Men Portrayed As Morons

bartmc said:
You guys are seriously going to sing in harmony that tattoos, piercings and someones wardrobe makes them a moron?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but in many cases it can certainly make them LOOK like one.
 
dmccormack said:
This has been going on for a long, long time.

There's a certain template the ad/ entertainment industry follows. Some common types:

  • Christians are zealous callow morons.
  • City people are saavy and quick-witted.
  • Country people are bumpkins.
  • The midwest does not exist.
  • An ignorant character invariably has a southern accent.
Of course LifeTime movies re populated exclusively with cheating husbands.
Click to expand...

I'll add one.

- The guy with non-pink skin dies first in every movie unless he's the lead character.

(Kinda right up there with the Red Shirt guy no one has seen before gets killed down on the planet in every Star Trek episode.)

Anyway... The "dumb male" thing isn't just in advertising. It permeates most shows, especially sitcoms and lawyer shows with female lawyers.

For some reason most TV cops that are male are allowed a higher number of IQ points.

TV is insidious in shoving cultural bias into our brains. If you keep in mind that most TV shows are written in California and New York City by a particular very insular and culture-limited group of "writers", you can usually see the bias. It's a much more interesting way to watch TV if you're forced to do so.

Let's list some other common TV themes:

Cops always catch bad guys. If you run you won't get away. Even the TV show "Cops" with raw video of real police work, edits out the guys and gals who run and disappear. It's that pervasive a theme.

There are only two Political Parties and you must be for one of them and against the other. Thanks to our so-called Fourth Estate.

A continuation of the above is that if you join or vote for a particular Party's candidate, you agree with everything that comes out of their pie-hole.

Even worse continuance... If you listen to any political commentator on any particular side, you're a perfect person or you're a baby-eating zealot who should burn at the stake. It's never okay for "their guy" to say anything bad about anyone, but it's always overlooked as an "eccentricity" of "your guy". (Or gals of course.)

Government workers on TV care deeply about their work to the point of coming to your house and helping you personally when you're in trouble.

All lawyers on TV always have only their client's interests at heart. They only make money at it as a kind of happy accident. They don't even notice what brand of $500 shoes they have on.

"Reality" shows depict "reality" as if everyone has those experiences like living on a tropical island playing a winner-take-all game every day.

"Dating" shows... everyone's smart and cheerful and no one's ever picked up an ugly annoying person in a bar after too many drinks. (Additionally, everyone has all their teeth and hair is always combed and shaved in all the culturally acceptable ways.)

Anyone with a tattoo is a bad guy. Unless they're on a reality show about a tattoo parlor.

Got more? ;)
 
John Baker said:
This has been going on for most of one generation, all of the last generation.

When I was a kid, the heroes in the cowboy movies were men with outstanding character and moral principles. They treated their woman, and horses, well, most all animals, with respect. They fought bravely, usually defending someone else, and always for principled reasons.

I loved Roy Rogers, he could take on a whole barroom of bad guys with nothing but his fists, and not only win, he would not get a spot of blood on his light colored cowboy shirt, that was always clean and neatly pressed, even after days of being on the trail. Then to top off all of this heroic fighting, his white hat would not be even slightly jarred out of place.

Our heroes then did not kick a guy when he was down. They never shot anyone in the back, always face to face in a "fair" fight.

They were not cowards under any circumstances, they did not lie, cheat, or steal.

As a little kid, I would leave the Saturday Matinée feeling like one of those heroes, I tried to emulate them as much as I could. As I grew up, if I did get into a fight, I never, nor would my opponent, kick him when he was down. We would wait until our opponent fully recovered himself, and the fight would continue until there was a clear winner.

I tried to be as honest as I could, even if it meant a whipping from my dad. We also would take our punishment like a "man." The tears would never come until the lecture about how disappointed he was in me, and how I had let him, and my mother down.

So, as a result of all those Saturday Afternoon Cowboy Movies and WWII war movies, where the American Soldiers and Sailors were as brave and clean living as cowboys, I honestly believe me and my friends grew up to be reasonably decent guys.

I think the change started years ago, when the hero in some movie, I can't recall which, did something like telling the horrible bad guy, and he was a horrible bad guy, (our bad guys wore black hats) that if he put down his gun and come out, he wouldn't shoot him. So the guy comes out, and our hero shot him, and of course he did deserve to be shot. The dying bad guy has a look of disbelief on his face and started to say, "you said you wouldn't shoot me". Our hero looks him dead in the eye and says, "I lied".

