Wow that's awesome. Using things like Solar, geo-thermic, hydro-mechanical, and wind power to produce electricity is like getting free electricity in a sence. I know nothing is free (you can't create energy from nothing) but it is free monitarily. And sadly today, money is the root of all decisions... even environmental ones.
Also, I posted a topic about this a while back but no one replied. Take a look at this:
There have been article in Scientific American and other physics rags. Some prototypes have been made and shown to work. If this is a hoax then it's a very elaborite and clever one. Anyone know or have first hand experience with a MEG? I've been doing research on how it works for several months now and the theory seems sound but there are some obsticles in the way. But it would solve huge issues with powering portible devices like electric vehicles, laptops, well basically anything that can benefit from portible power generation. Even you home. Maybe the 'man' (oil companies) are keeping it down. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>Hey guess what? OPEC cut oil production by another 1.5 million barrels of oil last night! This goes into effect on December 31.
We need to get off of oil and find something else to use as fuel, because there is not enough oil up in ANWR to sustain the US. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The understatement of the year. ANWR's reserves couldn't fuel this country for 10 months, let alone 10 years. Yet another reason not to drill there.
Scott, I agree that getting some of these new concepts and technologies to work is difficult, but that is all the more reason to pour some serious R&D moolah and brain-power into the pot and see what we can come up with.
Scott, I agree that getting some of these new concepts and technologies to work is difficult, but that is all the more reason to pour some serious R&D moolah and brain-power into the pot and see what we can come up with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bah. I find that to be the "well if only we'd spend the money we'd have the solution" argument. Look at cancer research. There's been A LOT of money spent on that and still no "cure". I'm just not convinced that it's a "if only" situation.
Yes but what is the alternative? Not to try? I'm not necessarily suggesting spending money only on existing technologies, but also perhaps funding some of the more promising startup groups that have entirely new concepts. I read something in Business 2.0 (a mediocre magazine to be sure) about this old fellow who has designed [a concept engine] that could -- in theory -- completely displace any internal combustion engine we are currently involved with. Granted this particular guy is wealthy and has set up a group of people to take over when he dies (i.e. doesn't need our tax dollars), but you get the idea.
And no, I don't think the Segway is the answer...right process, wrong result (for this particular problem).
[quote]Bah. I find that to be the "well if only we'd spend the money we'd have the solution" argument.<hr></blockquote>
Where there's a will, there's a way. Human ingenuity deserves a little more credit, and it definitely helps when $$ are available. Regarding weapons and the means to deliver them, the funds and enthusiasm are always more than available; now the entire human race can wipe itself out 1000s of times over in numerous different ways. Wow, aren't we clever?. (Big weapons have some kind of attraction to certain folk who 'run' the world. Call it the "Corvette Factor"). It's sad that we continue to cower away from putting equal effort into developing alternative energy technologies to sustain our way of life, and the planet we all live on....no apologies to the anti-environment contingent.
[quote]Look at cancer research. There's been A LOT of money spent on that and still no "cure". I'm just not convinced that it's a "if only" situation.<hr></blockquote>
You picked a poor analogy. There is no single "cure", as you put it for cancer, and there probably never will be. Cancer is a generic term for a class of diseases, with many forms, affecting any part of the body, with many probable causes (environmental, dietary, hereditary, lifestyle/substance abuse, stress, etc., including infection. Many people diagnosed with cancer have a very good chance of survival, and many are 'cured'. Actually the human body, when given a chance, is extremely effective at healing itself.
If Bush is smart he'll realize that investing R&D in this problem is actually more important than whatever missile shields, advanced aircraft and other military programs are on the make. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there are several ways to view Bush's (or more broadly the Republican's) appearant resistance to alternative energies.
Giving them some credit...
1. They believe that the technology just isn't there and that the best approach is just to keep the economy working at full steam to ensure that R&D in the private sector proceeds as quickly as possible.
not giving them credit...
2. They know we could switch the majority of our energy demands to alternative energies, but the costs (even though less than the military costs in maintaining oil dependency) are too politcally expensive in the short term.
or the conspiracy theory...
