Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Except that I had a friend who developed gout on the Atkins diet. Terry On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dr. Robert Atkins makes a good case that humans evolved carnivorous, the > teeth for example are designed for meat eating, and that the ability to eat > carbohydrates ( veggies ) was a "design afterthought" and is not well > developed, often resulting in diabetes, and requires insulin to process, > which is a powerful cross-linking agent and somewhat toxic. His diet > consists of zero carbohydrates (only meat, cheese, fish, eggs, cream etc. -- > i.e. only animal products, no plant products ), and I must say it works > quite well and leaves the blood sugar level at an optimum level at all > times. You can eat all you want and not gain weight. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:52 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" > > > hypocritical also means applying opposite standards to oneself. She > feels humans are natural herbivores, ... > >
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Dr. Robert Atkins makes a good case that humans evolved carnivorous, the teeth for example are designed for meat eating, and that the ability to eat carbohydrates ( veggies ) was a "design afterthought" and is not well developed, often resulting in diabetes, and requires insulin to process, which is a powerful cross-linking agent and somewhat toxic. His diet consists of zero carbohydrates (only meat, cheese, fish, eggs, cream etc. -- i.e. only animal products, no plant products ), and I must say it works quite well and leaves the blood sugar level at an optimum level at all times. You can eat all you want and not gain weight. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:52 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" hypocritical also means applying opposite standards to oneself. She feels humans are natural herbivores, ...
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
I agree, Robin. The food industry has made money at our expense, at least at the expense of people who don't do their homework. But don't me started on this outrage. When trying to predict the future in order to protect myself, I ask, how many basic mistakes at every level of living can a country make and still survive? More to the point, how can a person avoid from being hit by this run-away truck? Ed On Sep 23, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:44 -0600: Hi, [snip] The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? [snip] The problem of obesity may not go away, because it is probably more related to eating the wrong things than to eating too much. For it to go away would require a shift back to home cooking and away from fast food and snacks. Even then I suspect that it would also require the banning of margarine and canola. Margarine (and fast food) contains "trans" fats which interfere with the energy transport mechanism of the cell, and canola is IMO the primary candidate for an explanation of tiny holes in the insulating layer of fat that the body uses for blood vessels and nerves. Natural body processes attempt to "plug" these holes with cholesterol which then gives rise to "plaques". When these plaques occur in the arteries around the heart they call it arteriosclerosis, when they occur around nerve cells in the brain they call it Alzheimer's disease. (All this is just my opinion, but I think worthy of further investigation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:41:44 -0600: Hi, [snip] >The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the >underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this >problem? [snip] The problem of obesity may not go away, because it is probably more related to eating the wrong things than to eating too much. For it to go away would require a shift back to home cooking and away from fast food and snacks. Even then I suspect that it would also require the banning of margarine and canola. Margarine (and fast food) contains "trans" fats which interfere with the energy transport mechanism of the cell, and canola is IMO the primary candidate for an explanation of tiny holes in the insulating layer of fat that the body uses for blood vessels and nerves. Natural body processes attempt to "plug" these holes with cholesterol which then gives rise to "plaques". When these plaques occur in the arteries around the heart they call it arteriosclerosis, when they occur around nerve cells in the brain they call it Alzheimer's disease. (All this is just my opinion, but I think worthy of further investigation). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Succinct as ever. God how I've missed that. Best wishes. I've had my fill as well... later. -john -- From: "Remi Cornwall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:41 AM To: Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" Tsck! Vegan f.ing cats. What about in a zoo? Vegan f.ing lions and tigers!? Non-competitive sport, decaffeinated coffee, alcohol free beer, non-penetrative sex (so the woman doesn't feel stabbed in the feminist sense), new men, 'obscene wealth' and on and on. I can't be bothered to argue with these lefty nutcases anymore. I love the American notion of the right to bear arms and form militias to depose a despotic regime. Lefties must learn that you can't force people; the victims will hide wealth and talent and then disappear. I won't be forced to take part in these nutball schemes. I guess that's why there is such a large expat community from Britain and Europe in general. Sickened and out of here. Not like vortex of the old days. No calibre of thinkers only 2 other righties and 2 right-of-centre people worth noticing on this list. 'unsubscribe'
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Esa > ive tried to put together a Pantone week on MERLib and this is the result: http://merlib.org/?q=person/paul-pantone Nice work, and it looks like you already know of the large amount of work being done in France on this kind of fuel-reformer, and esp. from the "Quanthomme" website (love that pun). Some French mecs were apparently initially attracted to his home-boy sounding name, Pantone, even though he is from Utah (home of the 'Painted Desert' ) Anyway- one question: I was under the impression that the "steel rod" down the center of the intake manifold has proved to be unnecessary. Is there evidence that it is beneficial? Jones
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
2008/9/23 Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> i see that the pantone thing is either called a plasma reactor, a >> refinery/carburetor system, or purely just transmutation. he seems to >> use the alignment of the magnetic field, a steel iron rod of specific >> length, temperature and so forth to mix gasoline with any >> carbon-containing liquids, going from ketchup to piss to orange juice >> to anything sugary. if anyone here knows french, theres a website with >> hundreds upon hundreds of lawnmowers, tractors, cars and so forth >> modified to run with this mixing method. > URL? http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/index.html http://www.econologie.com/le-moteur-pantone-definition.html http://www.leblogauto.com/2005/09/moteur_thermiqu.html -- :) I GoodSearch for Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Foundation (Rangeley, Maine) by using http://www.goodsearch.com/ . Raise money for your favorite charity or school just by searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo!
