Are we going to wait like a drug addict until we hit rock bottom before we "detox?"
Until we are ready to put environmentalism in its proper place instead of being slaves to it we will never realize our own energy potential.
Ya got it!
....and when we can vote honest, caring politicians into office whose politial goal isn't to get rich on under the table payments from "big oil!"
Both of these goals, in todays world, are improbable!
lol...give me a convincing reason! :
what a dumb question.
We're not enslaved by "FOREIGN oil".
FOREIGN~~~ !!! KYAAAAAAAA!!!!
We buy it, willingly, because it's cheaper than the alternatives.
Quit using racism to scare people.
convert to natural Gas, will be the immediate answer, then drill on our side of the world. and switch Oil to a back up source. But.... Like Evan above just wrote
it will be more expensive if we buy from our own investors and speculators and not foregin, where it is cheeper.
Big Block Investing in future's and Goverments like China, demanding more Oil and Euro-Eastern Traders with backing from money pools are more of a threat to Oil prices than anything going on in the Mid-East right now.
We treat Oil as an auctionable commodity, thus highest bidder gets the lot.
do like they do in Europe, live closer, ride mo-peds or pedal. Take trolleys, Trains and busses. we almost have no choice now.
A much better solution would be to realize that this is really nothing more than a non-issue.
We aren't slaves to oil, and we're especially not slaves to FOREIGN oil. (FOREIGN!! BE SCARED!!!)
We willingly hand our money over because it's cost-effective to do so.
I'm so scared about bolstering foreign regimes that I've given up coffee and now drink good old British mud with my breakfast. How are we to break this cycle of foreign slavery to coffee. And tea.
If you're that worried about "FOREIGN" things, then I hope you never bothered to learn a "FOREIGN" language.
After all.. THE FOREIGNERS ARE TRYING TO MAKE US SLAVES TO THEIR LANGUAGE!!!
It's a non-issue. So is the "foreign oil" issue.
At least you're voting with your dollars instead of taking away my right to buy oil and plastics.
Natural gas? Yes! it burns clean and is plentiful!
Rogers has never had anything credible to offer. He is on my "no response list."
Our energy policy is controlled by oil.
It is so omnipotent that changes in our energy policy have not/cannot be changed.
We have the largest oil reserves on earth right here in N. America, but the asininity of conservationism rules!
This is a quote from Lee Iacocca:
"This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the tree-hugging environmentalists"
There are many options available to "create" the energy we need.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE SLAVES and it's of our own doing!
No one is thinking about this?
I guess ya'll love $4 - 6 buck gas prices.
You mean, slavery to the oil corps? You pay what the corps want you to pay. And be happy that you don't live in Europe Qwark, because you would realise that petrol is CHEAP in the United States
Plunder as in spoils of war. . Secure supply by taking it. Im not saying we should. But we could. WE are already hated ,most think that's our intention to steal their oil.
Its prudent to save our oil for last. We will use it, but first use up theirs . I have faith that when all the crude is gone there will be another resource to replace it. I think the technology is already ,ready. Big oil just wants to squeeze us for every last penny they can.
I disagree, respectfully of course...:
There is more than enuf oil right here in he good Ole USA to last us for many generations.
Conservationists and paid (under-the-table) politicians won't allow us to free ourselves from the shackles of power held by "big oil."
WE HAVE TO GET FREE FROM FOREIGN OIL....NOW!!!!!!!
Didn't we go over this last week? The US only has enough crude oil to last us for a few decades at current consumption rates. Shale oil is currently too expensive and too destructive to count on as a viable substitute. It makes far more sense to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by reducing our dependence on oil, period.
Renewables such as solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal could make a big dent on our need for oil and other fossil fuels to power homes, factories, and buildings, leaving more oil to be consumed by things for which we currently have no substitute for oil.
Simple conservation can put another massive dent in our consumption. We could save a billion barrels of oil a year just by keeping our tires properly inflated. Add in things like double-glazed windows, cool roofs, proper insulation of buildings, more walkable/bikeable cities, better public transportation, more local food production, etc. and we reduce our consumption by billions more.
None of this stuff is hard. It just requires the political will to carry it out, and the more we cling to unrealistic dreams of American oil independence based on its own oil reserves, the longer it will take to roll up our sleeves and do what it will take to become truly independent.
There are many options!
"Big oil" has it's heel on all of 'em!
" " " " " " politics!
" " " " " " the world economy!
" " has absolute control!