3. They are owned by big oil interests who (as businesses properly should) are only concerned about maintaining their profits and have no concern about fighting future wars.
One can blend aspects of the above together, but I tend to believe that #2 is more accurate. Of course, I don't give the dems much credit either, it just so happens that they have less to lose politically by promoting alternative energies because they've cultivated the tree-hugging crowd into their voting base (not so much now that the green party has come along).
In response to some of Scott H's points- I admit that the fuel cell thing is gonna take some work, but that doesn't mean that we can't already switch to alternatives in supplying stationary power demands. Europe is certainly less dependent on oil in these areas because they pursued nuclear power a lot more than we did. I'm not a big fan of nuclear simply because wind tech seems to beat it out when the additional costs of disposal are factored in, but I'd still welcome nuclear over oil.
I think the second step (weaning mobile energy demands off of oil) would take a lot more political will. The less oil is needed, the cheaper it would become. And putting a threshold tax on it would be a constant political football. Everytime the economy dipped their would be calls for lowering the gas tax. Keeping the gas tax revenue dedicated to fuel cell development would require even more political willpower and then, once fuel cells arrived their would be arguments about whether we should regulate car makers into providing cheap fuel cell cars or, instead, give them tax credits.
I'm a bit of a politcal pessimist in that I don't think either dems or pubs think about anything other than getting elected. I suspect our citizens will also quickly forget about the consequences of oil dependency once the current crisis has died down.
[quote]<strong>
The less we have to interact with any of them (Israel included) the better off we'll be. The cultural barriers are far to great IMO to be overcome by simple diplomacy or student exchange programs or whatever other tired ideas the politicians might have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moogs, I totally agree. Without oil the average middle-eastern society would be indistinguishable from the bare-footed tribes featured on National Geographic. They need another century or two to catch up with the rest of the world. Just as with a spoiled, rich brat a little "tough love" is needed (even with Isreal).
Well, we may not have a "cure for cancer" in general. However, research has done tremendous things for cancer victims. Many children w/leukemia now DO get to live out their lives.
Many women now get treated for breast cancer. Many brain cancers are treatable. As well as lung and throat cancers.
A lot of people have been cured of cancer. The money has helped. I'd rather get cancer in 2002 than in 1982, or 1902. Wouldn't you?
Anyways, regarding the Oil Addiction.The chances of Bush doing anything about it seem pretty slim. Judging from his track record on these things anyways. For example.
Kyoto Treaty - didn't sign becaus it was "too expensive" for American Businesses. Yet...
Star Wars satellites - Bush is willing to spend 10s of billions of dollars to shoot down nuclear missiles from...who again? These satellites were conjured up during the cold war. Russia isn't going to shoot any Nukes at us. Who else? China? They aren't gonna shoot any nukes either. India, pakistan? They may have nukes but no missilies - that I know of. What a waste of money.
Oil Companies - well, he's obviously got some stake in how well these companies do. Gotta make sure they keep making money.
So, his priorties seem, to me, to be:
Making money.
Finding more oil - and making money.
Not the environment.
I'm not an expert on these things, but has he ever done anything good for the environment? Just curious - if anyone knows.
For the record, I'm not trying to pick on Bush or turn this into some crappy political debate thread. The democrats haven't done much better. None of the politicians seem to concerned with more than keeping their jobs.
Another angle that is important is the consumer angle. People like cars. People like fast cars. Just look at the "Car Thread" over yonder. Hell, I like cars. Never drive mine unless I have to. My bike, public transportation and walking work for me - for the most part. Granted most cities have crappy pub. transport. That was one of the reasons I moved to this city.
Nonetheless, I'd sure like to see our country be less dependent on other countries for our energy.
If Kennedy can get us whipped up into a patriotic frenzy about 'putting a man on the moon first', then a president should be able to get us worked up into a patriotic frenzy to 'free ourselves from foreign energy'. Or something like that.
