Save the Arctic!
America is dependant on oil. The average American uses 40 times as much petroleum as the average Chinese citizen. We import massive amounts of oil from South America and the Middle east and we drill in our own country till Texas and half of Alaska look like Swiss cheese. Still, the bottomless American gas tanks are sucking down the petroleum and the ever-hungry eyes of the oil industry are turning towards the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is a huge tract of land in Alaska rightfully owned and inhabited by various tribes of Inuputat Indians (A.K.A. Eskimos) eeking out a subsistence living from the fragile tundra. This land is also set aside as a refuge for the Arctic’s incredible array of animals, including a threatened population caribou.
So everybody is fighting over weather we should drill up there or not, or at least they were arguing, but with an entirely Republican dominated government the argument seems to be over.
Well, I am adamantly opposed to drilling there and let me give you some good reasons to agree with me.
The American wilderness is disappearing at such a rapid rate that it only truly exists in northern Alaska and the back corner of a few imaginations. This last truly wild place should be preserved! The most optimistic estimates say that even if we drill those oil fields that it will reduce our gas prices by a maximum of 10 cents, and may take a decade to do even that. I don’t know about you, but it is definitely worth it to me to pay 10 cents per gallon to know that we have one true wilderness in our hyper modernized nation, that caribou still freely breed and migrate, that polar bears still wander across the frozen seas, that the migratory birds still have a place to nest, and that there is at least one tribe of Native Americans that we didn’t uproot, displace, rob, or slaughter.
This land is owned by native people who have followed the same time honored traditions, raised their kids the same ways, and hunted the same animals for countless centuries. Of course, they have the right to change their way of living, but it is wrong to take their land from them or to drill it, leaving only a hollow shell of what it once was. How can a person survive hunting Caribou that can’t breed any longer? How does a tribe continue to live out its traditions when they are surrounded by oil rigs and pipelines.
Let’s face it. America is entirely dependant on foreign oil, and that’s not going to change. If OPEC stopped selling to us, we’d either be totally paralyzed as a society, or we would pull out our nukes and start bombing people (most likely the latter). Also oil prices are going higher and higher as global supplies dwindle. What will happen where there is no more oil left? What will happen when only a little remains? Doesn’t it make more sense to store our oil in the Alaskan “bank”? If we find another source of energy before we have a serious crises, then that is excellent! However, when there are only a couple of reserves left, where do you want them to be? Do you want to have our total economy and culture dependant solely on Saudi Arabia? I don’t, either they would be ripping us off, or we would be killing them. Either way is bad. What oil is left will be of astronomical value, let’s not use that now.
So in summery, let’s not drill because it would be destroying something rare and precious. But if we have to, let’s be smart about it and not do it until we need to.

101 Comments:
I just wish SOMEONE would research some new technology that was cheap and really practical... btw... how was precal?
I agree. How is the world doing on alternative energy sources? Every time I hear about one, it's always on one of those really depressing all-this-really-cool-stuff-is-going-to-happen-in-like-20-years-but-I-just- got-your-hopes-up-for-it-now-because-I'm-mean kind of discovery channel shows. Is anything even close to pushing fossil fuel out of the way?
I have to agree with you too.
i have more to say, but ill enter my opinions and thoughts later.
I bet you that Russia regrets selling us Alaska for just 12 cents a square mile, huh? That was a smooth move. At the time, Sec of State Seward was widely roasted for the deal. People derided the state as "Seward's Ice Box." Sometimes people don't know what they are talking about. Just remember that!
Sometimes I wish that OPEC would just stop selling us the oil so we would be forced to figure out alternative energy sources. Come on now, we're so smart and we can't figure out another way to make our machines go? I know we could.
Who will really mis the Arctic? People that live on the and will be givin millions of dollars and will be set for the rest of their lives. Who really cares if they drill
Well maybe you don't care about human beings or how like every native civilization we've had has either been sold for stuff like this oil or just because they want more land , but i do care. These people have lives and families and a whole culture there and to kick them out is like destroying another piece of history in some senses. Anyways i totally agree were intellegent living things...why not use what God gave us and find another power source. Everyone think! lol
~Poncho
I have to agree with most of you so far. the reason why i HAVE to agree is because that post is way too long to read. I'm not going to spend like fourty days and fourty nights reading right now.
for my senior paper at UD I did a presentation on why we should drill for oil up there..
once you get past all the sentimental and emotional reasons, it can actually be done in an enviornmentally sensitive way and oil pipelines have actually provided niche habitats that have increased wildlife populations.
