Surely, the Lowest Point in Human History Was....

[The Six]

[The new erato]

The oil culture....

Holy crap. Where would we be without the long playing record?

[Moonfish]

Ah, yes, the one that makes modern life possible.  Bless it.

Modern life?

[North Star]

Modern life?

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

[Moonfish]

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_petroleum_industry

[North Star]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_petroleum_industry

Well I know a a good deal about the biological and environmental effects of petroleum drilling and petrochemical industry, but you questioned Todd's point about petroleum industry 'making modern life possible'. One might argue that petroleum-based products can eventually be replaced, but it seems rather implausible to claim that the current standards of living in the developed countries could have been attained without petrochemical industry.

[Todd]

One might argue that petroleum-based products can eventually be replaced, but it seems rather implausible to claim that the current standards of living in the developed countries could have been attained without petrochemical industry.

Never underestimate the sanctimonious wishful thinking of environmental ideologues.

[Moonfish]

Well I know a a good deal about the biological and environmental effects of petroleum drilling and petrochemical industry, but you questioned Todd's point about petroleum industry 'making modern life possible'. One might argue that petroleum-based products can eventually be replaced, but it seems rather implausible to claim that the current standards of living in the developed countries could have been attained without petrochemical industry.

You misunderstand Karlo. I didn't question Todd's point, but rather the definition of modern life. One should never question Todd!
Modern life can be interpreted in many ways depending on location and socioeconomic status. Most of the world is poor. Besides, aren't we postmodern at this point in time?   

Never underestimate the sanctimonious wishful thinking of environmental ideologues.

Nor the sacred posturing of conservative demagogues.

[Moonfish]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3020049/China-s-car-graveyard-Stunning-aerial-pictures-hundreds-thousands-vehicles-thrown-scrap-heap-government-aggressively-aims-cut-emissions.html

China transitioning to "modern" life?

[Todd]

Modern life can be interpreted in many ways depending on location and socioeconomic status.

This is one of those faux intellectual types of responses.  You are communicating using a quintessential modern method, and mentioning, even as a joke, a ridiculous modern concept (post-modernism).  Yes, you know what is meant by the phrase modern life, as it is typically used, especially on the internet.  And of course, many, but by no means all, of the world's poor aspire to acquire at least some of the accoutrements of modern life as lived by wealthier people.  They're smart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3020049/China-s-car-graveyard-Stunning-aerial-pictures-hundreds-thousands-vehicles-thrown-scrap-heap-government-aggressively-aims-cut-emissions.html

China transitioning to "modern" life?

I do love how the headline includes the word "stunning" to describe photos of a junkyard.  Perhaps some people do find the banal stunning.

[The Six]

I do love how the headline includes the word "stunning" to describe photos of a junkyard.  Perhaps some people do find the banal stunning.

It's just clickbait.

[Moonfish]

(Yes, it is the Daily Mail, but I thought it belonged nicely with the rest of the thread).

Isn't the article an example of a consequence of "modern" life?  Or more specifically one result of the "oil" culture?

Your response to the the problem the article is pointing to is indeed stunning. Your logic is typical for many in the tier of conservative archetypes wishing that the problem did not exist, so they simply deny its existence.  This perspective places them in a category beyond the naive and ignorant: the irresponsible. 

The pictures do not bother you at all? Incredulous!

[Moonfish]

.

[Todd]

Your response to the the problem the article is pointing to is indeed stunning. Your logic is typical for many in the tier of conservative archetypes wishing that the problem did not exist, so they simply deny its existence.

Really, you are stunned?  You must lead a rather sheltered life.  Or you are addicted to hyperbole.  Or both.

And you also very clearly prefer to respond to things you wish were true or written rather than things that are true or were written.  First, the implication of what you write is that I do not believe that anthropogenic climate change is occurring or is a problem.  The thing is, I have never written any such thing.  (Please, direct me to posts where I have denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change or its consequences.)  Second, you apparently missed the main point of the article with the pictures you find so bothersome, and that I find not the least bit bothersome: the large junkyard is the result of China adopting tighter emissions standards.  The large junkyard is a good thing.  You should be glad to see it, to see the adoption of actions that will reduce pollution in China, especially when paired with a reduction in the number of registrations allowed.  Based on your posts here, you appear to react with nearly uncontrollable emotion to something as mundane as photos of a junkyard. 

[Moonfish]

Colonialism!

[asin] 0618001905[/asin]

[jochanaan]

The invention of the combustion engine combined with the "one-car-per-person" mentality

+1

[Florestan]

+1

May I suggest that you and Moonfish cancel all your current CD orders and never place another one again? At every stage of their manufacturing and distribution internal combustion engines are heavily involved.

[jochanaan]

May I suggest that you and Moonfish cancel all your current CD orders and never place another one again? At every stage of their manufacturing and distribution internal combustion engines are heavily involved.

You know, I wasn't condemning the entire petroleum products industry; nor was Moonfish; merely the predominance of the internal combustion engine and the mentality that allows for a majority of cars transporting only a single person.

[Florestan]

the predominance of the internal combustion engine

A predominance that has literally saved many hundreds of millions of lives just because the ambulance or the firefighters came in time.

A predominance that has made possible for you to visit far away places and buy the CDs and books, or the food and wine, you enjoy.

A predominance that brought about the greatest freedom and easiness of movement the mankind has ever known.

All in all, a predominance which has made possible, and sustained, the highest standard of living the mankind has ever known and of which you are a major beneficiary.

How highly educated and intelligent people can call this "the lowest point in human history" is really beyond my power of comprehension.

And besides, predominance over what? What were the viable alternatives that the internal combustion engine destroyed?

the mentality that allows for a majority of cars transporting only a single person.

Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?

[Karl Henning]

Do you have any statistics to back up this claim?

Just observation of the daily commute into Boston, e.g.