I could not believe that had just happened right in front of my eyes, in the movies. I almost died myself laughing, so did everyone else. Of course that line got used into the ground in dozens of following movies and TV shows. It marked a change in how heroes acted.

Then the feminization of America kicked into full swing until now, the only leaders are woman and minorities. All judges are black females, unless they are crooked judges, then they are white, middle aged males.

It is politically incorrect to portray woman or minorities in roles that are in any way demeaning, or portrays them in anything less than a positive light. This is part of the movement so that woman and minorities will be inspired to grow up and become leaders, instead of followers. All movies use that formula, as do all TV shows, and commercials. Even the printed comics follow the same doctrine.

This leaves only white males that can be portrayed as crooks, fools, con men, cowards, and all around general losers. In the very rare instances where a white male must be shown in a positive light, usually only for historical correctness reasons, then it must also be proved beyond the slightest doubt that he never could have accomplished such feats unless he had been inspired or assisted by a woman or a minority.

Ever walked down a street lately, looked at who the losers are? What race or gender is the most prevalent holding the little please help, and G-d bless corrugated cardboard signs on street corners? In the name of political correctness, we have deliberately raised an entire generation of white males who are unsure of what their role in life should be. Whatever it is, unless they were lucky enough to come from a good family, it is not anything that resembles leadership, character, or heroism.

I'm not saying that all white males are now losers and cowards, many are not, but I do feel there are too many that are, and most of that can be blamed on what some felt, when it first all started, as payback.

I think the awareness is starting to sink in, but what can be done now? Should we start making all media in such a way as it offends nobody? We are stuck, and the only real losers are white males, because they are the only fair game left. After years of this, they are probably to stupid to care anyway.

-John
Click to expand...

The best post in POA history.

Well done John. :cheerswine:
 
I don't have any ink but I know a lot of people from all walks of life the have, most of them are stupid, but then that goes with everything else about humanity as well. Ink is no more a determinant of that than anything else. Different people have ink for different reasons, I always kind of thought of it as defacing art, but that just governs me. Chicks with ink... I'm not really understanding it, but whatever.
 
The fights I've gotten in, I tried to win by any means necessary, Never started one but if it took a brick or a golf club to win, it just took a brick or a golf club to win, and you're getting beat with it till I determine that you're no longer a threat.. on the ground, on your feet, in the air, don't care. That's what you sign up for when you take a swing at me. Sorry, not getting my ass kicked due to some sort of moral code based off cowboys on TV.
 
If we just legalized murder we could take care of a lot of problems all at the same time.
 
bartmc said:
The fights I've gotten in, I tried to win by any means necessary, Never started one but if it took a brick or a golf club to win, it just took a brick or a golf club to win, and you're getting beat with it till I determine that you're no longer a threat.. on the ground, on your feet, in the air, don't care. That's what you sign up for when you take a swing at me. Sorry, not getting my ass kicked due to some sort of moral code based off cowboys on TV.
Click to expand...

No honor, no character, no bravery, just single minded fear. The media most certainly can be blamed for that, along with the feminized culture of our educational system.

Now our young people end up in hospitals simply because their opponent was so terrified, they grabbed the nearest weapon available, and were too terrified to stop using it.

It was better to go home with a black eye and a fat lip, but no more. Many now end up in the morgue, while their opponent spends the rest of their lives roting in prison.

What a shame.

John
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
No honor, no character, no bravery, just single minded fear. The media most certainly can be blamed for that, along with the feminized culture of our educational system.

Now our young people end up in hospitals simply because their opponent was so terrified, they grabbed the nearest weapon available, and were too terrified to stop using it.

It was better to go home with a black eye and a fat lip, but no more. Many now end up in the morgue, while their opponent spends the rest of their lives roting in prison.

What a shame.

John
Click to expand...

How else are people supposed to die though? We do all these things to protect and heal people to keep them alive, nature has to produce more ways of getting us dead. You can't mess with nature at no cost. In the times past of which you speak there was a lot more Earth for each individual, now it's half that. We are still an independently competitive species so we have to fight a lot harder to assure our share.

Until we evolve through being independently competitive into a communal species (not particular sure it's possible) we will continue to become more violent as the population increases further.

