Support NeoGAF

[Instigator]

So what is your point, that the West is prosperous because it was "fortunate" to expand to other contintents? What does "fortunate" mean? Was Spain merely "fortunate" to send a small group of conquistadors to conquer the entire Aztec empire? Why didn't Montezuma attack and subjugate Madrid instead? He wasn't "fortunate" enough? Were the British "fortuante" to erect a global trading empire instead of, say, the Chinese? How does being "fortunate" explain Western dominance?

What is your conception of how wealth is created? What Third World country did Bill Gates plunder for his vast fortune?

A few centuries ago, the West was languishing in the dark ages and had been so for a thousand years.

Fortunate means having the right set of circumstances. It still takes people to seize opportunities that present themselves, but you don't have the same opportunities everywhere. And it also depends on how those opportunities are exploited.

Spain was fortunate to be among the first to discover the new world. They ultimately squandered it, made a big ugly mess in Latin America and regressed to a shadow of their former selves. Britain got in later and were smarter about it, right down to purposely sabotaging their newly not-so-independent African and Middle-eastern colonies.

The US was fortunate to be a continent away from Europe and its world wars. It protected its industrial base and left the shattered old continent endebted and completely open to America's big business after WWII.

Bottom line, none of these things happen because of a parliamentary system, a regulated market and the judiciary system doing its job. It's about seeing an opportunity, beating someone else to it and exploiting it to the max.

 

[Triumph]

I see no logical reason to assume that the collapse of society is coming, nor any to accept the proposals put forth that the oil will dry up in 15 years. No reason to accept that at all. He would have to be the Nostradamus of the oil world because NOONE is making any moves to suggest that this will happen in the next 15 years.

Nevertheless, if you like war - you'll get WW3 on the day that the oil dries up.

You should read up on peak oil. That's all I'm saying. There is a finite supply of the stuff, and once we hit the peak- where we have extracted half of the world's oil supply- what is left is harder to get out and more costly to refine. Right now, the US produces 5 million barrels of oil a day and consumes 20 million. With China and to a lesser extent India emerging as competitors for oil as a resource, combined with declining production, such consumption is simply not a feasible way of life.

As far as companies making moves to suggest that it will happen, yes they are. Oil is a declining business, and the Big Oil companies know that. That's why they're merging, consolidating and half-assedly looking into alternate forms of energy.

Finally, I have to laugh heartily at anyone putting their trust into corporations and governments to save us from what will happen in the next 20 years or so.

 

[Boogie]

Well lets be honest here. You can't take out the worst cases of fascism and compare them to the best cases of Liberal Democracy. That's like these people that want to compare an Islamic country to a secular country like America and say that Western religions are more benevolent. If you want to compare an Islamic state to a Christian state, lets compare the Taliban to England in the seventeenth century. You'll see that there aren't many differences. If you want to compare a brutal fascist to a democracy, then lets compare it to either Indonesia, Iran... or how about Burma? All of these countries today are the result of Liberal Democracy. Same with Pakistan. The Taliban was wrought through Liberal Democracy. Is hitler any worse or better than the Taliban?

Umm, but if you take England in the 17th Century, you're not even comparing a liberal democracy anymore. How can you discredit liberal democracy by using an example that isn't a liberal democracy?

I think we need a better definition of "liberal democracy", because the one you are using (based on some of your examples) seems to be ANY democracy which has elections, and ignoring the "liberal" part of it, which I take to mean a democracy with established rights and freedoms and rule of law.

 

[Phoenix]

Not one person here can say which monarch was good universally or bad universally. It's all relative.

Not necessarily. You can point to monarchs have been bad for the people who "let them eat cake" or persecuted them as "enemies of the state" during the Inquisition. Irregardless of your position you'd be hard pressed to say that these people were 'good'. Now if by universally bad you mean having no redeeming qualities - EVER, then no - that wouldn't be possible. Everyone has some redeeming quality in something that they do in their life.