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Esa Ruoho wrote: > would it be time to comprehend the GEET plasma reactor method then? > ive tried to put together a Pantone week on MERLib and this is the > result: > http://merlib.org/?q=person/paul-pantone > > their thermal discovery seems interesting, i grabbed it from their old > powerpoint files. what the picture basically is about, is, that if you > have two identical jars, one with water at 40c and one with water at > 200c, if you place them in a fridge at a lower temperature than > either, the one with the greater amount of temperature actually meets > the fridge temperature quicker than the one closer to the fridge > temperature. What kind of "jar" -- presumably a pressure vessel, for the 200C water at least? Do they show cooling curves? If so, what does the 200C cooling curve look like after it passes 40C? Does it duplicate the 40C curve from there down? If not, then there's something different either in its heat content at that temp or in the rate at which heat leaks out of the 200C vessel; it should be pretty straightforward to figure out what's going on. Without cooling curves it's hard to say anything about it. > i see that the pantone thing is either called a plasma reactor, a > refinery/carburetor system, or purely just transmutation. he seems to > use the alignment of the magnetic field, a steel iron rod of specific > length, temperature and so forth to mix gasoline with any > carbon-containing liquids, going from ketchup to piss to orange juice > to anything sugary. if anyone here knows french, theres a website with > hundreds upon hundreds of lawnmowers, tractors, cars and so forth > modified to run with this mixing method. URL? > a man at the maryland > june2008 get-together showed his GEET replication, and put any number > of different liquids into it just to show that the result is a > clean-burning fuel .. anyway, i've tried to get some various points > of view together and seems like he was a poor businessman, and thus > ended up in court, and now in utah mental hospital under forced > antipsychotics due to them believing he's completely kookoo to be able > to run an engine with mostly water and other liquids, mxied in with > gas - and also that he must be psychotic, after all, if he believes > the governments and oilcompanies are after his carborator and gasoline > / mixing gasoline refinement method. > go figure. > > 2008/9/22 Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, >> but this one appears to be authoritative. See: >> >> http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ >> >> Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the >> short term. >> >> - Jed >> >> > > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
would it be time to comprehend the GEET plasma reactor method then? ive tried to put together a Pantone week on MERLib and this is the result: http://merlib.org/?q=person/paul-pantone their thermal discovery seems interesting, i grabbed it from their old powerpoint files. what the picture basically is about, is, that if you have two identical jars, one with water at 40c and one with water at 200c, if you place them in a fridge at a lower temperature than either, the one with the greater amount of temperature actually meets the fridge temperature quicker than the one closer to the fridge temperature. i see that the pantone thing is either called a plasma reactor, a refinery/carburetor system, or purely just transmutation. he seems to use the alignment of the magnetic field, a steel iron rod of specific length, temperature and so forth to mix gasoline with any carbon-containing liquids, going from ketchup to piss to orange juice to anything sugary. if anyone here knows french, theres a website with hundreds upon hundreds of lawnmowers, tractors, cars and so forth modified to run with this mixing method. a man at the maryland june2008 get-together showed his GEET replication, and put any number of different liquids into it just to show that the result is a clean-burning fuel .. anyway, i've tried to get some various points of view together and seems like he was a poor businessman, and thus ended up in court, and now in utah mental hospital under forced antipsychotics due to them believing he's completely kookoo to be able to run an engine with mostly water and other liquids, mxied in with gas - and also that he must be psychotic, after all, if he believes the governments and oilcompanies are after his carborator and gasoline / mixing gasoline refinement method. go figure. 2008/9/22 Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, > but this one appears to be authoritative. See: > > http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ > > Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the > short term. > > - Jed > > -- :) I GoodSearch for Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Foundation (Rangeley, Maine) by using http://www.goodsearch.com/ . Raise money for your favorite charity or school just by searching the Internet or shopping online with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo!
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
To unsubscribe from the Vortex-L list simply send a null message (nothing in the body) to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in the subject (less quotes, of course). Namasté! Terry On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tsck! Vegan f.ing cats. > > What about in a zoo? Vegan f.ing lions and tigers!? > > Non-competitive sport, decaffeinated coffee, alcohol free beer, > non-penetrative sex (so the woman doesn't feel stabbed in the feminist > sense), new men, 'obscene wealth' and on and on. > > I can't be bothered to argue with these lefty nutcases anymore. I love the > American notion of the right to bear arms and form militias to depose a > despotic regime. > > Lefties must learn that you can't force people; the victims will hide wealth > and talent and then disappear. I won't be forced to take part in these > nutball schemes. > > I guess that's why there is such a large expat community from Britain and > Europe in general. > > Sickened and out of here. > > Not like vortex of the old days. No calibre of thinkers only 2 other > righties and 2 right-of-centre people worth noticing on this list. > > 'unsubscribe' > > > > <>
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Tsck! Vegan f.ing cats. What about in a zoo? Vegan f.ing lions and tigers!? Non-competitive sport, decaffeinated coffee, alcohol free beer, non-penetrative sex (so the woman doesn't feel stabbed in the feminist sense), new men, 'obscene wealth' and on and on. I can't be bothered to argue with these lefty nutcases anymore. I love the American notion of the right to bear arms and form militias to depose a despotic regime. Lefties must learn that you can't force people; the victims will hide wealth and talent and then disappear. I won't be forced to take part in these nutball schemes. I guess that's why there is such a large expat community from Britain and Europe in general. Sickened and out of here. Not like vortex of the old days. No calibre of thinkers only 2 other righties and 2 right-of-centre people worth noticing on this list. 'unsubscribe'
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