<strong>Look, I already said I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate. I really have no desire to make anything look like it is Bush's fault.
I'm simply suggesting that the government, as it is today doesn't seem to interested in alternative fuel sources. If you disagree, show me why.
As it is, your post says nothing.
How about alluding that money spent on cancer research is wasted money again, that was entertaining the first time around. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please. You rant on and on about Bush and his "connections" them try to claim you're not trying to make it political. Pull your head out of your ass.
When did I say cancer research money was wasted? For the most part the war on cancer is a lost war. After 50 years and who knows how many trillions of dollars there is no cure. Not a good return. But that doesn't mean it's wasted. Idiot.
You're right Scott. You pegged me. I'll never suspect you of seeing things the way you want to see them again.
/Damn that Bush. If it weren't for him we would never have gotten so used to having cars and powerplants that worked off of fossil fuels. Heck, if it weren't for ol' Bush and his dad, I bet Henry Fords Model T never would've taken off in the first place.
Damn that guy./
Like I said, our current government does not seem too intent on working out alternative fuel sources. If wonder boy Gore was president we wouldn't be seeing much more support of it either.
Other than the fact that the billions of dollars spent on star wars could be used a lot more effectively to help get off the oil, that's pretty much the extent of my political beef.
There seems to be a consistent way of dealing with things in this country though. That is, we prefer to clean up messes rather than prevent the messes from happening in the first place.
<strong>Other than the fact that the billions of dollars spent on star wars could be used a lot more effectively to help get off the oil, that's pretty much the extent of my political beef.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove it would be "used a lot more effectively". How can you say that when you don't know what the outcome will be?
<strong>When did I say cancer research money was wasted? For the most part the war on cancer is a lost war. After 50 years and who knows how many trillions of dollars there is no cure. Not a good return. But that doesn't mean it's wasted. Idiot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does:
"Bah. I find that to be the "well if only we'd spend the money we'd have the solution" argument. Look at cancer research. There's been A LOT of money spent on that and still no "cure". "
not sound as though you think "A LOT" of money being spent was not the correct course of action? You don't exactly endorse the money spent on cancer research there.
btw, love the sig. You capitalized the "i" too. How nice.
Well, I'm out. (knew I never should've brought up the "B" word - offensive defensive people and all).
Prove it would be "used a lot more effectively". How can you say that when you don't know what the outcome will be?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bottom line (regarding this particular subject of this particular thread):
It seems, to me, that working away from giving our energy business, hence billions of dollars, to countries which breed our current enemies (terrorists, etc.) would do more good than working towards building satellites to shoot down missiles which our enemies don't even have.
Scott, do you think we're just plain stuck with fossil fuels, or is it just the hydrogen power you have issues with? (Trying to sift through the responses here...)
<strong>Scott, do you think we're just plain stuck with fossil fuels, or is it just the hydrogen power you have issues with? (Trying to sift through the responses here...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know. Did I say that? Like I've been saying over and over in this thread. I'm just not convinced that spending research money on it will lead to a solution in any of our lifetimes. Also if it's so super great why hasn't anyone else done it?
Everyone wants to pretend that if Mean Old Bush would just spend the money we'd have it. Well it doesn't work that way.
edit to add
Defending the country is the job of the government. Read the constitution some time. In there it does not say that paying for alternative energy research is the job of the government.
[quote]It seems, to me, that working away from giving our energy business, hence billions of dollars, to countries which breed our current enemies (terrorists, etc.) would do more good than working towards building satellites to shoot down missiles which our enemies don't even have. <hr></blockquote>
actually, the best way, IMO to get countries to stop hating us to to help move them forward and tie their economy to ours. if you notice, most of the countries where we're really, really hated are countries that have jack squat. they have nothing to lose, so they can hate us all they want.
now make it so that 1/2 of that countries population works for or with american companies, and suddenly we're not so bad. first, 'cause they get to know real americans, secondly 'cause going after us would, in the long run, be going after themselves as well. where's the logic in that?
the thought that by having absolutly nothing to do with a country will make them hate us less is baloney. most of these countries hate us because we have what they don't, and they're jealous. we have a lot. they have nothing.
if we went and invested in some of these places and tied their well being closely with ours, suddenly we wouldn't be so bad.
and as for the missle thing being a waste of money, i'm with Scott H. on this one. defending the nation is one of a very few things our govt. spends money on that they're actually supposed to. besides, if nothing else, there are usually a lot of great gains from military research for every day life.
look at things like barcodes, internet, highways, etc. lots of stuff there that had military intent and ended up helping out a lot of average joes.
