I can't believe some here contravene basic reality by not appreciating this, and I'm moved to write this after looking at Limbaugh's site where hes acting stupid again. I can only assume that at some point recently hes rubbished ethanol for increasing food prices, yet now he attacks Obama for linking high resource consumption in America for poverty elsewhere- and then goes on to assume that recognition of reality is an attack.

Kind of surprised I still have to do this, but it didn't seem to get through last time- lets start at the basics- there are only so many atoms, so much energy. The last time we got know we got a plus to this game things were allot smaller and more explosive. Extrapolate from there and you return to my refrain of there is only so much land, there is only so much food, etc.

Yes more and more can be taken from the ground- but to see that as an addition to the economy without recognising that it depletes a natural store is madness. A company doesn't sell off infrastructure to cover losses and say 'look we're making a profit!'- well legally anyway.

Yes technology will help, but it can only help at a certain rate, and it can only help in certain ways- right now, people do suffer because we in rich nations consume more of the natural resources than our poorer neighbors- they could buy the food they need, or buy it for less, but for our own demand. Certaily we've a right to consume what we need, but to consume so very much more when people are dieing for lack of baiscs is immoral. Technology cannot change that immedietly, but human action can.

I don't care if you feel guilty about this, or what blame you meter out- I just care about stopping such stupid waste from now on. This is not an anti-west/capitalism rant, its just looking at reality and fine-tuning what we're doing. And if you can't see things as they are there is no way you can navigate a future.

Link to Limbaugh- http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...109.guest.html

America is the only country that burns its own food supply. Also, America is the #1 food exporter. He's not exactly wrong here.

See point #1.

So why incentivise the farmers to grow corn exclusively for ethanol? If there's "only so much food," why reward farmers for abandoning other crops, and focus on growing corn for the sole purpose of burning?

Actually...no. You can't take more and more from the ground. This would lead to another dust bowl, which makes the ethanol pipe-dream even more of a stupid, feel-good-without-thinking concept.

Please provide data to back this argument up. How can "technology" or "human action" replace natural resources? What are you going to make plastic out of then? Thin air? Every single "thing" that is consumed, is borne from some sort of natural resource. Even such a concept as wind power requires iron, oil, coal, etc. to create the turbines and electrical systems to operate it. Farmers still require gasoline to run their tractors and plows.

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

Do you not believe that if those poorer nations had the resources that they too would not consume more? Thier despot leaders (in many cases) don't seem to suffer so terriably. Burma is a good example, as well as some African nations.
BTW-Limabugh isn't stupid, nor does he say stupid things.

You ended up agreeing with Limbaugh. Was that your goal?

That's actually wrong. The dust bowl was caused by the lack of trees. Trees keep the top soil from blowing away, and most farmers use them today to keep wind at a minimum.

You can actually farm the same spot for hundreds of years and not have any problem with the soil. You're not going to soak up the richness from the ground if you use proper farming techniques. And atoms are indestructible, as is matter. So if you burn gas or coal, you don't lose it, you simply spread it's particles around into the atmosphere. It later comes back to earth in rain.

Don't know much about farming, do you?

__________________
"It's the rich people's fault they earn more." - Makedde

Wrong. different crops require different nutrients from the soil. Corn, in particular, is demanding and tends to deplete the soil. Keep growing the same crops in the same ground without fertilization or rotation or time laying dormant, and you'll wind up like much of Africa.

xoxox,

Catz
farm girl from Missouri

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

I didn't say that you could do it with out rotating crops and fertilizing, I said you could do it in the same spot.

Sorry ABoyNamedSue, (can I call you Sue as short hand btw?) I didn't want to discuss ethanol, just the point about zero-sumness. I'm willing to discuss ethano, and if you want to start a thread on it I'll follow.

You can help people by cutting back- induvidually its not a very safe tactic, but done collectively it is- especially as it could be a tool to combat those dictators. Either way I would advocate less consumption, especially if its related through government organisation as Obama presumably would approach it. Again though I was just pointing out the zero-sumness that Limbaugh attributes to some sort of enviromental conspiracy theory, which he is being hypocritical with at this point.
Stupid- well you know him better than me certainly, but in this sounds pretty stupid.

I really don't see how, unless you mean in regards to ethanol. Yes it pushes up the price- who doesn't think that- how much relevance that has compared to other factors is debateable, and how to address it is too. For myself, I'd want to increase production of food/biofuel crops, say by taking some arable land from other crops. My point that higher consumption in wealthier nations drives up prices/eliminates the resource elsewhere is true, and he seeks to deny it.

Hey guys if you don't have a problem seeing reality as finite, no problem. Limbaugh does though, as have others here.

What other factors were there in his debate? Keep in mind I haven't listened to it, so I have no idea where you're coming from. I can only assume you wish to make the same arguments as him with out using his unique style of persuasion. What did you intend to say, please keep it plain.