Minutemen

[quote]hspder wrote:
Well, one thing I won’t really buy is the argument that reducing the influx of illegal immigrants will increase the mechanization efforts; that would be akin to saying that reducing the influx of illegal drugs into the US should reduce the consumption – it does not.

Now, having said that, there is the continuing trend of teenagers shifting from “classic”, plain narcotics – like marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines – to more sophisticated, targeted stuff. What prompted that shift? Plenty of supply of the “more sophisticated” drugs, i.e. – choice!

To put it another way: it was the increase in supply of different drugs that sustained that shift; not the reduction of supply of the classic drugs.

Hence maybe what would help would be for the government to start sponsoring mechanization efforts, through subsidies, for example. I’ve always heard that the way (and what) the government subsidizes these days is dumb anyway, so change should be well received by farmers.

Maybe we’ve been all looking in the wrong place; maybe the key of fueling the economic growth of this country is focusing on increasing the efficiency of the primary sector by reducing its reliance on cheap labor. After all, if there’s one thing we have over everyone else in the world is our natural resources and a tradition of highly experienced, creative and resourceful farmers. They’ll figure it out if given the proper incentive – which shouldn’t be taking away choice (that’s always bad) but rather making the alternatives less cumbersome.

Am I on the wrong track here?

[/quote]

reducing the reliance on cheap labor was what I was saying…and you used your first graph to trash it.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
further mechanization of food production would probably be a bad idea right now, considering the effect of oil depletion on the price of fuel.[/quote]

I do not believe that mechanization would necessarily have that great of an impact on oil consumption. As far as I know, many machines can run on natural gas or biodiesel – it’s just a question of having that into consideration and explicitly subsidizing machines that ran on alternative fuels.

Just consider the potential positive impact on US industry too – the number of high-paying jobs that could be created on developing new, more intelligent and capable machines that ran on alternative fuels.

[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
With the advent of RoundUp Ready Cotton - a gentically engineered cotton seed that is resistant to herbicides - there is little if any need for hoer’s (individuals that hoe weeds in the cotton field). This cuts most farmer’s seasonal payroll by 8 - 10 individuals.

This brings up a bit of an ethical dilema. We have the ability to genetically engineer a row crop seed to do things that would distrurb most normal folk. There’s already a push for more ‘organic’, ‘natural’ food.

That actually is quite fascinating. I was completely unaware that genetically engineering crops could actually reduce the need for manual labor.

I can understand (though not completely agree) being against genetic engineering of food, however, aren’t we talking about cotton that is used in clothing? Why on Earth should anybody be against using only RoundUp Ready Cotton from now on, considering the clear advantages, and the fact that we don’t really eat cotton?

[/quote]

The agricultural industry is one thing but in NYC just about every restaurant has a very large hispanic workforce. Not just the dishwashers, the prep cooks, line cooks etc. These guys are already working their way into the top jobs and doing some wild things with mexican cuisine.

Construction is another. On most job sites the carpentry and masonary trades are heavily oriented towards immigrant labor.

Not an easy problem to fix.

[quote]nopal_juventus wrote:
So you’re saying that blacks and latinos aren’t trying as hard or equal in a certain way to asians? That is the definition of racism. You imply that there is an ethnic reason for blacks and latinos being perpetually poor, when it’s sociological and economical.[/quote]

I don’t want to get too sidetracked here, but I do think this is somewhat relevant (because it influences out ability to integrate Latinos into the US).

As you might know, the San Francisco Bay Area is quite a melting pot – in the largest cities (San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland) whites are actually a minority.

Having lived on all those three cities, I had plenty of contact with Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Indians and non-Indian Asians (technically, India has in the Asian continent for quite some time).

Honestly, the differences are much less than the similarities. It’s quite amazing how everyone gets assimilated into the local culture so quickly, even in the 1st generation.

There are, however, some trends that sustain stereotypes:

Asians like to own small retail businesses they build from scratch; Indians like the same, but tend to prefer franchises; both also like high-tech jobs; Latinos tend to be much more willing to do lesser-paying jobs, and become quite happy doing them; Blacks prefer careers in sports and jobs that require a lot of talent and creativity when given the chance, but will settle for just about any paying job.

Do I attribute this to race? No. It has nothing to do with race, or genetics.