Hey everyone. guess what?
My song "hopes of life lately" is #13692 on the amazon free music downloads page! there are probably only like 13693 songs on the whole site, but at least i feel really cool.
**********CONGRATULATIONS SHANE!!!**********
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2788
I don't know how to do a link so just copy and paste. The author didn't post any sources but I cross referenced a few facts and they were true.
Ian I'd like to see the sources you used for your "facts". Check them very very carefully :0).
"we drill in our own country till Texas and half of Alaska look like Swiss cheese."
Actually I believe the current size of the oil drilling that's going on in Alaska is a few hundred thousand acres out of the 378,000,000 that are contained in Alaska (That's a lot of freaking acres). From what I've read the ammount of land they want to open up is 1.5 million acres. Only a very small percentage of that would actually contain oil producing facilities all of which have to abide by strict rules. I don't know what exactly the oil companies have been doing in Texas so I can't dispute your claim that it looks like swiss cheese, but I'd like to see what you read or saw that made you say that.
I'll post a little later about alternative energy sources.
hahaha, i agree too... for the same reason as Shane. lol. Sorry Ian... that's seriously a long post. ;-) haha.
OK. My 2 cents...
There is a lot of BS going around about how if proper protocol is observed, the drilling will be clean and safe and wonderful for all. Well... BS.
The fact of the matter is, this is not a perfect world. Things go wrong. Pipes break, joints leak, and a general mess is made whenever and wherever oil is drilled. The small acreage (that David talked about) has already been saturated by thousands and thousands of gallons of raw oil (reported as minor and routine leaks), killing hundreds of animals, polluting the surrounding water table, and permanently ruining that land. That is considered safe and clean by government standards.
And lets play pretend that not a drop of oil spilled... The caribou population would be demolished because the "small acreage" is right in the middle of their migratory route.
Really, this is the biggest issue in my mind. The culture of people living there would be forced off of their land that has been passed down for centuries and made to live on reservations (yes...cowboys and Indians style). Their way of life would be forcibly ended because they depend on a specific environment that literally only exists in that one part of the world, and they would no longer be allowed to make use of that land. It would not be like losing a part of history, it would be ruining a culture that currently exists. This is the stuff you read about in history books and think "how on earth could people be so cruel, so blind, so stupid...? It is flawed and racist thinking to assume that a whole group of people can be uprooted and violated because it would be "better" for a wealthier and more powerful group. So I don't care if you spill oil or not, ruining a bunch of people's lives is inexcusable.
I forgot to mention this tidbit. The United States has only three percent of the world's oil reserves. That includes texas and every other American oil field. THREE PERCENT!
This post has been removed by the author.
"The fact of the matter is, this is not a perfect world. Things go wrong. Pipes break, joints leak, and a general mess is made whenever and wherever oil is drilled. The small acreage (that David talked about) has already been saturated by thousands and thousands of gallons of raw oil (reported as minor and routine leaks), killing hundreds of animals, polluting the surrounding water table, and permanently ruining that land. That is considered safe and clean by government standards."
Where are you getting this information? None of the articles I've read have said anything about large oil spills, ruined land, or large amounts of wildlife death. They seem to have greatly improved their technology. As I understand it so far, they place everything on large amounts of graval so any big spill would sink to a safer depth and make it easier to clean up.
"And lets play pretend that not a drop of oil spilled... The caribou population would be demolished because the "small acreage" is right in the middle of their migratory route."
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1123
Check out that article. Someone needs to let me know how to do a link. Did you read the one I posted before?
I'm not trying to offend you guys or anything but you need to stop making broad statements without anything to show for it. You're trying to use your writing skills to convince people instead of facts.
As for the Native people. Has someone told them they have to leave? I havn't really done any research on it, but if the caribou are alright and the oil fields don't have much of an enviromental impact then why would the Native people have to leave? I'm sure they woulndn't mind the royalties they would get from the oil companies. Like I said though, some links to articles on this issue would be appreciated, I havn't researched it.
"Let’s face it. America is entirely dependant on foreign oil, and that’s not going to change."