Greedy, primitive man is the "thoughtful" crafty perp!
Absolute power corrupts, ABSOLUTELY!
Aware, hey you may have something here. maybe that why all the Islamic folks keep migrating here, They keep their Oil Profits after the Mid East runs out, we could be the New Islam!!!!!!
only prob. is unlike Quait we all would not get the Oil royalty Checks like they do. Sam would give to China before they would us!
Anybody ever hear of the 'Bloom Box'?
There is no shortage of resources per se. The real problem is that we have too many consumers. As the world population crests the seven billion mark, we humans continue to deny that there is just far too many of us for this planet to support. Instead of adopting population control solutions, we increase rhetoric and denial. We, like lemmings are on our way to what biologists call a J curve. As our population continues to spiral out of control, we will eventually reach a plateau and then crash. I personally have no hope for the larger body of our population. We, just as creatures that exist within their environments naturally will be forced to adapt or die. I have full confidence that once the peak of the curve is reached, our species will get the message. But as history teaches us, it takes something catastrophic for humans to get the message. I often wonder if this is not the intention of the powers that be.
There are NOT too many of us for the planet to support. This is an outdated fear.
That depends entirely on how many resources we consume per capita. If everybody consumed at American levels, we'd need four Earths. If everybody consumed like an Ethiopian, we could fit billions upon billions more onto this one.
Not so. If everyone got to the economic level where they could consume like Americans they would be facing the same demographic shifts that much of the developed world is starting to face now. Aging, declining populations would - presumably - satisfy some of the overpopulation chicken littles out there.
Over population chicken littles?
This world is so over populated it's choking to death!
There is virtually no where you can go now without another human being close by.
I say, STOP BREADING or at least every couple should only have one child so they can leave a legacy or fulfil some maternal desire. What's immoral about allowing couples to have one child? I think it's selfish and greedy to have more than 2, animals only have more offspring than us because they have less chance of survival, mostly because of us.
To answer the topic of this thread, we have been able to run vehicles on alternative fuels ever since the engine was invented and only greed has kept the population in the dark about other cleaner and cheaper alternatives, it makes me sick to the stomach.
With any luck there will be a catastrophic event that will wipe all humans off the face of this beautiful planet we use and abuse so much.
Think I talk to myself. "World’s sixth mass extinction may be underway: study".
"The real problem is that we have too many consumers."
We are now in the initial stages of the shortages which will become more acute until nature reduces the population, just as it does with any other species. Humans are NOT exempt from the laws of nature regarding the consequences of overpopulation.
Food - It's becoming more expensive as agro technology struggles to increase output. Extreme weather is becoming a more of a factor.
Oil - well, we all know about that. The U.S. has 15 yrs of reserves.
Pollution - Not many places left to soil except our own nests.
Global climate change - We prefer to pretend the glaciers aren't melting.
China is hoarding rare minerals, Russia is claiming polar oil in disputed territories for itself, genetically modified corn is being accepted by more countries since that's all that's on the market.
The problems of the world won't be solved if we keep breeding like fruitflies. This is about science not religion or philosophy.
'Overpopulation' is NOT a problem and morally dubious schemes for population control are NOT the answer to the real problems of the world.
You are not alone in that opinion, and therein lies the problem.
Being realistic and not embracing panic at every opportunity is also NOT a problem.
Why do you think overpopulation is better?
Why should future generations suffer the consequences of this generations failure to face obvious facts?
The earth is NOT overpopulated so there is no "better" to panic over.
Is oil the only thing that's running out?
Stretch the world's remaining oil as much as you want, the fact is that it's finite and going fast. Estimates vary, naturally, but many say there's 40 yrs of oil, 60 yrs of gas and 120 years of coal left. The Saudis and others are probably inflating their reserve numbers for economic reasons. (To comfort Investors). Biofuels require fertilizers which are produced using petroleum.
A check on most other world resources and give similar sobering figures. We cannot continue to consume at the present rate but if the population keeps increasing -- we must.
We're running out of fresh water. People in Orange Co. Ca use recycled sewage to supplement dwindling fresh water supplies. ("Crap to Tap"). That's something to look forward to, isn't it.
Overpopulation is leading to wars, poverty, disease and a diminishing of progress in science, education, resource conservation and balance of trade. And oil.
This is largely a myth and rhetoric. I'm not bashing the sentiment - lots of people think this - but it's just not true.