It has to do with fear and resistance… fear of the unknown, and resistance to change, that is. Not only from them, but from society as a whole.

I’m not talking from the top of my ivory tower here – I’m guilty of the same: both my parents were professors, so, when faced with the cut-throat Silicon Valley business world, devoid of any kind of ethics or other pleasantries, I ran back to my safe place: the academic world. I was greeted with open arms because, well, of the same reason George W. Bush managed to get toYale: they knew my parents. Of course, if I were an idiot I couldn’t have an academic career, but I know that if they didn’t know my parents I’d have to wait a long time, maybe decades, until I had the opportunity.

Before I get flamed with thousands of examples of people who did something completely different from their parents, I can tell you I have such an example also in my own family: my maternal grandfather was not a professor: he was a very humble man from Portugal. He worked hard, immigrated to this great country (legally!) and worked even harder to get my mother through college and allow her to pursue a successful academic career. So it is possible to break the tradition.

Problem is, it’s getting harder and harder. Tuition is becoming more expensive each year; community colleges, once free, are now costing hundreds of dollars a month. State colleges are now requiring thousands of dollars a month. And let’s not even talk about Ivy-League colleges. I cringe every time I think that my students are paying upwards of $30k a year in tuition – let alone in books, transportation, food and boarding.

Some will get scholarships; most will indebt themselves so much it’ll take years before they can leave their parent’s home. In the Bay Area, the average age at which men are leaving their parents’ homes is now 27; for women it’s 29. Just a couple of centuries ago, most people had 6 kids by the time they were 27 – now they’re still living with their parents!

So, what do most kids do? Most play it safe. Some will even give up altogether from the “American Dream” and just go with the flow. They have no hope, so why bother, really?

They just stick with their parents and do what they did. Carry the legacy. New immigrants will contact their own community and get jobs with people from their own community. Prolong it. Asians hire Asians. Indians hire Indians. Latinos hire Latinos. Blacks hire Blacks. And, believe or not, Whites will always prefer to hire Whites, if given the choice. Not only because they share an understanding, but also because they feel safe. They feel a sense of complicity. Even the other day I read a study that shows that people with college degrees hire people with college degrees, while people that do not have a college degree tend to prefer experienced people, rather than people with degrees. If this isn’t proof of a “gang” mentality that permeates human culture, I don?t know what is.

After all, this is what the buzzword “networking” is about, right? Now, tell me, how many people from Harlem have the chance to network with people from The Financial District?

Remember that communities of people that share a common root have stuck together since this country exists; anyone that knows New York, with its rich and long (in US terms) history, knows what I’m talking about.

People feel simply safer that way. And although that perpetuates their misery (or their fortune), you cannot blame them, or perpetuate racial stereotypes. The lack of actual government in this country is making it just too damn hard to break away from it, and only a few have the strength and willpower to do it.

If you’re one of that few that broke away from that cycle (I can think of some on these forums, so I know you’re reading this): congratulations! You’re a courageous and strong person. We need more people like you. But, unless you want to be an elitist, that doesn’t mean you should judge everyone who isn’t equally strong and courageous, and refuse to help them.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
further mechanization of food production would probably be a bad idea right now, considering the effect of oil depletion on the price of fuel.

I do not believe that mechanization would necessarily have that great of an impact on oil consumption. As far as I know, many machines can run on natural gas or biodiesel – it’s just a question of having that into consideration and explicitly subsidizing machines that ran on alternative fuels.

Just consider the potential positive impact on US industry too – the number of high-paying jobs that could be created on developing new, more intelligent and capable machines that ran on alternative fuels.
[/quote]

for the record, anything that can run on diesel can run fine on pure vegetable oil. I’ve got a friend with a veggie burban and a veggie mercedes.
He hates biodiesel.

[quote]Atomic Dog wrote:
Gentlemen,

I’ve gotten several requests to kill this entire thread.

I haven’t followed it very closely, but I can see that we’ve gotten way off topic and it’s gotten to be largely a pissing match.

If I delete it, I’ll get scores of angry complaints.

If I don’t delete it, I’ll continue to get scores of angry complaints.

These are my options:

Jump off the roof of Biotest, hopefully hitting the large dumpster so no one will have to clean up.

Or…

Ask that you curb the anger and get back on topic.