But if you take a look at the will of the people as a whole who felt so disturbed with the route of their government to actually make an attempt to change it from a monarch, you'll see that there are very few intances in history where the masses have actually been truly disillusioned with the monarch.

But really, how many democracies have been overthrown or have been attempted to be overthrown? If its *really* the will of the people (which I would debate) that determines if a government rolls into some other form then one measure of a government is how often the people try to overthrow it because they are repressed by it. One of the reasons that US democracy has survived so well is due to various term limits. "Don't like this asshole, well he can only be here for at most one more term".

A "type" of government isn't really what we should be talking about. Any government can be a good government depending on the principles upon which it is based and the adequate enforcement of that through judicial process. What we are really all arguing around isn't the type of government but really the fundamental principles of the various states. We as americans do have some level of cultural relativism and that's going to be true of any society. We look at the world and don't say 'we want to make them have our exact type of government' (and we haven't tried to force that in Iraq), we say 'we want them to have the same values as we do and have their government value the same principles as we do'. The question really should be "Should American ideals and principles of government be pushed in the Middle East". This is a yes no kinda answer. There are some things about our society which deserve to be transferred over to other cultures and societies such as gender equality (amongst other things).

And the leader getting absolute power? Tell me how that's different from the American Presidency since Truman, where he's been given more or less free reign on the discretion of military usage?

Poor argument base here. The use of military forces even if your point was 100% accurate would not suggest absolute power. The deployment of military forces is by an large a small fraction of what someone would need to have absolute power. The ability to stay in power as long as one wanted to would seem to be some minimal requirement for absolute power - that much seems certain.

Would I personally prefer a liberal democracy? Yes. But not a system like the US's. Why should 51% of the people have more or less complete rule over 49% of the people? Ideally, you want a system like Australia's or France's, with the genius that was the bicameral house, and a multiparty system with multiple runoffs for the executive office, and having nothing more than a plurality of the people for the legislature with an independent judiciary.

I need you to explain in more detail how this is fundamentally different that the US democratic system of government.

 

[Phoenix]

You should read up on peak oil. That's all I'm saying. There is a finite supply of the stuff, and once we hit the peak- where we have extracted half of the world's oil supply- what is left is harder to get out and more costly to refine. Right now, the US produces 5 million barrels of oil a day and consumes 20 million. With China and to a lesser extent India emerging as competitors for oil as a resource, combined with declining production, such consumption is simply not a feasible way of life.

I have actually and read more than I care to read on it at this point over 14 source now. None of it says that oil is going to dry up in 15 years. What it says is that oil/energy prices will increase along the axis representing the ability to extract it. Everything I've read suggests that the oil will be flowing for our lifetimes.

What you seem to draw as a conclusion is that there exists some dead end such that when the oil becomes more expensive that other market factors will not increase to decrease dependence on that resource and transition to another one. Everything in the market already suggests that conclusion to be flawed. As the cost of oil increases, the cost of gasoline increases, and along with that the market for vehicles with alternative fuel sources increases along with more efficient vehicles. This is already happening and actually happening far faster than many, who I discuss this topic with regularly, thought it would happen. In our lifetimes (consisidering we life to 50-60 years of age), the pure unleaded gasoline vehicle will be a distant memory.

As far as companies making moves to suggest that it will happen, yes they are. Oil is a declining business, and the Big Oil companies know that. That's why they're merging, consolidating and half-assedly looking into alternate forms of energy.

If oil supply was in a threat of running out in near term, the price would NEVER osscilate as its doing now unless you have someone throwing fishbones into a bowl in your accounting department. Scarce resources result in increasingly high prices, not prices the go up and down within a market range.

Edit: I have been informed that voodoo involved chicken bones and the bones of other small animals, not fishbones.

Finally, I have to laugh heartily at anyone putting their trust into corporations and governments to save us from what will happen in the next 20 years or so.