This is threaded into the wrong place in the discussion because my POP3 email server is currently down (but I've still got SMTP). I'm such an addict I went to the archives to see what was being said... Pen said: > Since her main argument for having gone vegetarian in the first place > was a belief that humans are meant to be herbivorous, and that eating > meat goes against nature. > [ ] > hypocritical also means applying opposite standards to oneself. She > feels humans are natural herbivores, but theres no doubt that cats are > primarily carnivores. Therefore, making a cat an herbivore is, by her > own logic, unnatural. OK, well, I am a bit relieved. I usually don't find myself totally at odds with your opinions, and this one surprised me, until I read the above clarification. As it happens I would disagree strongly with any claim that humans are "natural vegetarians" or are "meant to be vegetarian"; in fact I would claim the former phrase is false and the latter phrase is entirely meaningless. I think a study of our teeth lasting more than a minute or two would be enough to convince pretty much anyone with an open mind that we co-evolved with our *culture*, and what we're best suited to is a balanced omnivorous diet consisting to a large extent of *COOKED* food. (OTOH, our inability to make our own vitamin C seems like a fairly strong indication that fresh fruit probably made up a big fraction of our ancestors' diets.) One may, on the other hand, decide to "go vege" for a lot of reasons which have nothing to do with muddle-headed thoughts about what people "are meant" to do. And as for cats ... well, I think the "raw diet" people win the "It's natural!" argument hands down but I still think dropping a live mouse or two in the blender for the cat's evening meal is seriously over the top. I would not do that, no way; I like mice (yes, I know they gave our ancestors fits and are the bane of farmers to this day, and when I was a landlord and had mice I put out snap-traps because it was necessary to get rid of the mice post-haste; but I still like them and if I have a choice I will let them live their lives in peace). Resource efficiency is one *big* reason for avoiding animal products. The fact that I find all furry four-footed beasts appealing is another reason not to eat them (though I also feel the larger ones should be appealing at a safe distance, thank you). This is the "I don't want to eat them because I think it's icky" argument. You may not buy it, but that doesn't make it hypocritical. As to the consistency of killing small furry animals whom we've decided not to keep around the house to feed to small furry animals whom we've decided to keep as companions, well, that seems kind of inconsistent, doesn't it? At least it does if we claim we "love animals". Oh, yeah? Well, *which* animals? Anyhow if there's an alternative it seems worth checking out. Cats who were owned by "early adopters" of vegan cat foods had terrible things happen to them, because they were not sufficiently supplemented with taurine and some other things. These days it *appears* that the bugs have been worked out of the commercial vegan cat foods. Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > leaking pen wrote: >> Ohh, god, I had a friend who did that. I spent thirty minutes >> lambasting her for her total and complete hypocrisy. >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
hypocritical also means applying opposite standards to oneself. She feels humans are natural herbivores, but theres no doubt that cats are primarily carnivores. Therefore, making a cat an herbivore is, by her own logic, unnatural. I haven't seen anything saying cats are fed mainly rice. I see articles that mention cats feeding themselves in rice storehouses, but that likely means hunting vermin as cats have been used for for forever. And yes, dogs and cats are a bit omnivourous. generally dog food is 60 to 70 percent meat, and cat food 70 to 80 (i make my own pet food. No preservatives, and while its more work, time wise, its actually cheaper. ) On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Since her main arguement for having gone vegetarian in the first place >> was a belief that humans are meant to be herbivourous, and that eating >> meat goes against nature. > > Ah. You are saying it is hypocritical to apply that argument to cats, > because they are not people -- not omnivores, that is. > > I do not think "hypocritical" is quite the right term for that. It is > muddled, or stupid. Hypocritical would mean "insincere" and she sounds > sincere. > > I have heard that some cats in Japan are fed mainly rice, and they > seem to survive. It seems unlikely, but I wouldn't know. Dogs are more > omnivorous, and dog food sometimes contains rice. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since her main arguement for having gone vegetarian in the first place > was a belief that humans are meant to be herbivourous, and that eating > meat goes against nature. Ah. You are saying it is hypocritical to apply that argument to cats, because they are not people -- not omnivores, that is. I do not think "hypocritical" is quite the right term for that. It is muddled, or stupid. Hypocritical would mean "insincere" and she sounds sincere. I have heard that some cats in Japan are fed mainly rice, and they seem to survive. It seems unlikely, but I wouldn't know. Dogs are more omnivorous, and dog food sometimes contains rice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Since her main arguement for having gone vegetarian in the first place was a belief that humans are meant to be herbivourous, and that eating meat goes against nature. On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > leaking pen wrote: >> Ohh, god, I had a friend who did that. I spent thirty minutes >> lambasting her for her total and complete hypocrisy. > > Huh? Hypocrisy in what? Buying vegan food for her cat? How does that > make her a hypocrite? > > Commercial vegan cat foods, of which there are several, contain taurine > supplements. (Vegecat, Evolution, and Ami come to mind immediately, and > there are others.) > > In fact, commercial non-vegan cat foods also contain taurine > supplements; by the time the stuff's been processed and steamed, so much > of the natural taurine is destroyed that the manufacturers have no > choice but to add additional taurine. > > Non-vegan animal foods (dog and cat) have also been known to show up > with chopped up pet collars in them. It almost makes you wonder where > they get their meat from ... China, the source of a lot of pet food, is > not a very animal-friendly place. > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > leaking pen wrote: >> Ohh, god, I had a friend who did that. I spent thirty minutes >> lambasting her for her total and complete hypocrisy. > > Huh? Hypocrisy in what? Buying vegan food for her cat? How does that > make her a hypocrite? Let's put this on a firm footing. hypocrisy n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have One may be wrong about something, and do something which in the long run proves to have been a poor choice, but that does not make one a hypocrite. > > Commercial vegan cat foods, of which there are several, contain taurine > supplements. (Vegecat, Evolution, and Ami come to mind immediately, and > there are others.) > > In fact, commercial non-vegan cat foods also contain taurine > supplements; by the time the stuff's been processed and steamed, so much > of the natural taurine is destroyed that the manufacturers have no > choice but to add additional taurine. > > Non-vegan animal foods (dog and cat) have also been known to show up > with chopped up pet collars in them. It almost makes you wonder where > they get their meat from ... China, the source of a lot of pet food, is > not a very animal-friendly place. >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
leaking pen wrote: > Ohh, god, I had a friend who did that. I spent thirty minutes > lambasting her for her total and complete hypocrisy. Huh? Hypocrisy in what? Buying vegan food for her cat? How does that make her a hypocrite? Commercial vegan cat foods, of which there are several, contain taurine supplements. (Vegecat, Evolution, and Ami come to mind immediately, and there are others.) In fact, commercial non-vegan cat foods also contain taurine supplements; by the time the stuff's been processed and steamed, so much of the natural taurine is destroyed that the manufacturers have no choice but to add additional taurine. Non-vegan animal foods (dog and cat) have also been known to show up with chopped up pet collars in them. It almost makes you wonder where they get their meat from ... China, the source of a lot of pet food, is not a very animal-friendly place.