I’m hoping it’s the second option.

Thanks!
TC[/quote]

Hey Guys

I reread TC’s post a few times. He’s right. We sound like a bunch of winey bitches lately.

I started the thread so I’ll go first. Yeah the personal attacks got over the top on both sides. Libs and conservatives.

So let’s do this. argue the frickin point ad nauseum. A little bit of witty sarcasm is always expected but the frigin personal insults should really get back burnered.

Hey I am as guilty as anyone so don’t think I am holier then thou cause I am not. I am just a schmucko like the rest of you.

If you think I am a fucknut well it wouldn’t be the first time. We are in TC’s house so we shouldn’t piss in his plants and ought two follow his rules.

Good night all.

Hedo

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
further mechanization of food production would probably be a bad idea right now, considering the effect of oil depletion on the price of fuel.

I do not believe that mechanization would necessarily have that great of an impact on oil consumption. As far as I know, many machines can run on natural gas or biodiesel – it’s just a question of having that into consideration and explicitly subsidizing machines that ran on alternative fuels.

Just consider the potential positive impact on US industry too – the number of high-paying jobs that could be created on developing new, more intelligent and capable machines that ran on alternative fuels.

for the record, anything that can run on diesel can run fine on pure vegetable oil. I’ve got a friend with a veggie burban and a veggie mercedes.
He hates biodiesel.
[/quote]

Biodiesel, vegetable oil, ethanol, and the like are net energy losers. So much petroleum is used for fertilizer, pesticides, and equipment that it more than negates the energy produced. Unless these things start being produced “the old fashioned way” (which would mean a huge drop in production, at least temporarily), those just aren’t plausible solutions.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Biodiesel, vegetable oil, ethanol, and the like are net energy losers. So much petroleum is used for fertilizer, pesticides, and equipment that it more than negates the energy produced. Unless these things start being produced “the old fashioned way” (which would mean a huge drop in production, at least temporarily), those just aren’t plausible solutions.[/quote]

I also mentioned natural gas… And if that doesn’t work either, how about fuel cells? We need to come up with a economically viable replacement for oil sooner or later.

I think everybody can agree we didn’t become a great country by complaining about the problems; we became a great country by coming up with the solutions…

[quote]hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Biodiesel, vegetable oil, ethanol, and the like are net energy losers. So much petroleum is used for fertilizer, pesticides, and equipment that it more than negates the energy produced. Unless these things start being produced “the old fashioned way” (which would mean a huge drop in production, at least temporarily), those just aren’t plausible solutions.

I also mentioned natural gas… And if that doesn’t work either, how about fuel cells? We need to come up with a economically viable replacement for oil sooner or later.

I think everybody can agree we didn’t become a great country by complaining about the problems; we became a great country by coming up with the solutions…

[/quote]

Go on hspder - say it. Your right on the liberal edge. Say it!!

I’ll even give you the first letter - ‘N’.

Safe, clean, and probably the only alternative that might put the ‘evil’ oil companies out of commission.

[quote]hspder wrote:

Asians like to own small retail businesses they build from scratch; Indians like the same, but tend to prefer franchises; both also like high-tech jobs; Latinos tend to be much more willing to do lesser-paying jobs, and become quite happy doing them; Blacks prefer careers in sports and jobs that require a lot of talent and creativity when given the chance, but will settle for just about any paying job.

[/quote]

now, why do I get the feeling that if rainjack or me had written this crap…hspder and others would be (rightly) killing us right now?

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
further mechanization of food production would probably be a bad idea right now, considering the effect of oil depletion on the price of fuel.

I do not believe that mechanization would necessarily have that great of an impact on oil consumption. As far as I know, many machines can run on natural gas or biodiesel – it’s just a question of having that into consideration and explicitly subsidizing machines that ran on alternative fuels.

Just consider the potential positive impact on US industry too – the number of high-paying jobs that could be created on developing new, more intelligent and capable machines that ran on alternative fuels.

for the record, anything that can run on diesel can run fine on pure vegetable oil. I’ve got a friend with a veggie burban and a veggie mercedes.
He hates biodiesel.

