Vitamin O:America's Healthy "Addiction" to Oil [Part 1] - Alex Epstein - USC Objectivist Club

[jmelkis]

Indeed, my own study of medieval history put all of this in perspective. We are much better off than our forebears, which is why we can even speak of overpopulation. We also are not destroying our environment to same degree that previous generations had. They had to burn wood to stay warm, and that led to mass deforestation. This is no longer as necessary as in years past, for one.

[logtype47]

This dude is totally banking on being pick up by a right wing think tank. Colleges are testing grounds for people like him. He figures the more blatantly obscene his stance is on oil, the better his chances of being noticed and landing a six-figure gig. Kind of like a conservative realty show. The crazier you are quicker you get promoted to the next stage.

[r74quinn]

@logtype47 Dude, your comment shows you are totally banking on being picked up by a left wing think tank. Comment sections are testing grounds for people like you. You figure the more blatantly ad hominem your stance on Alex Epstein, the better your chances of being noticed and landing a stick-figure likeness of yourself on the back of eco-branded t-shirts. The lazier your mind the quicker you are accepted into the eco-herd.

[logtype47]

@r74quinn Please tell us how many cerebral calories you burned to come up with that garbage.

[mentospleen]

The point here being that oil is America’s girlfriend and OPEC is oil’s dad. Oil is stressed out because her dad is overbearing and keeps charging America every time we want to take oil out. Sure we caught a case of the acid rain after a few years, and oil is fooling around with the EU, and that might make oil a filthy prostitute but we love oil! Isn’t that relevant, isn’t that not an addiction, isn’t that a positive thing?

[SpellboundSolution]

@mentospleen Maybe if we hadn't let the thug that owned Iran steal what we built for him there would be no OPEC today? Just sayin'.

[chromelemon]

I saw this guy last night at UT Austin, he rightly demonized enviromentalists for only looking at the negative side of oil and postive side of "green" technology, yet he does the opposite. He only focused on the postives of oil and negatives of "green" technology. Not an objective view of the subject. When confronted by someone asking about pollution from fossil fuel emissions, he changed the subject. He is a smart guy, but this presentation was obviously biased.

[clemonsx90]

@chromelemon Dodging the question is appropriate because its essentially a trap. The industrial revolution was powered by oil and is responsible for almost all of the "good" in the world today. How do we thank oil? By complaining about carbon dioxide raising the global temperature by a fraction of a degree? What's the point of having a cleaner environment if I don't even exist?