I agree that spending money or weapons etc. can have positive technological side effects.
However, just because the constitution doesn't demand that the govenment do something doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The constitution doesn't say anything about building space shuttles or putting people on the moon either, but the space program has paid off rather nicely, I think - lots of cool stuff comes from that.
I see what you're saying about going over and being buddy buddy with the countries where terrorists come from; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. However, most of them already have quite beneficial relationships with us - at least the governments. Problem is, the (Islamic) terrorists don't feel having us, including our troops, on their soil is a good thing. They hate us simply for being there.
Sure, their governments may get along with us, heck they might even act like they like us. But in the OPEC countries the governments don't represent the people in a democratic sense. I read a story in the NYTimes which talked about how most of the Egytpian and Saudi Arabian citizens approve of Osama Bin Laden and don't even believe he is responsible for the attacks.
The theory that if the terrorists could get to know us they wouldn't hate us just doesn't wash. The 19 that flew the planes on 9-11 had been in the U.S.A for up to 5 years. They worked, ate, travelled, went to school, and learned how to fly planes with and by Americans. Just because we shake their hands and they smile back doesn't mean they don't hate us.
When we get in good with their governments, the people often accuse them of being our puppets. Which, in a sense, is true. If people want to spend big money making laser satellites thats fine. I hope there is some cool side effects, but working towards building a better shield won't stop your enemy from making a better sword. The only way to stop your enemy swinging a sword at you is to take away the sword or take away the enemy...
Defending the country is the job of the government. Read the constitution some time. In there it does not say that paying for alternative energy research is the job of the government.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's kind of the main point to the thread. If getting off oil would avoid war then doesn't alternative energy research qualify as a defense expenditure?
The moon mission analogy also seems quite apt, since it was considered by many to be impossible at the outset and it's relevance to defense was even more debatable.
As I've said before, the technology is completely ready for getting rid of most of our oil dependency. As far as fuel cells go, I can only suggest that the barriers are far smaller than the ones at the beginning of the moon program.
Comments
Also, I posted a topic about this a while back but no one replied. Take a look at this:
[quote]MEG= Motionless Electric Generator
Lots of info and links on this page. <a href="http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm"; target="_blank">http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm</a>;
There have been article in Scientific American and other physics rags. Some prototypes have been made and shown to work. If this is a hoax then it's a very elaborite and clever one. Anyone know or have first hand experience with a MEG? I've been doing research on how it works for several months now and the theory seems sound but there are some obsticles in the way. But it would solve huge issues with powering portible devices like electric vehicles, laptops, well basically anything that can benefit from portible power generation. Even you home. Maybe the 'man' (oil companies) are keeping it down. <hr></blockquote>
<strong>Hey guess what? OPEC cut oil production by another 1.5 million barrels of oil last night! This goes into effect on December 31.
We need to get off of oil and find something else to use as fuel, because there is not enough oil up in ANWR to sustain the US. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The understatement of the year. ANWR's reserves couldn't fuel this country for 10 months, let alone 10 years. Yet another reason not to drill there.
Scott, I agree that getting some of these new concepts and technologies to work is difficult, but that is all the more reason to pour some serious R&D moolah and brain-power into the pot and see what we can come up with.
<strong>.
Scott, I agree that getting some of these new concepts and technologies to work is difficult, but that is all the more reason to pour some serious R&D moolah and brain-power into the pot and see what we can come up with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bah. I find that to be the "well if only we'd spend the money we'd have the solution" argument. Look at cancer research. There's been A LOT of money spent on that and still no "cure". I'm just not convinced that it's a "if only" situation.
