

Also, quoting life expectancy as a motivator for better conditions is somewhat misleading. I show the following quotation from wikipedia

"Life expectancy in India and The People's Republic of China was around 40 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the eradication and control of numerous infectious diseases and to advances in agricultural technology (such as chemical fertilizers).

Basic life expectancy numbers tend to exaggerate this growth, however. The low level of pre-modern life expectancy is distorted by the previous extremely high infant and childhood mortality. If a person did make it to the age of forty they had an average of another twenty years to live. Improvements in medicine, public health, and nutrition have therefore mainly increased the numbers of people living beyond childhood, with less effect on overall average lifespan."