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
No completely shallow. I'll catch some more of the soft porn late night tits on TV and then turn in. Can't be bothered to argue this one out. BORE! -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2008 23:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" Becuase again, the poor have land to grow their own vegetables, money to buy seeds equipment and fertilizer, or TIME to do more excercising, or buy fish (more expensive by the pound than any other protein. Really, are you just trolling, or are you really that arrogant, pretentious, and ignorant? On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why should I care about how people eat? I'm not losing any sleep over how > the poor budget. Between the choice of giving a good meal for a day to 1 > million poor or buying a $million dollar strad for a young violin virtuoso I > would do the latter. > > Hand wringing over the poor won't get you to heaven as it doesn't exist. > > Ever seen 'Eastenders' or other British soap operas? No, me neither I don't > give a sh.t > > There's nothing wrong with meat either in moderation 2-3 times a week. I eat > mainly oily fish then do 4-8K on the rowing machine everyday, 20 sets x 3 > pressups, 15 x 3 sets pull ups, 70-100 ab crunches, various free weights and > then may be cycle or swim for a change on Sunday. > > Gym membership is dirt cheap as is buying a pair of running shoes. Veg and > tinned mackerel are really cheap too. Of course you can 'dig for victory' > and grow your own veg too in an allotment. > > Of course burning less heating oil burns calories too. > > -Original Message- > From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 September 2008 22:27 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" > > The issue in large part is just that, processing. Most people at or > under the poverty line here in Phoenix live in a place that has a > refrigerator, and MAYBE a stove top, no oven. A mircowave, as those > are pretty cheap, and quick. Food processor, blender? Things like > that to prepare food are expensive, and worse, TIME CONSUMING. If > you're working two 40 a week jobs, you barely have time to SLEEP, let > alone prepare a meal. And you don't have a spouse staying at home > prepping one, they work two, just to pay for everything. > > So what are you left with? Preproccessed, already prepared food, and > fast food. Which is to say, foods high in high fructose corn syrup and > hydrogenated oils and proccessed fats. Unhealty. The cost of the > food be damned, its the TIME cost of eating healthy. (You're also > ignoring demand and volume, and the change on price and cost through > that, tied into marketing) > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> >> leaking pen wrote: >>> The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity >>> problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not >>> just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. >> >> And here is an irony, indeed an incomprehensible situation -- >> incomprehensible, that is, if you ignore the government subsidies and >> taxes which have led to this situation. >> >> To wit, a vegan diet is *far* less energy and resource intensive than a >> meat-based diet, and it's generally healthier. It's absurd to say that, >> globally, people "can't afford" to eat healthy food; in fact it's the >> other way around: As a species we can't afford to eat as unhealthfully >> as we have been eating (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe). We >> just don't have the resources to support such a diet across the whole > globe. >> >> The trouble is the free markets aren't all that free and prices are >> extremely distorted by a range of factors. McDonald's beef, from steers >> fed on and corn and soybeans and fish (yes, fish), should *not* be >> cheaper than a mess of potage made from the corn and soybeans, with the >> rare and expensive fish left out. Yet, it certainly appears to be. >> >> Post processing vegetable food by running it through a cow is not an >> efficient way to prepare it for market, and it sure shouldn't make the >> end result *cheaper*. >> >> Dig far enough into the tax structure, grazing subsidies, transportation >> subsidies, water subsidies, and I think you'll eventually dig out the >> answer to this conundrum, but I don't think the explanation is simple. >> >> > > > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Ohh, god, I had a friend who did that. I spent thirty minutes lambasting her for her total and complete hypocrisy. On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > &*(*&^(%!!! Vegan cats!! > > Like the poor moggy had any choice in the matter. > > I can just imagine some deranged cat owner saying "Cats are sinful > creatures, pussy must learn to be a good pussy cat. Tofu for tiddles." > > -Original Message- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 September 2008 23:42 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" > > > (And vegan cats need a taurine supplement, for that matter.) > > > > >
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
&*(*&^(%!!! Vegan cats!! Like the poor moggy had any choice in the matter. I can just imagine some deranged cat owner saying "Cats are sinful creatures, pussy must learn to be a good pussy cat. Tofu for tiddles." -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2008 23:42 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" (And vegan cats need a taurine supplement, for that matter.)