No, you'd be foolish to assume that they would not be looking at their own longterm longevity. What you are talking about would absolutely destroy them if they don't have a market to move into - which they don't. As such they would increase their prices consistantly over short and long term. If you think that they don't know what's coming and are just sitting there waiting for their markets to die - you need to read some macroeconomics books. Its not going to happen.

 

[Instigator]

Democracy in middle east is just a way to cover up US's capitalist greed, imho.

It ressembles the way chrisitianity was used to pacify countries the West coveted in the past. Back then, the people's soul was at stake, not their freedom.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Finally, I have to laugh heartily at anyone putting their trust into corporations and governments to save us from what will happen in the next 20 years or so.

If corporations and governments were run by robots, then you would have a point. Except they are run by humans. Those entities have an even more vested interest in keeping the economy as robust as possible. So, actually, as the problem worsens the solutions will become better funded and supported.

Like I said before ... your eagerness for some sort of apocalypse is puzzling.

 

[RonaldoSan]

Liberal democracy is the best system because it is the only one that deals effectively with human nature. Leaders can't rule forever, and all of the laws apply to them. There is a free press to ensure this continues. Do you not understand why this arrangement is vastly better than what goes on in North Korea? I mean come on man this is pretty basic stuff.

You mistakenly compare a system in theory with a bad situation in a country. What about comparing the situation in korea with the one in america instead (media manipulation, torture, prisoners with no rights, suspicious election results, wars based on lies... etc. etc.)? If you want to place some responsibility then you should start with the leaders.

I'm not against democracy or any system/religion. I have grown up with alot of mixed cultures and the who-is-right-debate is still going every day. I have come to the conclusion that no one is right. The "truth" lies in every perspective but there is no definite truth.

 

[Guileless]

Raoul, what are you doing to prepare for the coming apocalypse? You almost sound like people waiting for the Rapture.

The "truth" lies in every perspective but there is no definite truth.

In internet messageboard discussions and college classrooms there is no definite truth. In the real world, there are empricial results from which to draw conclusions. US embassies hold lotteries for visas. East Germany had to build a wall to keep people from leaving. I'm going to go out on a limb and say our system is better.

Not one person here can say which monarch was good universally or bad universally. It's all relative

Again with the relativity. Come on people. Any leader who abused his power was a bad leader, which was virtually all of them. That's just human nature. If I were made absolute ruler of Oxford, Mississippi tomorrow then at some point I would abuse my power.

Richard Nixon sure as hell abused his power as the president. Under our system, what he did was considered illegal, he was exposed by the media, and he had to resign. In contrast, at the first whiff of dissent Pol Pot ordered another mass grave to be dug. See the difference?

You can talk about moral relativism on an internet message board all day, but what's the point when we can look at the world around us and make simple judgments? THere is a truth, and here it is: because of how our society is organized, our lives are vastly better than the lives of almost every other human who has ever lived.

A few centuries ago, the West was languishing in the dark ages and had been so for a thousand years.

Yes, and then we had the Enlightenment, the first stages of democratic reform, and the development of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Wait, maybe those things had something to do with how things improved.

It's about seeing an opportunity, beating someone else to it and exploiting it to the max.

That is a perfect description of the free market economy. :lol Are you trying to prove my point? I thought you disagreed with me.

 

[Triumph]

Raoul, what are you doing to prepare for the coming apocalypse? You almost sound like people waiting for the Rapture.

Except that I'm not particularly religous by nature. In answer to that question, my family owns an expansive amount of remote land in the Blue Ridge mountains that is suitable for farming. I suppose that I will relocate to that land and become a farmer when this happens. The new economy will revolve around agriculture, most likely.

I don't expect this to happen overnight, like at some pre-destined time in the next 10-15 years. It will be a gradual thing that people can react to if they are smart enough.