There are barely any of the existing resources that wont be just as available for the next 100 years at least. Look up Erlich - Simon Wager. This is because we become better at exploiting them (extracting, recycling, slimming down the amount we use). The US upped its estimate of how much gas is sitting under them and available by 100% last year because of the ability to extract fractal shale gas, for example.
The world's population will plateau at around 9 billion. Population isn't leading to wars. There are no wars over resources generally, it doesn't make financial sense - this is why "oh we only invaded Iraq for the oil" doesn't hold water.
It has not damaged scientific progress, it's encouraged it. How can a large population hinder science?! It can lead to disease and relative poverty in crowded urban environments, I'll give you that. But for the majority of people the world gets better year on year on a steady trend by every measure.
I am actually involved in renewables, but this kind of rhetoric drives me mad!
Rhetoric or living with reality? You underestimate the problem.
"The Middle East and Europe are the most overpopulated regions. China and India, despite having the highest populations, rank lower, at 29th and 33rd respectively. The world as a whole, meanwhile, is overpopulated by two billion - the difference between its actual population and the number it can support sustainably, given current lifestyles and technologies." http://www.overpopulation.org/solutions.html
Yes, conservation and new technologies will help. Not enough though.
The Iraq war wasn't about oil? It wasn't only about oil, but oil was a big part of it. Why haven't other oil-less baddies (N. Korea) been invaded?
Pop. will plateau at 9 billion? The UN population study, the most extensive to date gives 3 different scenarios. The largest forcasts 31 billion. Pick your number, nobody knows. Let's put our heads in the sand and go with the smaller number. http://www.un.org/esa/population/public … 0final.pdf
You deal in recyclables? Business will be getting better, no doubt. How about some data to back up your rosey forecast.
If you don't mind me saying; www.overpopulation.com doesn't seem a particularly balanced website - if your conclusion is in the title of your website then there's a problem! I don't underestimate the problem, I just wish to discuss it in a sensible manner.
The sensible statistics on world popualtion are always the middle prediction as provided by the UN. If you look at the massive disclaimer given to the high value in their report on population http://www.un.org/esa/population/public … 0final.pdf you'll understand why. The middle value gives a figure of 9 million(ish).
If you want to deal with the UN data then look at www.gapminder.org - I cannot recommend this website highly enough - it is brilliant. The website was founded by Hans Rosling (from the Karolinska Institute) for an overview of some of the stats then visit http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html - I also highly recommend this. This guy really doesn't have an agenda, just discusses statistics, but in a fun way...
You know why we don't touch North Korea and it has to do with it's exceptionally populous neighbour!
I work with renewable energy, not recyclables! So yes, I should be propegating this doom and gloom, but it just isn't true!
Here's a talk from Hans Rosling on global population in which he explains the gapminder programme - I genuinely can't recommend this highly enough - please watch!!! http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_s … _seen.html
The UN data has a massive disclaimer because it's candid enough to admit that future population models must make assumptions and these can be wrong.
Dr. Rosling's presentations are very interesting and I love his moving graph technique. One problem -- his data is based on past dynamics and do not account for what we are discussing -- the increasing shortage of everything. We've reached the tipping point. There are no more vast tracts of unsettled land, no more easily available resources (oil bearing shale looks like a piece of sidewalk before you process it).
In the past, more population meant more prosperity. Today's and tomorrows conditions no longer support that. To blithely continue an unrestrained growth of population is nothing short of madness.
Yes the UN data does state that it's a prediction, but that's a bit of a circular argument isn't it. I said that it had a massive disclaimer on the HIGHER figure - which let's be clear - is NOT the figure used by the UN or any government. Everybody uses the 9 billion figure unless they are making a political point. Rosling uses data and predictions based on solid facts - as do the UN. In fact this is what population dynamics is, really fascinating.
Relative to the number of people on the planet, the amount of land under agriculture is far lower tha at any previous point in the post-industrial world. Growth in the productivity of land far outpaces population rise. Actually there are huge areas of unsettled land, and the recent data and future trends show that fewer and fewer people will live in rural areas as there is a general shift to urban populations.
Shale oil is a horrific way of ripping bits of pristine wilderness apart and it's shameful the way that Canada (in particular) is currently exploiting this resource. I actually spoke earlier about fractal shale gas, not oil - this has a much lower footprint tha traditional gas extraction. There's nothing to prevent people using compressed natural gas to power vehicles and power generation.