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Becuase again, the poor have land to grow their own vegetables, money to buy seeds equipment and fertilizer, or TIME to do more excercising, or buy fish (more expensive by the pound than any other protein. Really, are you just trolling, or are you really that arrogant, pretentious, and ignorant? On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why should I care about how people eat? I'm not losing any sleep over how > the poor budget. Between the choice of giving a good meal for a day to 1 > million poor or buying a $million dollar strad for a young violin virtuoso I > would do the latter. > > Hand wringing over the poor won't get you to heaven as it doesn't exist. > > Ever seen 'Eastenders' or other British soap operas? No, me neither I don't > give a sh.t > > There's nothing wrong with meat either in moderation 2-3 times a week. I eat > mainly oily fish then do 4-8K on the rowing machine everyday, 20 sets x 3 > pressups, 15 x 3 sets pull ups, 70-100 ab crunches, various free weights and > then may be cycle or swim for a change on Sunday. > > Gym membership is dirt cheap as is buying a pair of running shoes. Veg and > tinned mackerel are really cheap too. Of course you can 'dig for victory' > and grow your own veg too in an allotment. > > Of course burning less heating oil burns calories too. > > -Original Message- > From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 September 2008 22:27 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" > > The issue in large part is just that, processing. Most people at or > under the poverty line here in Phoenix live in a place that has a > refrigerator, and MAYBE a stove top, no oven. A mircowave, as those > are pretty cheap, and quick. Food processor, blender? Things like > that to prepare food are expensive, and worse, TIME CONSUMING. If > you're working two 40 a week jobs, you barely have time to SLEEP, let > alone prepare a meal. And you don't have a spouse staying at home > prepping one, they work two, just to pay for everything. > > So what are you left with? Preproccessed, already prepared food, and > fast food. Which is to say, foods high in high fructose corn syrup and > hydrogenated oils and proccessed fats. Unhealty. The cost of the > food be damned, its the TIME cost of eating healthy. (You're also > ignoring demand and volume, and the change on price and cost through > that, tied into marketing) > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> >> leaking pen wrote: >>> The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity >>> problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not >>> just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. >> >> And here is an irony, indeed an incomprehensible situation -- >> incomprehensible, that is, if you ignore the government subsidies and >> taxes which have led to this situation. >> >> To wit, a vegan diet is *far* less energy and resource intensive than a >> meat-based diet, and it's generally healthier. It's absurd to say that, >> globally, people "can't afford" to eat healthy food; in fact it's the >> other way around: As a species we can't afford to eat as unhealthfully >> as we have been eating (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe). We >> just don't have the resources to support such a diet across the whole > globe. >> >> The trouble is the free markets aren't all that free and prices are >> extremely distorted by a range of factors. McDonald's beef, from steers >> fed on and corn and soybeans and fish (yes, fish), should *not* be >> cheaper than a mess of potage made from the corn and soybeans, with the >> rare and expensive fish left out. Yet, it certainly appears to be. >> >> Post processing vegetable food by running it through a cow is not an >> efficient way to prepare it for market, and it sure shouldn't make the >> end result *cheaper*. >> >> Dig far enough into the tax structure, grazing subsidies, transportation >> subsidies, water subsidies, and I think you'll eventually dig out the >> answer to this conundrum, but I don't think the explanation is simple. >> >> > > > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
John Steck wrote: > Going veggie shrinks the brain: > http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24336544-5003426,00.html > The article raises a serious issue, which is that vegans should take B-12 supplements. If you read the article, they were apparently blaming lack of B-12 for the problem. (And vegan cats need a taurine supplement, for that matter.) FWIW flax oil supplements are also a good source of Omega-3's, which are also mentioned in the article. "Flying blind" into any radical diet change is a poor idea. Putting it all together from that article, it sounds like a 75 year old fat woman who drinks a lot, smokes dope, lives on a vegan diet, and doesn't take vitamins or other supplements is seriously at risk of losing her marbles. > > > -- > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:57 PM > To: > Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" > >> >> >> Remi Cornwall wrote: >>> Yeah but the taste of a nice steak... I don't care for being a vegan. >> >> Rock solid reasoning. Dogs reason the same way when someone offers them >> chocolate. Crack heads reason the same way, too. Very deep thinking. >> >> How's your blood pressure, Remi? I just checked mine; it's 111/66. >> >> And, no, I'm not 11 years old. >> >> Cows kill more people than wars. >> >
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Another well written & entertaining book that address the food question food is: " The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan in which he traces the origin of the foods used in 4 meals; fast food, big organic, grass fed, & hunter gatherer. Ron --On Monday, September 22, 2008 3:32 PM -0400 Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Remi Cornwall wrote: So more regulation, right? A paternalistic state must step in here? I dunno. No, that will not be necessary. The problem can be fixed with several steps, mainly by reducing regulations and reducing government spending. Fewer but better regulations are called for. Changes such as the following are called for: 1. Remove price supports for unhealthy food. This means less regulation, not more. It will cost the government and taxpayers less, especially if we stop paying wealthy farmers. 2. Modest price supports for healthy food might be in order, to offset decades of encouraging bad food habits. At present, there are huge price supports for corn, meat and milk and no supports for vegetables and fruit. 3. Locally grown food. 4. Better health education in public schools. 5. Improved sidewalks and transportation, to allow more people to walk. The obesity rate in urban areas such as New York, Boston and Tokyo where people walk a lot is much lower than in suburban areas. For details, see the book T. Farley, D. Cohen, "Prescription for a Healthy Nation," Beacon Press, 2005. It seems unlikely to me that oil production will decline enough to affect obesity in the U.S. in the next 20 to 40 years. That will happen only if ethanol production from corn continues, and I doubt that will happen. Ethanol production decreases the supply of food and oil, and increases global warming, because ethanol is an energy sink: it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol itself generates. As I noted here before, when you fill up a 25 gallon SUV tank with ethanol, you consume as much food as an adult eats in one year. If there can be such a thing as an obscene statistic, this would be it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Well if you socialist types genuinely feel so much for the poor, sell the shirt off your back, admit the LHC's crap, stab a modern artist hack, take all the subsidy back. Oh but n, there will always be poor and striving after an unobtainable goal makes people feel guilty for what? To make them controllable. Pass through the gates of heaven with one convenient, index linked, monthly direct debit payment to the Labocrat party. Then they'll get in and take even more off you. Bah humbug! No use the talent you have to create wealth instead of trying to get at the wealth of the talented (for your own contrived schemes) or impeding the ability to make wealth by excessive regulation and tinkering with the economy.
