Patrick Degan wrote:
That, dear Duchess, is what these things we call "science" and "engineering" are all about.
But as for trying to hang on to the current standard of vehicle construction forever, that's about as viable an idea as trying to preserve the horse-drawn buggy was when the internal combustion engine first made its debut.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't introduce a new propulsion technology and expect that it will accomodate the present standard of vehicle design, and you can't tell the House of Saud goodbye without eliminating dependence on oil.
Then that propulsion technology better let me wrap more metal and leather around myself than the current technology, provide
better acceleration, and in general be worthwhile replacing the internal combustion engine vehicle I currently have.
I won't accept a sacrifice in vehicle size, acceleration, range, or any other feature over what I currently prefer, simply for something cleaner or "not reliant on the Saudis".
Original cars were built on horse-drawn buggy frames. The very, very early ones. They were basically motor-powered buggies. Curious, no? And people bought them - Because the engine provided an improvement in some fashion in the performance of a buggy of the same size as the others, or at least the builders figured it was close enough that they could convince people of that and sell 'em.
Until Fuel Cells have the same ability, they will remain a novelty. Once they have that ability, they will be put in cars on a regular basis and they will start getting refined.
Honestly, though, we need fuel for more than just keeping our cars gassed up. It is the underpinning of the world economy, and I am quite willing to go to war to secure it. Repeatedly. We're an economic Empire on the Periclean Athenian model and there's nothing wrong with that.
But did something else occur to you, Patrick, in all your inestimable wisdom of making this about oil? Did you read my article about Salafism?
Let's imagine for the moment we do what you say, take the hit, leave the Muslim States alone to stew in their own juices. Wahhabism is moderate Salafism; in Salafism you can fight against heretical Muslim rulers, condemn other Sunnis as heretics and so on. OBL is a Salafist, the KSA is Wahhabi and so are their schools. Wahhabis are a branch of Salafism.
Okay, so we've got these people here; they're selling oil to those who will still buy it, trying to monopolize the market and squeeze out what they can. Prices fall, naturally, less demand.
People in the Muslim countries suffer immensely - They turn to religion. Wahhabism spreads even more, the Saudis, seeing the spread of fanaticism in their own country, fund it yet to stave off their own collapse internally.
People, though, as things continue - They see that their regimes are growing more despotic and cruel, hording remaining resources to stay afloat, letting them starve or die of thirst and the like.
They turn to Salafism and revolt.
Welcome to united Islam - A united Salafist Caliphate. Complete with nuclear weapons, too, courtesy of Pakistan.
That would really, really be great. They have one goal, Patrick - World conquest. Everyone either converts or pays the Faith Tax.
The death toll would be worse than even I've predicted at times, and with our economies crippled by going green, I'm not sure who would win. Maybe we'd endure a few millenia of
fatwas as a human race before coming out of another dark age.
Great idea.