I expect that other technologies will be employed for these purposes. But without trying to sound like a complete grinning optimist; this technology is already being employed in much of Europe and will be stepped up in the next few years. The main reason for the change will be when such technologies become economically viable, though.
There's no evidence to show that we've reached a tipping point outside of the anecdotal. It's just rhetoric. Resources aren't running out either; the prices of raw materials will bear this out when adjusted for inflation.
Of course there is a point here that we have't yet mentioned: How do you prevent the population from increasing to rise? The birth rate is already falling. China are (in)famous for their nasty human-rights-infringing policy on this. But the statistics show that the birthrate would have fallen just as quickly without the policy of one kid per couple!
Education of women and urbanisation of a population are the biggest influences on birthrate and these are following the trend in south asia (the area where most of the extra 2 billion will come from) as they have elsewhere...
A few points...
"Actually there are huge areas of unsettled land..."
"Resources aren't running out either; the prices of raw materials will bear this out when adjusted for inflation."
Resources regenerate themselves? As we've seen with BIG OIL, prices do strange things when supplies get tight.
"China are (in)famous for their nasty human-rights-infringing policy on this. But the statistics show that the birthrate would have fallen just as quickly without the policy of one kid per couple!"
I don't think I held China up as a model for pop. control.
Did you ever wonder what the quality of life will be like with 9 billion people on the globe? 50% more cars on the roads. 50% more food needed. 50% more people needing the remaining resources?
Do we care how our decedents in 100-200-1000 yrs. from now will live? Or is getting thru the next 20 or 30 yrs. our only concern?
OK: Unsettled land; this constitutes around 60% of the land surface area of the planet. Granted, there's a good reason why much of this hasn't been settled, but that's not really the point and as I've said; the rise in yield will account for a rise in population. Though obviously we could do with better land use strategies in tropical forests, for example. In developed countries, habitat quality and biodiversity is generally on the rise.
No resources do not regenerate themselves, but they do get cheaper. And things only get cheaper if there's a lower demand compared to relative abundance. This is how economics drives world resources. It doesn't matter if a non renewable resource runs out as much if you don't need it!
I never said that you'd held up china as an example, but I thought I'd mention the real reasons as to why birth rate falls, regardless of a nasty policy being employed. This was inkeeping with your belief that the world's population is still rising exponentially.
The quality of life for nine billion people in 2060 will be far higher than they are now. Way, way higher for the average global citizen. This is why it's less important for us to worry about implementing these things now because we know that our far richer children ad grandchildren will be able to better cope. I'm obviously not saying that we do nothing, but you seem to be advocating a strategy of "panic"!
This is not just information I've made up, all serious scientists are in agreement with roughly what I've said. I used to be of a similar mind set to yourself; I studied environmental science at uni and began to look closely and take an interest in statistics and fell in love with it even more. Just altered my outlook somewhat!
I feel I should add a footnote here saying: I am not in denial about climate change, the impact humans have on the world etc. But just realistic about the figures and what will actually drive change; economics!
In the US, farmland disappears at a rate of 3% per year. Since 1950, 1/5 has gone but worse yet, cities were settled around the best farmland and that is what is most in demand for development. Look at the terraced rice paddies in China - how can modern methods be used there to increase yields? http://www.tcnj.edu/~business/economics … s.tcnj.pdf
I know a bit about this because I have farmed, full or part time, all of my life and I still grow about 90 ac. of corn. Since my costs go up every year, I probably won't be able to sell it to you any cheaper tomorrow. I don't think anyone else will either.
Nearly all the land worth settling has been settled -- and then whatever resources were previously obtained from that land, i.e. timber, are gone forever.
Quality of Life.
How will a world of 9B people have a better quality of life? I don't know of anyone who wants move 50% more people into their town, city, Country. Crowding doesn't tend to bring out the best in people.
Economics is what is driving the rape of the rain forests, the depletion of oil and the exploitation of poor countries. Why will a bigger population, with more demand, lessen economic greed?
I too studied environmental science - back when there was still more of everything in that environment. I'm not proud of what has happened on our watch and I'd like to leave my decedents more than an overcrowded soiled nest.
Ah, well that's arable land you're talking about there and that constitutes only around 10% of the world's land area. Most of the land under farming use is massive expanses of pasture land for cattle, horses, reindeer etc. The reason that a fifth of farmland in the US has disappeared is because it's not needed any more. Supply and demand; it wouldn't go if you needed it. The rise in population from 2021 to 2050 will be less that the past 40 years and there's been no global catastrophe. Even the current rise in global yields at around 1.5% can deal with the issue without invoking things like GM. The incursion of cities on arable land is largely just hype because we see it happening. Only around 1% of the world's land surface is under conurbation.