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Going veggie shrinks the brain: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24336544-5003426,00.html It explains a lot. 8^) -- From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:57 PM To: Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" Remi Cornwall wrote: Yeah but the taste of a nice steak... I don't care for being a vegan. Rock solid reasoning. Dogs reason the same way when someone offers them chocolate. Crack heads reason the same way, too. Very deep thinking. How's your blood pressure, Remi? I just checked mine; it's 111/66. And, no, I'm not 11 years old. Cows kill more people than wars.
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Why should I care about how people eat? I'm not losing any sleep over how the poor budget. Between the choice of giving a good meal for a day to 1 million poor or buying a $million dollar strad for a young violin virtuoso I would do the latter. Hand wringing over the poor won't get you to heaven as it doesn't exist. Ever seen 'Eastenders' or other British soap operas? No, me neither I don't give a sh.t There's nothing wrong with meat either in moderation 2-3 times a week. I eat mainly oily fish then do 4-8K on the rowing machine everyday, 20 sets x 3 pressups, 15 x 3 sets pull ups, 70-100 ab crunches, various free weights and then may be cycle or swim for a change on Sunday. Gym membership is dirt cheap as is buying a pair of running shoes. Veg and tinned mackerel are really cheap too. Of course you can 'dig for victory' and grow your own veg too in an allotment. Of course burning less heating oil burns calories too. -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2008 22:27 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" The issue in large part is just that, processing. Most people at or under the poverty line here in Phoenix live in a place that has a refrigerator, and MAYBE a stove top, no oven. A mircowave, as those are pretty cheap, and quick. Food processor, blender? Things like that to prepare food are expensive, and worse, TIME CONSUMING. If you're working two 40 a week jobs, you barely have time to SLEEP, let alone prepare a meal. And you don't have a spouse staying at home prepping one, they work two, just to pay for everything. So what are you left with? Preproccessed, already prepared food, and fast food. Which is to say, foods high in high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils and proccessed fats. Unhealty. The cost of the food be damned, its the TIME cost of eating healthy. (You're also ignoring demand and volume, and the change on price and cost through that, tied into marketing) On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > leaking pen wrote: >> The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity >> problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not >> just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. > > And here is an irony, indeed an incomprehensible situation -- > incomprehensible, that is, if you ignore the government subsidies and > taxes which have led to this situation. > > To wit, a vegan diet is *far* less energy and resource intensive than a > meat-based diet, and it's generally healthier. It's absurd to say that, > globally, people "can't afford" to eat healthy food; in fact it's the > other way around: As a species we can't afford to eat as unhealthfully > as we have been eating (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe). We > just don't have the resources to support such a diet across the whole globe. > > The trouble is the free markets aren't all that free and prices are > extremely distorted by a range of factors. McDonald's beef, from steers > fed on and corn and soybeans and fish (yes, fish), should *not* be > cheaper than a mess of potage made from the corn and soybeans, with the > rare and expensive fish left out. Yet, it certainly appears to be. > > Post processing vegetable food by running it through a cow is not an > efficient way to prepare it for market, and it sure shouldn't make the > end result *cheaper*. > > Dig far enough into the tax structure, grazing subsidies, transportation > subsidies, water subsidies, and I think you'll eventually dig out the > answer to this conundrum, but I don't think the explanation is simple. > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
The issue in large part is just that, processing. Most people at or under the poverty line here in Phoenix live in a place that has a refrigerator, and MAYBE a stove top, no oven. A mircowave, as those are pretty cheap, and quick. Food processor, blender? Things like that to prepare food are expensive, and worse, TIME CONSUMING. If you're working two 40 a week jobs, you barely have time to SLEEP, let alone prepare a meal. And you don't have a spouse staying at home prepping one, they work two, just to pay for everything. So what are you left with? Preproccessed, already prepared food, and fast food. Which is to say, foods high in high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils and proccessed fats. Unhealty. The cost of the food be damned, its the TIME cost of eating healthy. (You're also ignoring demand and volume, and the change on price and cost through that, tied into marketing) On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > leaking pen wrote: >> The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity >> problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not >> just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. > > And here is an irony, indeed an incomprehensible situation -- > incomprehensible, that is, if you ignore the government subsidies and > taxes which have led to this situation. > > To wit, a vegan diet is *far* less energy and resource intensive than a > meat-based diet, and it's generally healthier. It's absurd to say that, > globally, people "can't afford" to eat healthy food; in fact it's the > other way around: As a species we can't afford to eat as unhealthfully > as we have been eating (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe). We > just don't have the resources to support such a diet across the whole globe. > > The trouble is the free markets aren't all that free and prices are > extremely distorted by a range of factors. McDonald's beef, from steers > fed on and corn and soybeans and fish (yes, fish), should *not* be > cheaper than a mess of potage made from the corn and soybeans, with the > rare and expensive fish left out. Yet, it certainly appears to be. > > Post processing vegetable food by running it through a cow is not an > efficient way to prepare it for market, and it sure shouldn't make the > end result *cheaper*. > > Dig far enough into the tax structure, grazing subsidies, transportation > subsidies, water subsidies, and I think you'll eventually dig out the > answer to this conundrum, but I don't think the explanation is simple. > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Remi Cornwall wrote: > Yeah but the taste of a nice steak... I don't care for being a vegan. Rock solid reasoning. Dogs reason the same way when someone offers them chocolate. Crack heads reason the same way, too. Very deep thinking. How's your blood pressure, Remi? I just checked mine; it's 111/66. And, no, I'm not 11 years old. Cows kill more people than wars.