As for media and fear, you got that right. Look at Concealed Carry, there are people on this board that are armed to the gills all the time because they are so afraid.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
As for media and fear, you got that right. Look at Concealed Carry, there are people on this board that are armed to the gills all the time because they are so afraid.
Click to expand...


Well, I still cary homeowners insurance but I don't live in fear that my house will burn down. Media hype or common sense?
 
After sleeping on this I think the reason these young people today have so much fear is that there are so many of them pumping themselves up using weights and drugs.

About a year or so ago, my stepson decided to take that same rout, he ended up looking like a guerrilla, with about the same temperament. We have been estranged since he was a little kid, so I only see him once in a while. I've never been able to teach him anything to defend himself, or maybe it's because he never asked me for some reason., I don't know.

He got in a fight with somebody right outside his moms trailer over in Pacific Beach. Chris is such a big guy, and cranky from the steroids, the guys buddies jumped in to help. Same thing, they were afraid to stop beating and kicking him, so he almost died. He spent close to a month in the hospital. The guys who did it to him got away clean.

Todays young people have no clue what they are going up against when they find themselves in an altercation. PCP, Steroids, concealed guns and knives, or just a crazy SOB who will have no clue as to when to stop fighting.

When I was younger, when I got into a fight, I was fairly confident that a weapon would not get pulled and I was reasonably sure my opponent was not on any drugs that could make him twice as strong.

I did get in my share of altercations, well, probably more than my share. I know I would not look at it as fun anymore. These young people have plenty of valid reasons to be afraid. Their opponents have no honor, character, or courage these days, it is not how they have been raised.

In my DoJo, we used to say their is nothing more dangerous than a green belt, they knew enough to be dangerous, but not enough to control it.

It is a scary world out there now.

John
 
And some airplane owners who spend outrageous amounts of money on twins and glass panels because they're so afraid they can't fly without them.
Henning said:
As for media and fear, you got that right. Look at Concealed Carry, there are people on this board that are armed to the gills all the time because they are so afraid.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
And some airplane owners who spend outrageous amounts of money on twins and glass panels because they're so afraid they can't fly without them.
Click to expand...
....or because they like having their toys.:D;) The flying I do I don't need any of it but it's damned nice to have and makes my life a lot easier; no longer need to do the figuring, all the info is at a glance.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Eminem must have something figured out.. Maybe he works part time for ATC?

eminems-home-rochester-michigan.jpg
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for him, stuck with a lake too small for a boat. What a deprived individual.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Tattoos and piercings do tend to indicate a leaning toward the moronic clan, in my experience. There are exceptions, of course, but I'm trying to remember the last intelligent tattooed/pierced guy I spoke with at the check-in desk....
Click to expand...
I got my left ear pierced in 1979. Over the years, I have seen an instant negative reaction by many people, though it has reduced tremendously in the last 15 years or so. Early in my career, when I would start new jobs I would leave the earring at home for the first few weeks before I sprang it on them. Now I just don't give a crap what they might think. I go to the offices of clients, new clients, potential clients without giving it a thought. Of course, many people now are of the opinion: "what, only one ear pierced and no tatts? BORING."
 
John Baker said:
No honor, no character, no bravery, just single minded fear. The media most certainly can be blamed for that, along with the feminized culture of our educational system.

Now our young people end up in hospitals simply because their opponent was so terrified, they grabbed the nearest weapon available, and were too terrified to stop using it.

It was better to go home with a black eye and a fat lip, but no more. Many now end up in the morgue, while their opponent spends the rest of their lives roting in prison.

What a shame.

John
Click to expand...

I'd suggest not swinging at someone if you're not fully prepared to fight on their unknown terms.

Was that single minded fear when a guy broke my hand for putting it on his 4 wheeler? (He went to the ER via golf club shaft) He was also drunk about 6" taller than me and about 125lbs heavier, college lineman and wanted nothing but a fight, I did not.

What about the two drunk marines who didn't like the length of my buddies hair, we left. They chased us down a montana logging road and dislocated my buddies shoulder trying to rip him out of his seat with his seat belt on. One will never walk without assistance again due to the gun shot wound in his knee (my friend shot him, didn't want to kill him, could have and was well within his rights to do so). The cops and courts agreed that the shooting was justified and even gave my friend a judgment for his medical bills.