I agree with you that we need a more sustainable strategy in dealing with slash and burn in tropical regions etc, but this problem can be solved and will be solved. It needs to be solved through targeted aid, education, micro-credits and condoms.
What you're doing with quality of life is assuming that population is the only factor which influences it. This isn;t the case, quality of life will go up inspite of population rise. Medecine, communications, richness and welfare states will see to that.
You won't see a 50% increase in your city population because that's not what's going to happen! You might see a big rise if you lived in South Asia or Sub Saharan Africa; but not in the developed west, though I suspect it'll lead to a rise in immigration.
These will all be challenges, but it's just sheer doom and gloom to look at something, i.e. the population in 40 years timer and assume it's going to happen over night. The world's population grew more over the past 40 years and yet quality of living went up, life expectancy improved, literacy rose, hunger fell, the amount of land farmed per person fell dramatically...etc etc.
"Is oil the only thing that's running out?"
Oil is not running out, and 'overpopulation' is NOT leading to wars, disease, the diminishment of progress, etc. That is just false, empty rhetoric.
Henry Ford could run cars on Hemp in 1927.
Notice Marijuana and its relation Hemp are illegal in all but three states and those recent additions. If it should take brains to get into heaven, should not be overpopulated.
Ultimately we switch to gas and other sources, particularly bioethanel and electricity for vehicles...
The US - in line with many other countries - upped it's estimate of available natural gas by 100% last year because of advances in aquiring fractal shale gas.
Not a lot of people know that!
It's pretty evident that as long as we are willing to buy gas at such inflated prices, the present scenario will continue.
When gas hits $4 a gallon (which apparently is soon) then we will start assessing our driving habits and using more alternatives. If it doesn't hurt, we won't change. If it hurts, we'll make changes.
We are in willing bondage to other countries from which we buy oil. There isn't enough discomfort yet to change it. And the last time this happened, all the dialog went away when gas prices dropped to $2.50 a gallon. So apparently we believe that this discomfort is only temporary.
If gas hits $5.00 a gallon I'm just gonna hook a bunch of British people up to a sled and whip them until they take me to the packie and back.
They'll be too awed by the space-age invention of 'the whip' to complain much.
I'll just feed them scraps from the garbage. They're Biritish, they'll think it's fine cuisine!
I've visited America and tasted American food, the garbage probably tastes better, it couldn't taste any worse.
Hold on now. To be fair, did you chew with both of your teeth?
Ha! Most of our food recipes come from Europe. Good job insulting yourself!
Oh my god. An american is lecturing another nationality on cuisine. From a nation that invented cheese in a can, the breakfast pizza and the corndog!
Absolutely. All of the finest cuisine of the world comes to the US just as all of the finest of humanity comes to the US. That's how we roll.
Really! I had a most disappointing Indian meal in the US, it was a posh place too!
Finest of humanity, why then the highest prison population in the Western world?
Yes, well, "posh" to a British person is a relative measure, isn't it?
Like me? What do you know about me beyond that I disagree with most of what you write?
Well then, tell me where you are from. I've been asking you what your first language is for days now and you've been too shy to say.
I am English and my first language is English, you colonial you.
I'm still waiting for you to translate some of you replies into English.
England is not part of Great Britain now?
As for, "I'm still waiting for you to translate some of you replies into English," why don't you read that back to yourself very slowly?
"Finest of humanity, why then the highest prison population in the Western world?"
Is logic another topic they don't teach over on that molding island?
Yes, unlike on that festering lump of land that you exist on.
Probably because they realise that if they taught you logic you wouldn't be as comfortable making illogical points all the time.
Oh, it seems you are uniformed that we are more expert at that as well.
So they DON'T teach you logic then. That explains a lot.
"Lump"? We have golf courses bigger than your entire irrelevant, has-been nation.
You have ego's bigger than our entire nation, what was it again, 54% 25%?
NOT A BAD MEAL AT A SINGLE RESTAURANT!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
... Good job on discriminating against an entire culture based on one experience.
Next time you argue against racism, shut up.
And we don't have to rely on importing the finest cuisine or the finest of humanity!
It's one of the great shames of the modern world that it is so difficult to find a michelin-starred restaurant that doesn't just do american cuisine.