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
You see that's what I love about science, the dreaming and then going in the lab to try it all out. Aaaah -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2008 20:55 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" Hydrogen powered airplanes would be a boon for the military, because they could be refueled with nuclear power generator onboard an aircraft carrier, or on land with portable nuke where there is any supply of water. It does not take much water. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Remi Cornwall wrote: Yeah but the taste of a nice steak... I don't care for being a vegan. Progress in cultured meat will solve that problem. It will reduce energy inputs to food production by a HUGE amount. The energy savings are on the same scale as that which we can achieve with hybrid automobiles. Plus a lot of that energy comes from oil which is used in agriculture for both fertilizer and to power machinery. This is the kind of thing Ed described here when he said that innovation will reduce the demand for oil. Of course it will, and that should keep the cost from going up to $500. But innovation will not increase the supply of oil, and I doubt that it will decrease overall consumption of oil by much before oil essentially runs out. Some people say that innovation effectively does increase the supply of oil by allowing more oil to be extracted, but as I said, what I have read recently is that it does not increase the total amount you can extract by much; mainly it speeds up extraction and depletes the well sooner. (Improvements in the 1920s did greatly increase the amount that can be extracted, according to Deffeyes.) By the way, it is impossible to predict exactly when oil will run out, but what constitutes "running out" can be defined with accuracy. The event is likely to happen soon, and we will know instantly it has happened. Oil will run out when it takes more energy to extract oil than we get from burning the stuff. At present this "overhead" energy is around 15 to 20%. In 1900 it was ~1%. This condition is described in a quote I uploaded here before: "Franco Battaglia at the University of Rome put it this way: 'You can buy an apple for one euro. If you really want an apple, you might pay five euros. You could even pay a thousand euros, but you would never pay two apples.'" Once the overhead required to extract oil exceeds the energy that you get from the oil, oil will only be used for specialized applications for which no substitute is available, such as aerospace. If it takes 110 J of energy to make 100 J worth of aviation kerosene, then you can think of the kerosene as synthetic fuel. You might as well replace it with some other synthetic fuel that is better suited to the application, such as pure hydrogen. A hydrogen powered airplane would have a longer range because the fuel is lighter per joule of energy it produces. It would probably be safer in an accident, as well. See: Hoffman, "Tomorrow's Energy." Hydrogen powered airplanes would be a boon for the military, because they could be refueled with nuclear power generator onboard an aircraft carrier, or on land with portable nuke where there is any supply of water. It does not take much water. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Remi Cornwall wrote: So more regulation, right? A paternalistic state must step in here? I dunno. No, that will not be necessary. The problem can be fixed with several steps, mainly by reducing regulations and reducing government spending. Fewer but better regulations are called for. Changes such as the following are called for: 1. Remove price supports for unhealthy food. This means less regulation, not more. It will cost the government and taxpayers less, especially if we stop paying wealthy farmers. 2. Modest price supports for healthy food might be in order, to offset decades of encouraging bad food habits. At present, there are huge price supports for corn, meat and milk and no supports for vegetables and fruit. 3. Locally grown food. 4. Better health education in public schools. 5. Improved sidewalks and transportation, to allow more people to walk. The obesity rate in urban areas such as New York, Boston and Tokyo where people walk a lot is much lower than in suburban areas. For details, see the book T. Farley, D. Cohen, "Prescription for a Healthy Nation," Beacon Press, 2005. It seems unlikely to me that oil production will decline enough to affect obesity in the U.S. in the next 20 to 40 years. That will happen only if ethanol production from corn continues, and I doubt that will happen. Ethanol production decreases the supply of food and oil, and increases global warming, because ethanol is an energy sink: it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol itself generates. As I noted here before, when you fill up a 25 gallon SUV tank with ethanol, you consume as much food as an adult eats in one year. If there can be such a thing as an obscene statistic, this would be it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Yeah but the taste of a nice steak... I don't care for being a vegan. -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2008 20:21 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" leaking pen wrote: > The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity > problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not > just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. And here is an irony, indeed an incomprehensible situation -- incomprehensible, that is, if you ignore the government subsidies and taxes which have led to this situation. To wit, a vegan diet is *far* less energy and resource intensive than a meat-based diet, and it's generally healthier. It's absurd to say that, globally, people "can't afford" to eat healthy food; in fact it's the other way around: As a species we can't afford to eat as unhealthfully as we have been eating (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe). We just don't have the resources to support such a diet across the whole globe. The trouble is the free markets aren't all that free and prices are extremely distorted by a range of factors. McDonald's beef, from steers fed on and corn and soybeans and fish (yes, fish), should *not* be cheaper than a mess of potage made from the corn and soybeans, with the rare and expensive fish left out. Yet, it certainly appears to be. Post processing vegetable food by running it through a cow is not an efficient way to prepare it for market, and it sure shouldn't make the end result *cheaper*. Dig far enough into the tax structure, grazing subsidies, transportation subsidies, water subsidies, and I think you'll eventually dig out the answer to this conundrum, but I don't think the explanation is simple.