I still have to laugh at people thinking that "markets" will save civlization as we know it. Everything about our lives, including our free markets, has been made possible by the availibility of mass amounts of cheap oil. What happens when that is no longer the case? Oh yeah. "Innovation" and "the market" will come up with an answer. Not likely. Mankind lived an agrarian based life until the industrial revolution, and without oil that's probably back where the survivors will be headed. And I for one don't think that's a bad thing at all.

 

[ronito]

Someone's been reading a lot of Nietsche.

 

[Azih]

In internet messageboard discussions and college classrooms there is no definite truth. In the real world, there are empricial results from which to draw conclusions. US embassies hold lotteries for visas. East Germany had to build a wall to keep people from leaving. I'm going to go out on a limb and say our system is better.

But China is booming now to the point that some Chinese immigrants to Western countries are moving back. Is now the Chinese system better than ours?

Cherry picking points of experience does not a point make.

 

[Guileless]

I'm guessing Chinese people are moving back because they prefer living at home and their country has become more prosperous as the government has opened up the economy. Plus they can go to KFC in Beijing too.

Kudos to the Politburo for coming around. Now if they just follow suit with the political reform, they'll really improve the quality of life of Chinese people.

All you relativists in the house avert your eyes from this "truth:" double digit economic growth and rising standards of living>>>>peasants starving because of Mao's Cultural Revolution. If Mao were still in charge killing peasants then I don't think anybody would want to move back there. If Chinese people are moving back, then that proves my point. People vote with their feet. Granted they have a long way to go and there's still a good deal of central planning, but China is moving towards a free market economy rather than away from it.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Mankind lived an agrarian based life until the industrial revolution, and without oil that's probably back where the survivors will be headed. And I for one don't think that's a bad thing at all.

So, misery does like company.

 

[Xenon]

"Should democracy exist in the Middle East?"

...Should Western countries like the United States push to spread their form of government - the "democractic republic" - throughout the Middle East?

I'd like to hear your opinions. Thanks.

In the whole middle east? No

In Iraq? Yes, only because, we have to replace the former government/dictator. Its the only form of government that we know. What should we do, just pick a new dictator? Or lets experiment with communism. Hey lets just leave and let them duke it out. Nothing like a civil war to keep a country busy.

 

[Mandark]

Everyone should have certain basic rights. One of those rights should be a say in the way your government works. It affects everyone, so everyone should get some input. This goes for every country on every continent.

A democracy is a guarantee neither of a rising standard of living nor of other rights. Iraq's democratization could very easily be a step back for women in that country, for example. Elections are not sufficient.

As a voter and taxpayer, I'd like for my government to support democracies and civil rights for all people. This is not happening now and will likely not happen in the future.

Discussing specifics, it's relevent that the current war in Iraq was never waged for the sake of democracy and civil rights. Most people who say it was are trying to provide political cover for those who made the decision to go to war.

If it's hard to take seriously the complaints about society from people who participate in that society, it is impossible to take seriously support for a war from a young man who did not volunteer to fight in it.

 

[Instigator]

Yes, and then we had the Enlightenment, the first stages of democratic reform, and the development of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Wait, maybe those things had something to do with how things improved.


That is a perfect description of the free market economy. :lol Are you trying to prove my point? I thought you disagreed with me.

Things had already improved before that. The political and economical system has little relevance. In fact, I'd go as far as claim many of those things came to be because of the improved material situation in the West, not the other way around. That is certainly true of the Enlightment and democratic reform.

Free market, oligarchies, planned economies, they can all see a situation and exploit it. You're just choosing to see what you want to see.

 

[Guileless]

Things had already improved before that. The political and economical system has little relevance.

What "things" had improved? You just said the West was in the Dark Ages. The entire economy was based on a small group of landowners who controlled the lives of the peasants who worked their land. The Church was all-powerful, stifling any intellectual challenge to its supremacy. No new wealth being created, no new ideas, no incentive for anyone to change things. Stagnation. Kind of like the Middle East right now.

And you are saying that if we still lived in a feudal system with an all-powerful Church dominating everything, we would be where we are now because the "system" has little relevance? That is ridiculous. Is anyone else reading this?

And you never answered why Montezuma didn't invade Spain. I still don't understand the "Spain was fortunate" argument. Smart people have written books that go into a little more depth than "Spain was fortunate" to explain how this happened.

 

[Phoenix]

I still have to laugh at people thinking that "markets" will save civlization as we know it. Everything about our lives, including our free markets, has been made possible by the availibility of mass amounts of cheap oil. What happens when that is no longer the case?

Someone needs to inject into your brain that oil != energy. Everything about our live has become this way due to cheap energy - oil is just a form of it.

Oh yeah. "Innovation" and "the market" will come up with an answer. Not likely. Mankind lived an agrarian based life until the industrial revolution, and without oil that's probably back where the survivors will be headed. And I for one don't think that's a bad thing at all.

The industrial revolution didn't come about because of oil - first problem. It came about because of another plentiful source of cheap energy - coal. See a pattern developing?

 

[Vinzer Deling]

The industrial revolution didn't come about because of oil - first problem. It came about because of another plentiful source of cheap energy - coal. See a pattern developing?

Beat me to it.

Coal was the main source for steam power during the start of the industrial revolution. Oil didn't become a significant until the 20th century.

 

[Instigator]

What "things" had improved? You just said the West was in the Dark Ages. The entire economy was based on a small group of landowners who controlled the lives of the peasants who worked their land. The Church was all-powerful, stifling any intellectual challenge to its supremacy. No new wealth being created, no new ideas, no incentive for anyone to change things. Stagnation. Kind of like the Middle East right now.

And you are saying that if we still lived in a feudal system with an all-powerful Church dominating everything, we would be where we are now because the "system" has little relevance? That is ridiculous. Is anyone else reading this?

And you never answered why Montezuma didn't invade Spain. I still don't understand the "Spain was fortunate" argument. Smart people have written books that go into a little more depth than "Spain was fortunate" to explain how this happened.

What improved? Opportunities.

In the Dark Ages, the West was stuck in Europe. Once the monopoly of Arab merchants was broken, the West could expand. The discovery of the new World was an accident in all of this. And Spain and Portugal brought the feudal system over to the Americas. The serfs may no longer exist in themselves, but great land owners still do along with masses of peasants earning scraps cultivating it.

I don't think the feudal system is very effective but as long as you have pillaging and millions of workers working for nothing, you get very rich if you are a land owner in an agrarian society. Capitalism in many ways is similar, but more assertive because if they don't find the cheap labor/goods locally, you go abroad, find it and any mean is fair game. You should read up how the civil war in Congo was backed by many Western powers hoping to get a piece of the mining rich country. Iraq is just another example of Western greed at work. That is the secret of Western success in the long run.

Spain was fortunate in many ways. It discovered a new and vast land, by accident. The small band of consquitadors were allowed to roam inside Aztec and Inca empire all the way to the capitals, either because the natives were naive or didn't know what to do. The natives, while sophisticated, were lacking in key military technology and equipment (guns and horses). And most importantly, they were fortunate because the natives started dropping like flies because of Western diseases, something totally unexpected. None of this was carefully planned before leaving Spain. You can give Cortes and Pizarro credit for being quick on their feet and utterly ruthless, it was certainly a key to their victories, but you can not discount they were fortunate.

You seem to misunderstand what fortunate means. You don't control where you are born, your upbringing or whatever random things may happen to your area. You're not completely at the mercy of fate though, you can be smart and cunning and try to make the most of a bad situation, but if you live in a wasteland in the middle of nowhere, the odds are very likely that you will remain there with no big opportunities. That's life.

And to answer your direct question, Montezuma didn't invade Spain because he didn't know it existed before the Spaniards showed up and things went bad quickly after that. He didn't even get the chance if that would have been his intention at all. This is really a silly question. :lol

 

[Guileless]

Montezuma didn't invade Spain because he didn't know it existed...this is really a silly question.

Good lord you are missing the point so much it's laughable. Why didn't Montezuma know about Spain? Why didn't the Aztecs build ships and finance explorers? Why didn't they have guns? They didn't live in a wasteland in the middle of nowhere.

A small, relatively resource-poor corner of the world did not come to dominate the globe by chance. The small colonies that most completely embraced Europe's ideas-democracy, free markets, and the rule of law--did not come to later dominate the globe by chance either.

Iraq is just another example of Western greed at work. That is the secret of Western success in the long run.

So Western greed is the secret to its success? I thought it was being more fortunate? Are you saying that Western people are naturally more greedy than, say, Indonesians? Am I greedier than guys my age who live in Chile? Garden variety 60s-era Marxist bullshit. Are you channeling Che? I wish you had said this earlier, and I would have known not to waste my time trying to argue with someone who accepts ideology at face value.

 

[Phoenix]

A small, relatively resource-poor corner of the world did not come to dominate the globe by chance. The small colonies that most completely embraced Europe's ideas-democracy, free markets, and the rule of law--did not come to later dominate the globe by chance either.

You're reaching here, just want to bring that up There is no provable correlation to the government structure being the reason that these things happened. Many of these countries that set out exploring had geographic boundaries with hated enemies. Many of them wanted new routes of trade and wanted to grow their empires.

 

[Instigator]

You're reaching here, just want to bring that up There is no provable correlation to the government structure being the reason that these things happened. Many of these countries that set out exploring had geographic boundaries with hated enemies. Many of them wanted new routes of trade and wanted to grow their empires.

Exactly.

Europe was at crossroads with the Middle East and Northern Africa. There has been intense commerce and rivalries between all those regions since antiquity, and knowledge and products from Asia also trickled down to the West. Necessity is the mother of all inventions so when a part of the world wanted to get an edge, they needed to get creative. Sooner or later, whatever one area created something new, knowledge of it spreaded out all over.

Even when Europe was in the Dark Ages, ancient knowledge of the Greeks finally got back to Europe eventually, through the Arabs, giving way to the Rennaissance.

The Americas were really an isolated land mass, seperated from the rest of the world, until the Europeans stumbled upon it.

So Western greed is the secret to its success? I thought it was being more fortunate? Are you saying that Western people are naturally more greedy than, say, Indonesians? Am I greedier than guys my age who live in Chile? Garden variety 60s-era Marxist bullshit. Are you channeling Che? I wish you had said this earlier, and I would have known not to waste my time trying to argue with someone who accepts ideology at face value.

The West has been on a roll for a few centuries. The leading countries have changed around but generally, it has been about maintaining that dominance, a dominance built over centuries. Stopping at nothing to control vital natural ressources around the world is just one example. Westerners are not necessarily greedier, but they do have the means to get what they want through military might or economic leverage.

I'm apolitical, but have fun studying political sciences at George W Bush university of Texas.

 

[Triumph]

Someone needs to inject into your brain that oil != energy. Everything about our live has become this way due to cheap energy - oil is just a form of it.

You're correct. However, relative to the effort put into obtaining it and refining it for use, oil has easily been the most efficient form of energy mankind has put to use.

The industrial revolution didn't come about because of oil - first problem. It came about because of another plentiful source of cheap energy - coal. See a pattern developing?

I'm fully aware that there are other forms of energy, but none of them alone or in conjunction will allow us to lead the same kind of life that abundant amounts of cheap oil has.