Such a dearth of French, Italian and Japanese michelin places....
When gas hits $4 a gallon?
We are paying $8 a gallon in Europe!
And what's the problem with ShortStory? What have you got against the British?
We have some of the finest chefs in the world.
What is American Cuisine anyway? Ribs, Hamburgers and Corn dogs?
I pricked his bubble by showing him that Americans weren't the greatest inventors in the world
American cuisine, like so much of America, is the best from all over the world.
And I don't begrudge some has-been nations their nostalgia as long as they don't make a nuisance of themselves about it while we create the future.
What a joke, you don't have one!
The Hamburger came from Hamburg in Germany and everything else came from England, just like your ancestors.
If you don't beleive me then follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of … ted_States
I tried finding something typically American on the internet and couldn't do it. Your mid western breakfast is an English Breakfast. Bread pudding is English. Corned beef origionated in England. Deviled Eggs are European, French. And everything else you eat is either Mexican or European or Eastern cuisine.
Don't tell me that English food is boiled indelible horrors when your thanksgiving meal is an English Sunday Roast!
Also, you say that we have the highest prison population? Get your facts right: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/researc … eventh.pdf
The United States has half of all the worlds prison population! The United States is number 1 in the world! England is number 83
America is number 4 for the highest gun murder rate in the world and you are 6 times more likely to be mudered in the U.S.A than you are in England.
No wonder your Hub Score is 24!
What a joke, you don't have one!"
Of course we do; the finest in the world.
Ah yes, that great American invention, the yorkshire pudding, the sausage, the hamburger, fried eggs, chips, roast beef, . . .
BBQ,fried chicken,chicken fried steak, and hotdogs.
Good for you for adding to my list of non American foods Jim.
Is chicken fried steak a delicacy from the UK?
I would be interested in the history of these.
Chicken fried steak and hotdogs are German/Austrian. BBQ and fried chicken are from all over the place, but the influences on American cuisine seem to be mainly American Indian for BBQ and Scottish and West African for fried chicken.
Slow Food USA has an interesting program dealing with the regional food traditions of North America, but it has only moderate relevance to the standard American diet, unless there are a whole bunch of people eating Pinyon nuts and gators for dinner that I'm not aware of!
http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php/pr … ails/raft/
Does my 'hub score' have something to do with American cuisine, or are you just grasping for something to be bitter about?
Tell me one American meal that doesn't come from another country.
You haven't produced one hub in 4 months or ever for that matter.
I had a look at your profile. All you do is slag off other hard working hubbers, you should be ashamed.
How is the number of hubs related to this discussion? Just lashing out blindly?
And as I've said before, American cuisine, like so many things American, is the best of all the world. That's why it is superior to anywhere else.
Just lashing out blindly? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, that's ALL you do!
There is NO American Cuisine, it's just a rip off of everyone elses.
You could fill a book shelf with origional English recipes and we also enjoy cuisine from all over the world.
To say your food is superior to anywhere else when it is food from everywhere else doesn't make sense.
Now answer my question, name one traditional American dish that didn't come from another culture.
I'm not sure you've considered the deep-pan breakfast pizza with extra cheese from a tube smeared over the top after cooking?
Would it shock you to find I being facetious? Anyway, the Italians wouldn't dare invent a pizza with bacon and egg on it. They'd probably put Docelatte on it too, bloody ponces.
"Just lashing out blindly? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, that's ALL you do!"
Not at all. I'm responding to your comments. I don't even care how many hubs you have. Your opinion is no less valid than that of someone with a higher 'hubscore.' See how that works?
"There is NO American Cuisine, it's just a rip off of everyone elses.
Now answer my question, name one traditional American dish that didn't come from another culture."
I trust you don't need me to answer this question AGAIN, right?
"Tell me one American meal that doesn't come from another country."
They may all come from other countries.
But Americans perfected it.
Americans changed the recipes yes, NOT perfected them, you can't perfect something that was perfect in the first place.
And fried chicken came from the Scottish, the American version is African, so no you can't say Fried Chicken.
The BBQ came from the native American Indians.
Of course we've perfected them, the same way we've done with the people who come here from all over the world.
It's what we do.
There are many cultures where fat is considered beautiful. I hadn't realised that America was one until now...
Americans perfect other peoples food by taking something that was once healthy and making it very unhealthy.
You can have it healthy or unhealthy if you like. We offer it all.
Shame so many of your fellow countrymen chose the unhealthy option then!