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
leaking pen wrote: > The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity > problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not > just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. And here is an irony, indeed an incomprehensible situation -- incomprehensible, that is, if you ignore the government subsidies and taxes which have led to this situation. To wit, a vegan diet is *far* less energy and resource intensive than a meat-based diet, and it's generally healthier. It's absurd to say that, globally, people "can't afford" to eat healthy food; in fact it's the other way around: As a species we can't afford to eat as unhealthfully as we have been eating (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe). We just don't have the resources to support such a diet across the whole globe. The trouble is the free markets aren't all that free and prices are extremely distorted by a range of factors. McDonald's beef, from steers fed on and corn and soybeans and fish (yes, fish), should *not* be cheaper than a mess of potage made from the corn and soybeans, with the rare and expensive fish left out. Yet, it certainly appears to be. Post processing vegetable food by running it through a cow is not an efficient way to prepare it for market, and it sure shouldn't make the end result *cheaper*. Dig far enough into the tax structure, grazing subsidies, transportation subsidies, water subsidies, and I think you'll eventually dig out the answer to this conundrum, but I don't think the explanation is simple.
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:47 PM, leaking pen wrote: The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. True, but a person will lose weight by eating less crap. Nevertheless, the effect will be an interesting experiment for us who only have to watch. Ed On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: His prediction would be correct if nothing else happened. Now we have two additional variables in play. The first is a world-wide depression. This will reduce energy demand and reduce use of oil - for a while. By the time this is over, new sources and effective conservation methods will be available. The second is the response of users. Already demand in the US has gone down. As the price of gasoline goes up, people find ways to save or to use other sources. This is not rocket science. A bigger fear is the rise in food prices. The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? Ed On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, but this one appears to be authoritative. See: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the short term. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
So more regulation, right? A paternalistic state must step in here? I dunno. (Oh, I'm not dossing I'm doing a grant/bid so by the computer a lot. Didn't think I'd start a hissy fit of some members by merely thinking.) -Original Message- From: leaking pen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2008 19:48 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil" The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat.
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
Edmund Storms wrote: His prediction would be correct if nothing else happened. Now we have two additional variables in play. The first is a world-wide depression. This will reduce energy demand and reduce use of oil - for a while. By the time this is over, new sources and effective conservation methods will be available. Well, I do not think his price projection is central to Simmons discussion. The price will depend upon many different factors such as energy demand and alternatives. But his main point and his major expertise is in whether oil has reached a peak or not, and what the decline will look like. His name discovery is that the Saudis are grossly exaggerating their reserves. That is what Deffeyes and others have said. The shape of the decline curve will not vary much no matter what demand is. Larger demand will spur improved extraction technology which will make the curve somewhat shallower at first, and steeper later. Reduced demand will stretch it out. The overall amount of oil that can be extracted does not vary. What I have read is that the improved extraction technology of the last 20 years or so gets the oil out more quickly, but it does not increase total extractable oil much. In any case, I doubt there is more oil anywhere in the world. If there was, someone would have found it by now. No one has found any large amounts of oil in the US since the Great Depression. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
The obese problem will go away? No. A good portion of the obesity problem in the us is becuase cheap food is unhealthy food. Its not just overeating, its that some people can only afford crap to eat. On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > His prediction would be correct if nothing else happened. Now we have two > additional variables in play. The first is a world-wide depression. This > will reduce energy demand and reduce use of oil - for a while. By the time > this is over, new sources and effective conservation methods will be > available. The second is the response of users. Already demand in the US has > gone down. As the price of gasoline goes up, people find ways to save or to > use other sources. This is not rocket science. A bigger fear is the rise in > food prices. The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the > underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? > > Ed > > On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >> I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like >> this, but this one appears to be authoritative. See: >> >> http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ >> >> Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the >> short term. >> >> - Jed >> > >
Re: [Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
His prediction would be correct if nothing else happened. Now we have two additional variables in play. The first is a world-wide depression. This will reduce energy demand and reduce use of oil - for a while. By the time this is over, new sources and effective conservation methods will be available. The second is the response of users. Already demand in the US has gone down. As the price of gasoline goes up, people find ways to save or to use other sources. This is not rocket science. A bigger fear is the rise in food prices. The obese problem will gradually go away and be replaced by the underweight problem. I wonder how the government will handle this problem? Ed On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, but this one appears to be authoritative. See: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the short term. - Jed
[Vo]:"Here comes $500 oil"
I normally pay little attention to magazine articles with titles like this, but this one appears to be authoritative. See: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune/ Other oil experts make similar predictions but nowhere near as dire in the short term. - Jed