If you continue to push an absurd argument that makes you look like a colossal dick, perhaps you should reexamine your argument.
No. You made assumptions about what my argument is, and those assumptions were untrue.
Specifically, it seems you assumed that I was advocating reverting to ye olden food/medicine/shelter technology. Why would I advocate cutting the essentials, when there are things that are wasteful and unnecessary like automobiles and bottled water
1 that could be cut? I wouldn't, and I didn't.
In case you didn't understand the rationale for including the Sitting Bull quote: we have the technological and industrial means to leave no person unfed, unclothed, or unsheltered. We also have the means to make a whole lot of unnecessary consumer goods and to burn a whole lot of unnecessary fuel getting people and things from one place to another, and turn this planet into Venus II in the process. We can do one without the other. Take a guess which one I'm advocating.
@SpardaSon21: Yes, natural gas is better than coal, but reduced consumption is better than both, and especially better than natural gas + poisoned water.
@swashmebuckle, Spardason21: I think that birds-hitting-windmills thing is greatly exaggerated. Although IIRC it does cause trouble for bats?
@Scotty: "mostly false"? It's definitely true in some places. And it's not just flammable water, it's also the fact they're putting a slurry of (probably) toxic chemicals down to break up the rock. Chemicals which are kept secret, presumably because it would be
very bad publicity if word got out. Secret even from the government, because Dick Cheney made a deal with the fracking companies that the government wouldn't ask what they were putting in the slurry as long as they promised they weren't putting
diesel fuel in the slurry... and of course once that deal got made, they could have gone right back to putting diesel fuel in it and nobody would know. And there's also been a substantial increase in the severity and frequency of earthquakes in high-fracking areas.
1I am aware that in some places the availability of potable water is a serious concern. I am not talking about cutting bottled water in those places. Do I really have to explicitly state that the position I'm advocating isn't the absurd one you'd get if you didn't apply common sense exceptions?
Don't answer that.Edited to add replies to more recent posts