Do you know that obesity affects many essential bodily functions like the ability to think logically.
Are you obese?
John, you make me laugh, you are sooo funny.
Glad you're on my side!
Not even close, but thanks for your concern. How about you? How are you feeling?
HAHAHAHAH AMERICANS ARE FAT!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
... ok... let's get back to the issue of oil
You just cannot be arguing that American food is the best in the world? I mean, I'm all for patriotism and all but come on!
A simple way to improve fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions from motor vehicles would be to use the laws of physics and apply a weight tax to non-commercial cars, SUVs and trucks. This would cause people to stop driving heavy cars to the grocery store and PTA meetings. The tax could be tapered in over several years in order to give car owners and manufacturers time to adjust. A weight tax might be more palatable politically than increasing the gasoline tax to levels comparable to Europe.
Anyone who wanted to buy a Hummer, heavy pickup truck, Cadillac Escalade, or Chevy Suburban would be free to do so, but they would be required to pay for the "externality" costs of doing so. The manufacturers would remain free to develop vehicle technology however they thought best to serve the market without government fuel economy regulations and loopholes.
Punish people for going to work (yes, often work that requires a larger vehicle) getting to work (a fair bit of the US deals with a heavy winter each year), and keeping an important segement of national industry afloat.
liberals have just the best(!) ideas.
Another spurious and illogical argument!
The best performing vehicle I've had for bad weather was a small car of 1200 cc engine capacity.
How many office workers need a large vehicle to drive to work?
You DON'T know the answer to that quesiton, do you? DO YOU?
Another illogical answer.
I asked the question, it was up to you or somebody else to supply the answer or I wouldn't have bothered to ask it, would I!
Ok, exactly how many office workers need a large vehicle to drive to work or to do part of their work? How many workers in each country are "office workers"? What is the exact definition of that?
Answers, please. Hurry up.
I asked the question, you are allowed to say that you have no idea.
The answer is that there is no one answer to apply to everyone so the government and illogical busy-bodies should keep their noses out of individuals' choices of transportation.
And my logical friend wtf has that to do with inventions?
I wasn't responding to your unsubstantiated claim. Wait your turn and go find a link if you want to be taken seriously.
Then why were you replying to one of my posts? Not beaten by the technology are you?
And I've told you time and time again, I've provided you with proof, if you are so desperate that you have to disbelieve me it is up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove it again and have you deny it again.
You need to pay closer attention to the discussion. And if you still refuse to support your oft-repeated claim with an actual link to this supposed 'study' you'll have to get used to talking to yourself.
I told you, you have your link, where's your's?
You never provided a link to this supposed 'study.' You provided a link to a discussion where someone mentioned a study. That is not valid.
Still not quite mastered reply yet.
I assume that you do not read Japanese?
Any reasonable person would accept three different reports citing the same information as valid.
You are not a reasonable person and your rather shallow ego won't allow you not to be the best at everything.
Now, run along and come back when you can back up your stupid claims.
In my neighborhood I see a lot of people riding around in huge SUVs and other heavy vehicles, one person in each one burning a lot of gasoline for no good reason other than big SUVs are in fashion among their friends. If you agree that reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East and reducing CO2 emissions are worthwhile goals, applying a weight tax would be a simple way to reduce unnecessary fossil fuel consumption. If you aren't worried about climate change and dependence on Lybian oil, then there's no reason to worry about gas mileage.
Your neighbors should not be allowed to drive the kind of car they want or need without your approval? Do you know each neighbor's situation enough to decide for them what kind of car they 'need'? Are they not allowed to travel alone without your permission? Do all your neighbors work in the same place and keep the same schedule? Have you enlisted their children to inform on them if they exceed the fuel allowance determined by your collective? Maybe it's time they were sent down to the reeducation camp.
Can you read? I said everyone, including my neighbors, should be able to drive whatever kind of vehicle they wish provided they pay something toward the cost of the pollution and wasted gasoline they are creating. I also said that car design and production should be left up to the manufacturers.
Yes he does read, but just converts everything that might make too much sense for him into his natural language, gibberish!
I didn't suggest taxing heavy vehicles that are used for commercial purposes, including contractors, farmers, etc. People don't need to drive Chevy Suburbans to work or to the grocery store or PTA meeting. There are much smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles available. And I wouldn't prohibit anyone from buying and driving whatever kind of car they wished. I'm merely suggesting that they pay for their pollution and unnecessary use of foreign oil.