Biodiesel, vegetable oil, ethanol, and the like are net energy losers. So much petroleum is used for fertilizer, pesticides, and equipment that it more than negates the energy produced. Unless these things start being produced “the old fashioned way” (which would mean a huge drop in production, at least temporarily), those just aren’t plausible solutions.[/quote]

aren’t you oversimplifying?
It doesn’t take huge amounts of fertilizer or pesticides to grow rape or other oil heavy crops, and many of these crops grow in areas that other ag products won’t.
Shit, we could replace tobacco with oil producing plants.
Shift the process of harvest and refinement to run on the oil…why not?
The original Diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil.
It’s when a few guys decided they could make huge money on petroleum products that ‘diesel’ became what it is.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Biodiesel, vegetable oil, ethanol, and the like are net energy losers. So much petroleum is used for fertilizer, pesticides, and equipment that it more than negates the energy produced. Unless these things start being produced “the old fashioned way” (which would mean a huge drop in production, at least temporarily), those just aren’t plausible solutions.

I also mentioned natural gas… And if that doesn’t work either, how about fuel cells? We need to come up with a economically viable replacement for oil sooner or later.

I think everybody can agree we didn’t become a great country by complaining about the problems; we became a great country by coming up with the solutions…

[/quote]

Natural gas demand is projected to outpace supply as it is; there are too many gas powerd plants, and not enough gas. The US gets like 50% of its gas from Canada, and that accounts for like 80% of Canada’s total production. Keep in mind Canada is forging stronger economic ties with china, and china is demanding resources like a mother.

As for fuel cells, they are a form of energy storage, not an energy source. The easiest way to produce hydrogen is from natural gas (if I remember correctly), which I already mentioned above. Any way you put it, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it provides.

Rainjack may be right. Although I don’t like the idea of nuclear (unless major breakthroughs are made), the fact is that unless society changes dramatically, it is the only option. Even with nuclear energy, though, there are still things that will probably have to change. Private transportation and suburbs should be the first to go.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
hspder wrote:

Asians like to own small retail businesses they build from scratch; Indians like the same, but tend to prefer franchises; both also like high-tech jobs; Latinos tend to be much more willing to do lesser-paying jobs, and become quite happy doing them; Blacks prefer careers in sports and jobs that require a lot of talent and creativity when given the chance, but will settle for just about any paying job.

now, why do I get the feeling that if rainjack or me had written this crap…hspder and others would be (rightly) killing us right now?[/quote]

The reason I didn’t crucify him for that statement is his acknowledgement of societal forces on this. In his next paragraph, he makes it clear that race has nothing to do with it, rather it is people’s perceived options, and I think he’s correct.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
hspder wrote:

Asians like to own small retail businesses they build from scratch; Indians like the same, but tend to prefer franchises; both also like high-tech jobs; Latinos tend to be much more willing to do lesser-paying jobs, and become quite happy doing them; Blacks prefer careers in sports and jobs that require a lot of talent and creativity when given the chance, but will settle for just about any paying job.

now, why do I get the feeling that if rainjack or me had written this crap…hspder and others would be (rightly) killing us right now?

The reason I didn’t crucify him for that statement is his acknowledgement of societal forces on this. In his next paragraph, he makes it clear that race has nothing to do with it, rather it is people’s perceived options, and I think he’s correct.[/quote]

so when he says something based on perceived opinions its okay cause you know he’s a liberal?
I’ll remember that shit.

[quote] Aleksandr wrote:

Natural gas demand is projected to outpace supply as it is; there are too many gas powerd plants, and not enough gas. The US gets like 50% of its gas from Canada, and that accounts for like 80% of Canada’s total production. Keep in mind Canada is forging stronger economic ties with china, and china is demanding resources like a mother.[/quote]

We have enough Natural Gas reserves in the U.S. to be self reliant - pretty much in Texas alone. The problem is cost. It’s cheaper to buy Canadian gas than it is to pull it out of the ground in Texas, which supplies 30% of the nations natural gas.

The shortage of natural gas is a processing problem, not a supply problem.

If there was a free market for energy, ther would be folks trying to make money at it. Get the gov’t out of the way, free up the marketplace, and you’ll have Nuke Cars inside of 5 years. The use of nuclear power has a bad name because of bad press.