I don't wish to die or be permanently disabled, If someone swings at me, I have to assume that's what they intend to do (underestimating the intentions of your opponent is a good way to get killed) , and what they need to assume is that they just signed a blank check for me to do what I have to do to prevent it.

If you're talking about 12 year olds fighting with their cousins, I agree. Or even two high school kids ruffing each other up over a girl or something. I'm talking about a "real fight", you know the reason folks carry a gun "to defend themself"
 
bartmc said:
I'd suggest not swinging at someone if you're not fully prepared to fight on their unknown terms.

Was that single minded fear when a guy broke my hand for putting it on his 4 wheeler? (He went to the ER via golf club shaft) He was also drunk about 6" taller than me and about 125lbs heavier, college lineman and wanted nothing but a fight, I did not.

What about the two drunk marines who didn't like the length of my buddies hair, we left. They chased us down a montana logging road and dislocated my buddies shoulder trying to rip him out of his seat with his seat belt on. One will never walk without assistance again due to the gun shot wound in his knee (my friend shot him, didn't want to kill him, could have and was well within his rights to do so). The cops and courts agreed that the shooting was justified and even gave my friend a judgment for his medical bills.

I don't wish to die or be permanently disabled, If someone swings at me, I have to assume that's what they intend to do (underestimating the intentions of your opponent is a good way to get killed) , and what they need to assume is that they just signed a blank check for me to do what I have to do to prevent it.

If you're talking about 12 year olds fighting with their cousins, I agree. Or even two high school kids ruffing each other up over a girl or something. I'm talking about a "real fight", you know the reason folks carry a gun "to defend themself"
Click to expand...


You are of course right. I clarified myself after sleeping on it. Please see my post # 52

-John
 
Henning said:
As for media and fear, you got that right. Look at Concealed Carry, there are people on this board that are armed to the gills all the time because they are so afraid.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm that afraid. I view it like a tool. Just like my Leatherman, it's a means for getting out of a jam, or helping someone else who's in one. I may never need it, and hope I never do, but if one's ever in the wrong situation, it could be invaluable, and I'm far more likely to pull it in some else's defense than my own. In fact, I'd rather lose my CC than my Leatherman.

Ryan
 
Geico266 said:
What say you?
Click to expand...

Has media reduced the portrayal of women as sex objects to the point that men portrayed as morons is now worth worrying about?

I guess I haven't been watching enough television lately.
 
For some reason some people seem to assume that anyone who carries concealed (or openly, for that matter) is terrified of something. Or maybe terrified of everything. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
 
Geico266 said:
The best post in POA history.

Well done John. :cheerswine:
Click to expand...


Thank you, this is the proudest moment of my life. Forward that post to at least twenty people on your mailing list and you will have good luck for two hours. :thumbsup:

Forward it to ten people and get good luck for one hour. :D

Five people will only get you half an hour of good luck, but hey, a half hour is a half hour, what the heck. :ihih:

John
 
Jim Logajan said:
Has media reduced the portrayal of women as sex objects to the point that men portrayed as morons is now worth worrying about?
Click to expand...

Nah, the women now just have their own sex objects.

The entire Twilight movie series was nothing more than a way for middle-aged women to fawn over sparkly vampires consisting of 20-something in-shape males who were supposedly sensitive and loving, let alone even interested in an awkward high school girl, after having being alive for 500 or 600 years and seen most of human history.

A Harlequin "romance" novel for the big screen.

Middle aged women standing in line for miles... to see their high-school awkward female heroine loved and understood by a gloomy pensive pale 500 year old guy who while muscular, looked like he needed a sandwich as badly as the most anorexic runway model ever.

If middle aged men lined up for days to see a similar heroine, the media would be screaming about the exploitation of the women actresses. :) :) :)

In other words, this bus has turned around is is headed down the highway in the opposite direction at full speed. :) :) :)
 
I find the home security company television commercials to be hillarious. They are obviously afraid of being viewed as non-pc preying upon the fear of white people.
 
Henning said:
How else are people supposed to die though? We do all these things to protect and heal people to keep them alive, nature has to produce more ways of getting us dead. You can't mess with nature at no cost. In the times past of which you speak there was a lot more Earth for each individual, now it's half that. We are still an independently competitive species so we have to fight a lot harder to assure our share.