Natural gas- running out of that, too. Impractical to import from other continents.
Coal- how much is left? Also, incredibly harmful to the environment and produces a lot of solid waste that must be disposed of.
Nuclear- In order to segue into a Nuclear powered America, massive amounts of work must be done, work that will require the use of quite a lot of, you guessed it, other fossil fuels. Also, potentially unsafe.
Hydro electric- most of the spots suitable for use have been exploited. Recent survey work indicates we could potentially double the small amount of power that we get if we were to exploit all potential sites, but they are mostly small streams and creeks that would generate little power.
Solar and wind- costly to manufacture and implement. Subject to the whims of mother nature(what if it isn't windy or is overcast for an extended period of time). Impractical on a scale necessary to replace what is being lost.
Hydrogen- a pipe dream. Also, requires the use of other energy sources as a catalyst.

Did I leave anything out? I'm sure "the markets" will shit out a new incredible source of energy for us to exploit, like maybe the souls of non-believers or dark matter.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Except that I'm not particularly religous by nature. In answer to that question, my family owns an expansive amount of remote land in the Blue Ridge mountains that is suitable for farming. I suppose that I will relocate to that land and become a farmer when this happens. The new economy will revolve around agriculture, most likely.

Oh please. e-Farmer :lol

You wouldn't last a minute as a farmer.

 

[Triumph]

Oh please. e-Farmer :lol

You wouldn't last a minute as a farmer.

Riiiight. Cause you know me so well and all.

 

[ToxicAdam]

"Dudes, you can totally join my commune up in the Blue Hedge Mountains."

"15 more years, and this whole world is going apeshit, man. Be ready!"

 

[Phoenix]

You're correct. However, relative to the effort put into obtaining it and refining it for use, oil has easily been the most efficient form of energy mankind has put to use.

Not even close. Nuclear is so far more efficient than oil that it doesn't even merit further discussion. Clearly you need to get your facts straight before we can continue this discussion.

I'm fully aware that there are other forms of energy, but none of them alone or in conjunction will allow us to lead the same kind of life that abundant amounts of cheap oil has.

Natural gas- running out of that, too. Impractical to import from other continents.
Coal- how much is left? Also, incredibly harmful to the environment and produces a lot of solid waste that must be disposed of.
Nuclear- In order to segue into a Nuclear powered America, massive amounts of work must be done, work that will require the use of quite a lot of, you guessed it, other fossil fuels. Also, potentially unsafe.

Hydro electric- most of the spots suitable for use have been exploited. Recent survey work indicates we could potentially double the small amount of power that we get if we were to exploit all potential sites, but they are mostly small streams and creeks that would generate little power.
Solar and wind- costly to manufacture and implement. Subject to the whims of mother nature(what if it isn't windy or is overcast for an extended period of time). Impractical on a scale necessary to replace what is being lost.
Hydrogen- a pipe dream. Also, requires the use of other energy sources as a catalyst.

Did I leave anything out? I'm sure "the markets" will shit out a new incredible source of energy for us to exploit, like maybe the souls of non-believers or dark matter.

In 2003, the United States generated 3,848 billion kilowatthours (Kwh) of electricity, including 3,691 billion Kwh from the electric power sector plus an additional 157 billion Kwh coming from combined heat and power (CHP) facilities in the commercial and industrial sectors. For the electric power sector, coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil 3%, geothermal and "other" 1%. During the first eight months of 2004, electric power generation rose about 2.2% year-over-year.

So I think we can increase our nuclear output by building more reactors to cover the 3% of oil that US electric power depends upon.

As far as hydrogen being a pipe dream - maybe you need to read a bit, watch some Discovery channel, or go to college and take up Chemistry and Physics. Here is an article to help you on your way - Hydrogen fuel cell cars are coming, the process for making hydrogen only gets more and more efficient each day, and biodiesel is a readily available renewable and growable fuel source that will stave off the apocalypse you predict.

I have a feeling that in 20 years or so when the world hasn't collapsed you'll be very sad at how you've wasted your life waiting for the world to end.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

Riiiight. Cause you know me so well and all.

But I can conclude that you're full of it. That much I do know.