View Single Post
 
Old 04-03-2012, 05:14 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Devils advocate

IF you could 'outlaw' cigarettes, WOULD YOU? Sure, it would improve public health, etc. It would ALSO throw the world into a major depression, as Tobacco represents a significant portion of the 'world economy'.

And of coarse, not even addressing the 'black market' that would be created to supply the demand.

Similarly, If you COULD develop some kind of additive, that was cheap to produce, and would instantly multiply a vehicles mileage by a factor of say,...4. So, a car that gets 25mpg now gets 100mpg. The employment in the 'oil industry', from 'exploration' and 'production', to refineries to distribution, etc. would logically be reduced by approximately 75%. And, the price of gasoline and diesel would commesurately increase by what, 3-4 times?

Just saying, a technology that could truly give us cheap, safe, unlimited energy, and COULD BE 'INTRODUCED' and 'ROLLED OUT' quickly, and which would eliminate the need for the 'support structures' that have developed over many years to produce and distribute energy would have far reaching consequences, such as a worldwide depression which would make "The Great Depression" look like a picnic.So, this COULD be a reason why Gov't.'s might want to supress such technology, and MAY consider it a "National Security" issue.And, from a 'military' standpoint, you seek advantage. If your tanks, for example, can get significantly better mileage than your opponents tanks, YOU have an advantage. Your tanks spend less time re-fueling, and more time moving, and so can be where your opponent doesn't expect them. If the technology which gives you this advantage is 'made public', your enemy can develop the SAMT technology, and so you 'loose' the advantage.

Not DEFENDING such behavior by the Gov't, just saying "THEY" may feel like "THEY" have 'legitimate' reasons for suppressing certain technologies.

Oh, and by the by, the original poster mentioned her husband pointing out how G.Bush etc. are 'in bed with' (or whatever) the Oil industry. Don't fool yourself; there is no real difference between the parties; They both take $ from, and are 'in bed with' Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Wall Street, etc. Just look at the financial contributions from Freddie Mac, Citigroup, etc. to the DEMOCRATS in Congress, leading up to 2008. BOTH parties take the $, both are influenced, and both screw us eaqually. And both may well 'buy in' to the above rationalisations, for 'suppressing' certain technologies.Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote