[ExI] riots again

BillK pharos at gmail.com
Sun Sep 30 16:00:35 UTC 2012


On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM, John Clark wrote:
> If the dichotomy is false don't blame me because I didn't set it up, I'm not
> the one who said: "if the oil stops, Western civilisation collapses. So it
> is not negotiable. The US will do anything to ensure oil supplies and to
> install friendly governments over the oil resources".
>
> I've debated with hundreds of Extropians with thousands of posts since my
> very first post to the Extropian list on September 29 1993, and although
> we've strongly disagreed about some things until now we all agreed that the
> continuation of civilization was a desirable goal; but now for the first
> time I apparently find somebody who disagrees about that. Oh well, there is
> no disputing matters of taste.
>
>

I'm not sure, but, I think Mr Moulton is saying that the US doesn't
have to go stomping all over the Middle East countries in order to
secure their oil supplies. He thinks there are other alternatives,
like a bit of free trade with the Arabs would be OK.

I may be setting up a strawman, but there appear to be some glaring
faults with that choice. And the US may have other reasons as well to
want to secure the Middle East. War usually has more than one reason.
The US is not just concerned with this year's oil supplies. They want
to secure oil supplies for the next twenty years. And this is in the
face of increasing demands for oil from China and India, etc.


BillK



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list