Who are you to decide what car people "need" to drive to the grocery store or PTA meeting?
Just one old guy with an opinion. I don't claim to that "I'm the decider." I'll leave that to W.
Well then, who is the decider in this matter?
Find a new energy source or develop new energy producing technologies that will be worthwhile.
Yes, I do hope we break the chains of oil-reliant machines!
I'm going to have to go with: "This is a non-issue".
I willingly hand my money to oil companies. They make my car move, they make the plastics that make so much of my life convenient.
Sorry if "FOREIGN BASTARDS" control much of the oil, but "Freeing ourselves from foreign oil" is just a masked way of saying "I'm a racist".
I was just notified that I won 750000 euros in the Swiss lotto so I can afford all the gas I want. Just as soon as I send them some money for paperwork and all my personal info!
The solution is to decrease U.S. demand for oil. There are many different ways we can do this. Improving fuel efficiency in vehicles is the first step. That doesn't just mean hybrid and plug-in electric cars. Improving fuel efficiency on heavy vehicles like trucks and SUVs is also critical.
I think we're already seeing this, as it's getting harder to find SUVs that only get 10 mpg anymore. My friend's 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee was getting 8 mpg average when he finally got rid of it. His 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee has a much more powerful Hemi engine and gets better than 16 mpg average. With the same amount of driving, his new Jeep uses half the fuel of his old one. That's where the major change is going to come from, because not everyone wants to drive around tiny little cars. The biggest percentage change in fuel usage is going to be from truck and SUV drivers buying those same types of vehicles with more efficient engines.
Major changes to the power grid are also needed. I'd like to see this country start building nuclear power plants again. The technology seems scary, but it's actually very safe and clean compared to oil or coal. The nuclear fuel being used by advanced plants in other parts of the world is not susceptible to terrorist attacks. The newer nuclear technology also allows nuclear plants to be much smaller than those behemoths we saw in the 1970's. They are small enough to be built just about anywhere, which would decrease the loss of energy in transmission.
Of course, I do support efforts to produce more green energy. Wind and solar power should be part of the equation, including on the consumer level. We need to cut back on regulations that make it hard for people to put solar panels on their roof because it might disturb the aesthetic of the neighborhood.
By combining all of these things, we should decrease our demand for fossil fuels, both foreign and domestic. The way I see it, there's no reason why we should even think of fossil fuels as being foreign and domestic, because most are owned by private companies who sell it on the world market. Increased drilling on American soil just increases world supply and doesn't really do anything significant to our "dependence" on foreign oil.
Anybody ever hear of the Air-car made in Spain. It runs on compressed air a tank of which gets about a hundred miles and can be used in conjunction with electric or gas powered engines. Not necessarily any kind of solution, only saying it is on the market, but nobody in America will ever hear of it.
I read about it at the time but my understanding was that it was effectively battery powered, it just used air for very slow city driving. Anyway, I've heard no more about it.
My local car plant has the first production of the new LEAFs (fully electric cars)going on now. They get the equivalent of 99mpg and have a range of around 80 miles. My city has power points installed in all public carparks now too so it's not too far away.
I never imagined that the world's addiction to oil could be solved, subjectively, by an interest in "cuisine!"
How in the world could I have missed that pragmatic solution!
I'm so ashamed! :-)
Most new IC engine designs try to solve the energy problem using radically new concepts, which don't pan out. I think the Revetec design shows promise b/c it simplifies and lightens the gas/diesel engines that we're used to. It eliminates the crankshaft and cuts the weight of the engine in half. It has fewer parts making it easier to manufacture and repair. It also shows promise for lower emissions and better fuel efficiency.
Prototypes have performed well and the design has been licensed to 2 Chinese mfgr's and one in Turkey. A German company is negotiating with Revetec also. The concept may go bust but it looks promising right now.
It's not a solution to the oil issue but it may help.
by qwark5 years ago
I live in Texas.Many of the oil field "grasshoppers" here are "still!" I see them pumping at times and not at others.As I travelled across the states last year, 1/2 - 3/4 of them were...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter2 days ago
I changed from question to forum to allow commenters to have more space to express their opinions. I initiated the question, and now forum, to discuss reactions to Michelle Obama's statement at the DNC. Her...
by Jerad Maplethorpe6 years ago
I want to hear which issue(s) you are most concerned about in the world today.Do you have any radical ideas that have the potential to bring awareness or change to the issue?Would you be willing to write an article...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.