I introduce to you, the future of Fossil Fuels!

Nervous · Post by **Nervous** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:31 am

It's brand new, it's called "Vivoleum!"

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0615-04.htm

Read it over, and let me know what you think!

potownrob · Post by **potownrob** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:31 pm

I'm glad he stood up to the oilmen but, wow, what he proposes is wrong on multiple levels

the dumblonde · Post by **the dumblonde** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:52 pm

potownrob wrote:I'm glad he stood up to the oilmen but, wow, what he proposes is wrong on multiple levels

Oh, come on. Haven't you ever read John Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

Nychold · Post by **Nychold** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 11:58 pm

the dumblonde wrote:
potownrob wrote:I'm glad he stood up to the oilmen but, wow, what he proposes is wrong on multiple levels
Oh, come on. Haven't you ever read John Swift's "A Modest Proposal"?

+100

Soylent Green FTMFW!

potownrob · Post by **potownrob** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:47 am

Sorry, i'm not into devil-inspired books. i did take a look at a modest proposal. it is easy to forget or ignore that we are not mere animals but people with souls. from a spiritual standpoint, eating or otherwise destroying a dead human body is not much better than killing it first, and killing it is not much better than murdering it. I say this since the body needs to be intact if the soul is ever to be reunited with it after death. To so much as mutilate the body is going against this end. of course, very few souls presently on earth even have a chance of being saved, but we are not to be the judges of whether or not someone is destined for heaven. For many if not most of you (and everyone else for that matter) this is an inconceivable concept.

CaliforniaZX · Post by **CaliforniaZX** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:13 am

Final Fantasy VII anybody? Mako. Lifeforce. Lifestream.

the dumblonde · Post by **the dumblonde** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:08 pm

potownrob wrote:Sorry, i'm not into devil-inspired books. i did take a look at a modest proposal. it is easy to forget or ignore that we are not mere animals but people with souls. from a spiritual standpoint, eating or otherwise destroying a dead human body is not much better than killing it first, and killing it is not much better than murdering it. I say this since the body needs to be intact if the soul is ever to be reunited with it after death. To so much as mutilate the body is going against this end. of course, very few souls presently on earth even have a chance of being saved, but we are not to be the judges of whether or not someone is destined for heaven. For many if not most of you (and everyone else for that matter) this is an inconceivable concept.

For one, "A Modest Proposal" is not a book. It is an essay. (Thus i used quotes not italics) And for two, you're completely missing the point. Without making judgement of your beliefs on life, death, and a soul's salvation, i beseech you to understand that Swift's essay, and in all probability these two guys (who knows, they could just be nut jobs yet) are using political satire to attempt to draw attention to egregious problems of the world. The indifference over starvation of the Irish poor, and the indifference over the gravity of the impact our current fuels cause, respectively. People don't always react and take action because of reason, fear and disgust are often much better motivators for awareness and causing action. Thus why creators of seemingly offensive satire are often more serious about problems than you are. Another current example, Dutch TV producers stage a hoax Organ Donor show to attempt to change the Dutch organ donor laws. See this CBS article

Good, be disgusted. But realize they want you to get disgusted at the original problem (staving people, the impacts of continued reliance on fossil fuel) not necessarily at their outrageous remedy.

Nychold · Post by **Nychold** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:34 pm

the dumblonde wrote:
potownrob wrote:Sorry, i'm not into devil-inspired books. i did take a look at a modest proposal. it is easy to forget or ignore that we are not mere animals but people with souls. from a spiritual standpoint, eating or otherwise destroying a dead human body is not much better than killing it first, and killing it is not much better than murdering it. I say this since the body needs to be intact if the soul is ever to be reunited with it after death. To so much as mutilate the body is going against this end. of course, very few souls presently on earth even have a chance of being saved, but we are not to be the judges of whether or not someone is destined for heaven. For many if not most of you (and everyone else for that matter) this is an inconceivable concept.
For one, "A Modest Proposal" is not a book. It is an essay. (Thus i used quotes not italics) And for two, you're completely missing the point. Without making judgement of your beliefs on life, death, and a soul's salvation, i beseech you to understand that Swift's essay, and in all probability these two guys (who knows, they could be nut jobs yet) are using political satire to attempt to draw attention to egregious problems of the world. The indifference over starvation of the Irish poor, and the indifference over the gravity of the impact our current fuels cause, respectively. People don't always react and take action because of reason, fear and disgust are often much better motivators for awareness and causing action. Thus why creators of seemingly offensive satire are often more serious about problems than you are. Another current example, Dutch TV producers stage a hoax Organ Donor show to attempt to change the Dutch organ donor laws. See this CBS article

Good be disgusted. But realize they want you finally get disgusted at the original problem (staving people, the impacts of continued reliance on fossil fuel) not their outrageous remedy.[/url]

Well, I don't know. Personally, I don't see a problem with using people as fuel. Humanity has the worst kind of arrogance on the planet...the belief that we are most special creatures, and that because we have achieved "civility" (a term which we defined), that we must be spiritual, or have souls, or what have you. And we do this as we club baby seals for fur, keep baby cows in cages for their whole lives, slaughter cows, and grind chickens up to make our favorite afternoon snack food.

Humans are animals, and IMHO nothing more. Nothing spiritual...just animals that have a unique perspective on life. We should only treat them as such. Besides, my understanding of a soul is that it's NOT coporeal, meaning it has nothing to do with the body. So how does using the dead body of a person violate his soul?

Anyway, that being said, I think the idea is extremely radical since other forms of fuel exist...like ethanol.

the dumblonde · Post by **the dumblonde** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 1:17 pm

Nychold wrote:Anyway, that being said, I think the idea is extremely radical since other forms of fuel exist...like ethanol.

Yeah but ethanol has it's major issues too. It fuel to make ethanol. Making corn based ethanol is particularly inefficient, and one has to be reminded that we also use corn for something else: food. In Mexico they've had to put price caps on tortillas (a corn based product and food staple in Mexico) because of the rapidly rising price of corn, a rise driven behind the use corn to make ethanol. Then there is sugar cane derived ethanol, what Brazil is increasingly relying on and allows the 40% of the country's cars to be ethanol driven. The biggest problem here is that it is much more directly profitable to grow sugar cane than to preserve rainforest. So rainforest land (which plays a significant part in countering emissions driven climate change) is in danger of being cut down to make way for sugar cane.

The reason why i think that using outrageous methods to try to get people to get moving on change is important is that the future of fuel (what an alliteration!) is going to be complicated. Blah. No easy answers. [insert more cliched but true rhetoric here]