And no, I don't think the Segway is the answer...right process, wrong result (for this particular problem).
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Where there's a will, there's a way. Human ingenuity deserves a little more credit, and it definitely helps when $$ are available. Regarding weapons and the means to deliver them, the funds and enthusiasm are always more than available; now the entire human race can wipe itself out 1000s of times over in numerous different ways. Wow, aren't we clever?. (Big weapons have some kind of attraction to certain folk who 'run' the world. Call it the "Corvette Factor"). It's sad that we continue to cower away from putting equal effort into developing alternative energy technologies to sustain our way of life, and the planet we all live on....no apologies to the anti-environment contingent.
[quote]Look at cancer research. There's been A LOT of money spent on that and still no "cure". I'm just not convinced that it's a "if only" situation.<hr></blockquote>
You picked a poor analogy. There is no single "cure", as you put it for cancer, and there probably never will be. Cancer is a generic term for a class of diseases, with many forms, affecting any part of the body, with many probable causes (environmental, dietary, hereditary, lifestyle/substance abuse, stress, etc., including infection. Many people diagnosed with cancer have a very good chance of survival, and many are 'cured'. Actually the human body, when given a chance, is extremely effective at healing itself.
<strong>
If Bush is smart he'll realize that investing R&D in this problem is actually more important than whatever missile shields, advanced aircraft and other military programs are on the make. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there are several ways to view Bush's (or more broadly the Republican's) appearant resistance to alternative energies.
Giving them some credit...
1. They believe that the technology just isn't there and that the best approach is just to keep the economy working at full steam to ensure that R&D in the private sector proceeds as quickly as possible.
not giving them credit...
2. They know we could switch the majority of our energy demands to alternative energies, but the costs (even though less than the military costs in maintaining oil dependency) are too politcally expensive in the short term.
or the conspiracy theory...
3. They are owned by big oil interests who (as businesses properly should) are only concerned about maintaining their profits and have no concern about fighting future wars.
One can blend aspects of the above together, but I tend to believe that #2 is more accurate. Of course, I don't give the dems much credit either, it just so happens that they have less to lose politically by promoting alternative energies because they've cultivated the tree-hugging crowd into their voting base (not so much now that the green party has come along).
In response to some of Scott H's points- I admit that the fuel cell thing is gonna take some work, but that doesn't mean that we can't already switch to alternatives in supplying stationary power demands. Europe is certainly less dependent on oil in these areas because they pursued nuclear power a lot more than we did. I'm not a big fan of nuclear simply because wind tech seems to beat it out when the additional costs of disposal are factored in, but I'd still welcome nuclear over oil.
I think the second step (weaning mobile energy demands off of oil) would take a lot more political will. The less oil is needed, the cheaper it would become. And putting a threshold tax on it would be a constant political football. Everytime the economy dipped their would be calls for lowering the gas tax. Keeping the gas tax revenue dedicated to fuel cell development would require even more political willpower and then, once fuel cells arrived their would be arguments about whether we should regulate car makers into providing cheap fuel cell cars or, instead, give them tax credits.
I'm a bit of a politcal pessimist in that I don't think either dems or pubs think about anything other than getting elected. I suspect our citizens will also quickly forget about the consequences of oil dependency once the current crisis has died down.
[quote]<strong>
The less we have to interact with any of them (Israel included) the better off we'll be. The cultural barriers are far to great IMO to be overcome by simple diplomacy or student exchange programs or whatever other tired ideas the politicians might have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moogs, I totally agree. Without oil the average middle-eastern society would be indistinguishable from the bare-footed tribes featured on National Geographic. They need another century or two to catch up with the rest of the world. Just as with a spoiled, rich brat a little "tough love" is needed (even with Isreal).
Many women now get treated for breast cancer. Many brain cancers are treatable. As well as lung and throat cancers.