That is the most unattainable, and punitive idea I’ve heard in a long time.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
hspder wrote:

Asians like to own small retail businesses they build from scratch; Indians like the same, but tend to prefer franchises; both also like high-tech jobs; Latinos tend to be much more willing to do lesser-paying jobs, and become quite happy doing them; Blacks prefer careers in sports and jobs that require a lot of talent and creativity when given the chance, but will settle for just about any paying job.

now, why do I get the feeling that if rainjack or me had written this crap…hspder and others would be (rightly) killing us right now?

The reason I didn’t crucify him for that statement is his acknowledgement of societal forces on this. In his next paragraph, he makes it clear that race has nothing to do with it, rather it is people’s perceived options, and I think he’s correct.

so when he says something based on perceived opinions its okay cause you know he’s a liberal?
I’ll remember that shit.[/quote]

Isn’t ‘perceived opinion’ a PC way of saying stereotype. And isn’t most stereotypesbased on some form of racism.
Yes Joe, I stand with you on this one.

I am not, repeat NOT, trying to get back on that path. I am simply stating my reason why I stand behind Joe on this one. Tomato–tamato.

Joe,

I think I’m with you on this one. It might be true that statistics will back up various work classes.

However, assigning preferences to races in such a manner is silly at best. At the same time, we’ve been admonished not to degenerate into this area, so that probably weighs into ignoring those unfortunate statements.

Don’t just lump it into some liberal baloney. It’s an individual thing, not a group thing, otherwise you are committing the same act, even if it is politically correct to remark on political affiliations in that way.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Natural gas demand is projected to outpace supply as it is; there are too many gas powerd plants, and not enough gas. The US gets like 50% of its gas from Canada, and that accounts for like 80% of Canada’s total production. Keep in mind Canada is forging stronger economic ties with china, and china is demanding resources like a mother.

As for fuel cells, they are a form of energy storage, not an energy source. The easiest way to produce hydrogen is from natural gas (if I remember correctly), which I already mentioned above. Any way you put it, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it provides.[/quote]

Hydrogen can be produced using electricity and water, remember? So the availability of hydrogen is dependent on the availability of electricity.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Rainjack may be right. Although I don’t like the idea of nuclear (unless major breakthroughs are made), the fact is that unless society changes dramatically, it is the only option. Even with nuclear energy, though, there are still things that will probably have to change.[/quote]

I don’t like Nuclear either, but, yes, the only economically viable alternative for now is Coal, of which we do have plenty of supply.

On the long run, wind and sun might be another option – and, yes, I know it’s not that easy – it’s inneficient and birds seem to have some issues with wind turbines. :slight_smile:

Essentially, I’m open for anything that helps sustaining mechanization. I’m not convinced yet Nuclear is the solution, but I can be convinced. If an unbiased, scientifically sound study proves that Nuclear is the least bad option, well, how can you argue with that? In my opinion, it’s still better than relying on cheap labor, since we’ll eventually need more electricity anyway.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Private transportation and suburbs should be the first to go.[/quote]

Well, I’m all for getting rid of private transportation. And suburbs, since it is the suburbs and their structure that are making public transit such a hard thing to implement and sell outside the East Coast.

However, I hope you understand the political and economic unfeasibility of what you’re proposing: getting rid of private transportation and suburbs would mean complete re-construction of half of the populated areas of the US. Yes, they were poorly designed in the first place, creating a huge over-reliance on electricity and private transportation, but who would pay for correcting that mistake as long as there is a perceived option of not doing it?

Even if we run out of oil I truly think that any Government would rather fill up the US with Nuclear Power Plants and switch to Fuel Cell cars than to rebuild half of the country… It’s not as energy-efficient, but it sure is much easier to sell to people.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe,

I think I’m with you on this one. It might be true that statistics will back up various work classes.

However, assigning preferences to races in such a manner is silly at best. At the same time, we’ve been admonished not to degenerate into this area, so that probably weighs into ignoring those unfortunate statements.

Don’t just lump it into some liberal baloney. It’s an individual thing, not a group thing, otherwise you are committing the same act, even if it is politically correct to remark on political affiliations in that way.[/quote]

about the lumping it into a category myself thing.
Ouch.
That hurt.
Good point. Please play through.
:slight_smile:

Sasquatch and vroom, thanks and you’re correct about starting back down the path. I don’t want to either–but I didn’t want that to go by without notice either.