Until we evolve through being independently competitive into a communal species (not particular sure it's possible) we will continue to become more violent as the population increases further.
Click to expand...
This is a view of economics that I completely disagree with. There have been claims for years that we would not be able to feed all the people. Yet technology seems to provide. And it is competitiion, through Adam Smith's invisible hand, that has made it happen. Communal economics doesn't work on a large scale.
 
PPC1052 said:
This is a view of economics that I completely disagree with. There have been claims for years that we would not be able to feed all the people. Yet technology seems to provide. And it is competitiion, through Adam Smith's invisible hand, that has made it happen. Communal economics doesn't work on a large scale.
Click to expand...


Feed nothing, we'll run out of water first and unless we shift to a different system of energy production we won't have the spare energy to desalinize enough water. 9 Billion people is not going to be fun when we're at 7 billion and have depleted our aquifers world wide over 35% in the last 70 years getting there.

Technology is not the problem, the technology already exists that we shouldn't be burning oil at all anymore. It's the will to spend the money to build the infrastructure. The problem is the lead time to build the infrastructure to be able to handle the situation is time, and that time is now to begin.
 
Henning said:
Feed nothing, we'll run out of water first and unless we shift to a different system of energy production we won't have the spare energy to desalinize enough water. 9 Billion people is not going to be fun when we're at 7 billion and have depleted our aquifers world wide over 35% in the last 70 years getting there.

Technology is not the problem, the technology already exists that we shouldn't be burning oil at all anymore. It's the will to spend the money to build the infrastructure. The problem is the lead time to build the infrastructure to be able to handle the situation is time, and that time is now to begin.
Click to expand...

Henning, I don't think the red party is going to spend much time trying to solicit your vote because your message is not aligned with their message and they will discern that you are not the type to cave-in to political rhetoric. Why do you not understand that we are supposed to drill our way to prosperity and energy independence? :D
 
Gmaper said:
Henning, I don't think the red party is going to spend much time trying to solicit your vote because your message is not aligned with their message and they will discern that you are not the type to cave-in to political rhetoric. Why do you not understand that we are supposed to drill our way to prosperity and energy independence? :D
Click to expand...


Because I look further than the next bend in the road.;)
 
FlySince9 said:
Regardless... The bend is there and you have to navigate it.
Click to expand...


Yes you do, and it's all in how you navigate it that gets you your result. There's a bend coming down the Mississippi just above a bridge that's kinda tricky to make with a full length barge string. If you try to navigate through it in the obvious fashion of driving the channel you'll crash into the bridge about midway down your barge string as you twist in the current too slowly.
What you have to do is very carefully ground the left front corner of the barge string into the tip of the sandbar then take all your horsepower, two in reverse and one in forward to flank the stern over until it's almost into the riprap on the outside of the turn, take the forward engine and give it full reverse while shifting the flanking rudders to stop the swing of the stern and transfer that energy to the bow to pop it off the sand bar and into the channel then immediately going to full forward with 14,000 hp lined up perfectly to shoot the bridge.

The point is, if your gonna navigate the turns, you better know what your doing and give it all some serious thought because it's not as simple as it seems, and rarely will "the easy way" provide you the optimal result.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Yes you do, and it's all in how you navigate it that gets you your result. There's a bend coming down the Mississippi just above a bridge that's kinda tricky to make with a full length barge string. If you try to navigate through it in the obvious fashion of driving the channel you'll crash into the bridge about midway down your barge string as you twist in the current too slowly.
What you have to do is very carefully ground the left front corner of the barge string into the tip of the sandbar then take all your horsepower, two in reverse and one in forward to flank the stern over until it's almost into the riprap on the outside of the turn, take the forward engine and give it full reverse while shifting the flanking rudders to stop the swing of the stern and transfer that energy to the bow to pop it off the sand bar and into the channel then immediately going to full forward with 14,000 hp lined up perfectly to shoot the bridge.

The point is, if your gonna navigate the turns, you better know what your doing and give it all some serious thought because it's not as simple as it seems, and rarely will "the easy way" provide you the optimal result.
Click to expand...

Just making the point that you can't look past the present challenges in some starry-eyed pursuit of the future... I liked your analogy, though. Felt I was right there on the Bridge withya! ;)
 
FlySince9 said:
Just making the point that you can't look past the present challenges in some starry-eyed pursuit of the future... I liked your analogy, though. Felt I was right there on the Bridge withya! ;)
Click to expand...