A lot of people have been cured of cancer. The money has helped. I'd rather get cancer in 2002 than in 1982, or 1902. Wouldn't you?
Anyways, regarding the Oil Addiction.The chances of Bush doing anything about it seem pretty slim. Judging from his track record on these things anyways. For example.
Kyoto Treaty - didn't sign becaus it was "too expensive" for American Businesses. Yet...
Star Wars satellites - Bush is willing to spend 10s of billions of dollars to shoot down nuclear missiles from...who again? These satellites were conjured up during the cold war. Russia isn't going to shoot any Nukes at us. Who else? China? They aren't gonna shoot any nukes either. India, pakistan? They may have nukes but no missilies - that I know of. What a waste of money.
Oil Companies - well, he's obviously got some stake in how well these companies do. Gotta make sure they keep making money.
So, his priorties seem, to me, to be:
Making money.
Finding more oil - and making money.
Not the environment.
I'm not an expert on these things, but has he ever done anything good for the environment? Just curious - if anyone knows.
For the record, I'm not trying to pick on Bush or turn this into some crappy political debate thread. The democrats haven't done much better. None of the politicians seem to concerned with more than keeping their jobs.
Another angle that is important is the consumer angle. People like cars. People like fast cars. Just look at the "Car Thread" over yonder. Hell, I like cars. Never drive mine unless I have to. My bike, public transportation and walking work for me - for the most part. Granted most cities have crappy pub. transport. That was one of the reasons I moved to this city.
Nonetheless, I'd sure like to see our country be less dependent on other countries for our energy.
If Kennedy can get us whipped up into a patriotic frenzy about 'putting a man on the moon first', then a president should be able to get us worked up into a patriotic frenzy to 'free ourselves from foreign energy'. Or something like that.
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
Look, I already said I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate. I really have no desire to make anything look like it is Bush's fault.
I'm simply suggesting that the government, as it is today doesn't seem to interested in alternative fuel sources. If you disagree, show me why.
As it is, your post says nothing.
How about alluding that money spent on cancer research is wasted money again, that was entertaining the first time around.
<strong>Look, I already said I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate. I really have no desire to make anything look like it is Bush's fault.
I'm simply suggesting that the government, as it is today doesn't seem to interested in alternative fuel sources. If you disagree, show me why.
As it is, your post says nothing.
How about alluding that money spent on cancer research is wasted money again, that was entertaining the first time around.
Oh please. You rant on and on about Bush and his "connections" them try to claim you're not trying to make it political. Pull your head out of your ass.
/Damn that Bush. If it weren't for him we would never have gotten so used to having cars and powerplants that worked off of fossil fuels. Heck, if it weren't for ol' Bush and his dad, I bet Henry Fords Model T never would've taken off in the first place.
Damn that guy./
Like I said, our current government does not seem too intent on working out alternative fuel sources. If wonder boy Gore was president we wouldn't be seeing much more support of it either.
Other than the fact that the billions of dollars spent on star wars could be used a lot more effectively to help get off the oil, that's pretty much the extent of my political beef.
There seems to be a consistent way of dealing with things in this country though. That is, we prefer to clean up messes rather than prevent the messes from happening in the first place.
<strong>Other than the fact that the billions of dollars spent on star wars could be used a lot more effectively to help get off the oil, that's pretty much the extent of my political beef.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Prove it would be "used a lot more effectively". How can you say that when you don't know what the outcome will be?
<strong>When did I say cancer research money was wasted? For the most part the war on cancer is a lost war. After 50 years and who knows how many trillions of dollars there is no cure. Not a good return. But that doesn't mean it's wasted. Idiot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does:
"Bah. I find that to be the "well if only we'd spend the money we'd have the solution" argument. Look at cancer research. There's been A LOT of money spent on that and still no "cure". "
not sound as though you think "A LOT" of money being spent was not the correct course of action? You don't exactly endorse the money spent on cancer research there.
btw, love the sig. You capitalized the "i" too. How nice.
