Corporal_Jones Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 As much as you like to try and pigeon hole me Corp, I have no issue with agreeing that I share many sentiments and beliefs commonly associated with the left. You will in any case be aware that Marx based much of his theory on the classical economists who laid the foundations of what is worthwhile in modern economics, he just had a different idea about where to go with them. If you want to compare me to outdated theoreticians though, I will match your Victorian and raise you a George III. It was 1798 when Reverend Malthus published his Essay on Population, predicting that an exponentially growing population and a linear increase in production would result in a return to the Stone Age. 211 years down the track and we’re still waiting for it, but it doesn’t stop people such as yourself being taken seriously peddling the same old :censored:e. However, I haven't offered a Malthusian argument anywhere. Or mentioned the Stone Age. That aside, 211 years isn't even a blink of an eyelid in terms of the big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 You might have noticed that the French don't run their cars on nuclear power. They benefit from the safeguarding of the oil supplies by the illegal war in Iraq just as much as any other economically developed nation. The fact that they produce 70% of their electricity from nuclear power does not mean that the replacement of that which comes from oil by nuclear power will not prove impossible on an international basis for reasons outlined in an earlier post. More than you might think is based on oil. The constructing of any means of transporting nuclear waste (or anything else), for one thing, depends on oil, let alone the running of them. And, as I said, the building of the nuclear plants themselves depends on oil. The likelihood is that, at the present rate it's being used, demand for oil will outstrip supply before any replacement, nuclear or otherwise, is in place. (It is highly unlikely that any potential replacement that has the same scope and versatility as cheap oil.) Nobody, meanwhile, has argued the environmental case against nuclear power. Feeble Littlejohn-style cliches about sandal-wearing vegetarians have absloutely nothing to do with it. Perhaps if people listened to the “Doc” and fitted their Northern Irish sports cars with Flux Capacitors, we would all be running on Uranium now safe in the knowledge that we could go back in time and fix Climate Change when it all goes pear shaped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Perhaps if people listened to the “Doc” and fitted their Northern Irish sports cars with Flux Capacitors, we would all be running on Uranium now safe in the knowledge that we could go back in time and fix Climate Change when it all goes pear shaped. And someone from the future could come back and warn us that building a 12,000 seater capacity stadium resulted in us condemning ourselves to a future of............................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 And someone from the future could come back and warn us that building a 12,000 seater capacity stadium resulted in us condemning ourselves to a future of............................................. Damn not fitting that flux capacitor!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.