Very true. If you fail to live today your chances of living tomorrow are certainly dim. Too many people, though, want to live only today. They say "I'm doing just fine so I'm not worried about tomorrow".

I was a teenager in the 50s when seat belts for cars first appeared on the scene. As a pilot I was an early adopter of auto seat belts and I could not understand why people so vehemently opposed "government mandated" seat belts. When the auto manufacturers started installing seat belts in compliance with the law many people paid mechanics to disable the seat belt warning mechanism. Frequently we heard "I shouldn't have to wear seat belts if I don't want to, this is a free country". Even today we have a non-compliance rate that surprises me in spite of widely accepted acknowledgement of the value of seat belts. I was involved in a head on collision in the 70s that was caused by a car hitting the side/rear end of the car coming toward me. That driver was not wearing a seat belt because "she didn't want it to wrinkle her dress". When she was hit the impact caused her to slide across the seat and in so doing she pulled the wheel while she stomped on the accelerator when she was actually trying to hit the brake. My car was totaled. My head removed the mirror from the window mount (no shoulder belts then) and I had to climb out of the car through the passenger window. When the policeman who responded to the accident took me to the hospital he asked me "do you always wear your seat belt?' I asked "how do you know I was wearing a seat belt?" He said, "because you are alive and riding to the hospital with me to get your head sewed up".

The bottom line as I see it is that more people need to acknowledge that change is inevitable and that we best try to innovate to provide for a better life for ourselves and our descendants.

And Henning, please keep up your thoughtful posts. I find them refreshing in the face of so many people who think things are just fine today and tomorrow is not a problem.
 
Gmaper said:
Very true. If you fail to live today your chances of living tomorrow are certainly dim. Too many people, though, want to live only today. They say "I'm doing just fine so I'm not worried about tomorrow".

I was a teenager in the 50s when seat belts for cars first appeared on the scene. As a pilot I was an early adopter of auto seat belts and I could not understand why people so vehemently opposed "government mandated" seat belts. When the auto manufacturers started installing seat belts in compliance with the law many people paid mechanics to disable the seat belt warning mechanism. Frequently we heard "I shouldn't have to wear seat belts if I don't want to, this is a free country". Even today we have a non-compliance rate that surprises me in spite of widely accepted acknowledgement of the value of seat belts. I was involved in a head on collision in the 70s that was caused by a car hitting the side/rear end of the car coming toward me. That driver was not wearing a seat belt because "she didn't want it to wrinkle her dress". When she was hit the impact caused her to slide across the seat and in so doing she pulled the wheel while she stomped on the accelerator when she was actually trying to hit the brake. My car was totaled. My head removed the mirror from the window mount (no shoulder belts then) and I had to climb out of the car through the passenger window. When the policeman who responded to the accident took me to the hospital he asked me "do you always wear your seat belt?' I asked "how do you know I was wearing a seat belt?" He said, "because you are alive and riding to the hospital with me to get your head sewed up".

The bottom line as I see it is that more people need to acknowledge that change is inevitable and that we best try to innovate to provide for a better life for ourselves and our descendants.

And Henning, please keep up your thoughtful posts. I find them refreshing in the face of so many people who think things are just fine today and tomorrow is not a problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can't get to the future without solving the issues that challenge us today... Nuff Said! (Oh, I wore my seatbelt long before it was fashionable too :D).
 
FlySince9 said:
Yes, you can't get to the future without solving the issues that challenge us today... Nuff Said! (Oh, I wore my seatbelt long before it was fashionable too :D).
Click to expand...


Which is exactly what we are NOT doing by perpetuating the reliance on the petrochemical industry. As long as we think the answer is in finding new sources of oil and gas, we are doomed to failure in 20 years or so.
 
Henning said:
Which is exactly what we are NOT doing by perpetuating the reliance on the petrochemical industry. As long as we think the answer is in finding new sources of oil and gas, we are doomed to failure in 20 years or so.
Click to expand...

Many times (almost always) when a new technology is brought "online" both the old and the new are run simultaneously until the new technology is validated. So, although our ultimate goal is to move to new technology, and I don't think there are many people who would disagree with that goal, we live in the present, and for the most part, rely on the old technology. And regardless of how much we hate our dependency on it, it must be maintained for the foreseeable future. Its not the finding of new that concerns me as much as it is the deliberate abandoning of the available in an effort to force us into a technology that is not proven, available, or ready to handle the load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top