Well, I'm out. (knew I never should've brought up the "B" word - offensive defensive people and all).
<strong>
Prove it would be "used a lot more effectively". How can you say that when you don't know what the outcome will be?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bottom line (regarding this particular subject of this particular thread):
It seems, to me, that working away from giving our energy business, hence billions of dollars, to countries which breed our current enemies (terrorists, etc.) would do more good than working towards building satellites to shoot down missiles which our enemies don't even have.
<strong>Scott, do you think we're just plain stuck with fossil fuels, or is it just the hydrogen power you have issues with? (Trying to sift through the responses here...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know. Did I say that? Like I've been saying over and over in this thread. I'm just not convinced that spending research money on it will lead to a solution in any of our lifetimes. Also if it's so super great why hasn't anyone else done it?
Everyone wants to pretend that if Mean Old Bush would just spend the money we'd have it. Well it doesn't work that way.
edit to add
Defending the country is the job of the government. Read the constitution some time. In there it does not say that paying for alternative energy research is the job of the government.
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
actually, the best way, IMO to get countries to stop hating us to to help move them forward and tie their economy to ours. if you notice, most of the countries where we're really, really hated are countries that have jack squat. they have nothing to lose, so they can hate us all they want.
now make it so that 1/2 of that countries population works for or with american companies, and suddenly we're not so bad. first, 'cause they get to know real americans, secondly 'cause going after us would, in the long run, be going after themselves as well. where's the logic in that?
the thought that by having absolutly nothing to do with a country will make them hate us less is baloney. most of these countries hate us because we have what they don't, and they're jealous. we have a lot. they have nothing.
if we went and invested in some of these places and tied their well being closely with ours, suddenly we wouldn't be so bad.
and as for the missle thing being a waste of money, i'm with Scott H. on this one. defending the nation is one of a very few things our govt. spends money on that they're actually supposed to. besides, if nothing else, there are usually a lot of great gains from military research for every day life.
look at things like barcodes, internet, highways, etc. lots of stuff there that had military intent and ended up helping out a lot of average joes.
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
However, just because the constitution doesn't demand that the govenment do something doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The constitution doesn't say anything about building space shuttles or putting people on the moon either, but the space program has paid off rather nicely, I think - lots of cool stuff comes from that.
I see what you're saying about going over and being buddy buddy with the countries where terrorists come from; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. However, most of them already have quite beneficial relationships with us - at least the governments. Problem is, the (Islamic) terrorists don't feel having us, including our troops, on their soil is a good thing. They hate us simply for being there.
Sure, their governments may get along with us, heck they might even act like they like us. But in the OPEC countries the governments don't represent the people in a democratic sense. I read a story in the NYTimes which talked about how most of the Egytpian and Saudi Arabian citizens approve of Osama Bin Laden and don't even believe he is responsible for the attacks.
The theory that if the terrorists could get to know us they wouldn't hate us just doesn't wash. The 19 that flew the planes on 9-11 had been in the U.S.A for up to 5 years. They worked, ate, travelled, went to school, and learned how to fly planes with and by Americans. Just because we shake their hands and they smile back doesn't mean they don't hate us.
When we get in good with their governments, the people often accuse them of being our puppets. Which, in a sense, is true. If people want to spend big money making laser satellites thats fine. I hope there is some cool side effects, but working towards building a better shield won't stop your enemy from making a better sword. The only way to stop your enemy swinging a sword at you is to take away the sword or take away the enemy...
ah..it's past 5:30!
<strong>
Defending the country is the job of the government. Read the constitution some time. In there it does not say that paying for alternative energy research is the job of the government.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's kind of the main point to the thread. If getting off oil would avoid war then doesn't alternative energy research qualify as a defense expenditure?
The moon mission analogy also seems quite apt, since it was considered by many to be impossible at the outset and it's relevance to defense was even more debatable.
As I've said before, the technology is completely ready for getting rid of most of our oil dependency. As far as fuel cells go, I can only suggest that the barriers are far smaller than the ones at the beginning of the moon program.