Isn't that what they're trying to change by opening up the alaska oil fields?
"we would pull out our nukes and start bombing people (most likely the latter)."
This is exactly why I think we should try to build up some oil production in our own country. If we have at least some oil production here we would have more time to resolve issues with OPEC and not have to resort to war.
"What will happen when only a little remains?"
Actually there are some new theories out about where oil comes from. People have been saying for years that it all comes from fossils, but do you really think that trillions of gallons of oil could all come from the rotting flesh of fossils? That would take trillios of fossils. I don't even think the world could support that much life. Also, They have found old dry oil wells that have refilled with oil. This seems to dismiss the fossil theory. I'll have to try and find some sites to back all this up sometime.
DISCLAIMER - THIS IS MY OWN DUMB THEORY OF WHERE OIL COMES FROM :0)
I think maybe oil is a byproduct of lava. As rock is constantly being melted and cooled it creates oil. Something like the dusty carbon that is left when you're welding something. Who knows though, this is just something Jaret and I came up with hehe.
"Doesn’t it make more sense to store our oil in the Alaskan “bank”? If we find another source of energy before we have a serious crises, then that is excellent! However, when there are only a couple of reserves left, where do you want them to be? Do you want to have our total economy and culture dependant solely on Saudi Arabia? I don’t, either they would be ripping us off, or we would be killing them. Either way is bad. What oil is left will be of astronomical value, let’s not use that now."
I think something you're forgeting is it takes a long time to develope the infostructure needed to pump oil. If there were a crisis, we would need it right at that moment. Instead of saying "wow we saved all this oil up now it's going to take us 10 years to start pumping it out at a large rate", we would want to be able to say "wow there's a crisis, lets step up the production of the system we already have in place"
Heh while i sit here and eat chocolate which is the best btw and read this...its really amazing how intellegent and deep thinkers the look machiners are. lol i read the whole post cuz it was actually very enlightening and nice to know some people care about mankind. Well i am gonna go enjoy this fine assortment of chocolates...what a pleasure! hehe and good job Shane...just now send random emails to people saying like this new and upcoming artist has even Celebrities talking! Eh somthing like that. heh that would be cool id you did do that!
~Poncho
Alright I'm done for tonight. Unlike my brother, I really don't like researching and typing and thinking too hard. I'll continue with you guys tomorrow if you want to. Maybe one more comment later tonight too, but for now I'm done. Eventually I'll get around to posting what I think about replacement technologies. I bet you guys can't wait, :0).
Have a good night.
Ok, could somebody tell me what they think are the advantages to drilling up there? I have spelled out what I see as the disadvantages: destruction of the last great american wilderness and displacement of native peoples bing the most prominant. What are the benefits?
David, sure Alaska is huge, but so is the rest of America. there was a time when people said, "look, here is a little sliver of civilization on the edge of a huge continant, let's move inward." After all there are 9,161,923 sq km of land here. Where is that land today? It's paved, farmed, and stolen from the people who originally inhabited it. Why do the same thing to Alaska?
Something else to think about, america uses 19.65 million bbl/day of oil. We have 22.45 billion bbl of known oil in reserves. That is roughly enough to last us three years at the current consumption rate. Is it worth it?
Also, look at history. The native Americans who owned Manhattan island were happy for the "royalties" they got for that. A handful of red beads and a few ax heads. Then they were moved off, killed or forced onto reservations. It sucks to be a native American, no two ways around it. How about those who lived near Sanfransisco in 1848? There was gold under their tribal lands. We couldn't be dependant on foriegn gold, so we mined it. where is their traditional way of life? gone... Where are they today? gone... or drinking their way towards oblivion on tiny substandard reservations.
You just can't live off the land while the blood is being sucked out of it. Maybe in a perfectly ideal world, but that's not ours. Show me one good example of a native culture that exists healthily and traditionaly along side of modern development.
Confucious say: "Much talking with no sources make Snake Man skeptical."
Now Confucious was all about wisdom and being wise and smart and stuff, so you need to ask yourself some important questions, like - Do I want to make the Snake Man skeptical? What is a Snake Man? Does he taste good on egg mcmuffins? When is dinner?
Also, just as an FYI, global warming will eventually melt all the eskimos away. So that's no problem.
I also think "Melting Alaskan Eskimos" would be a sweet name for a band. Right up there with "Caribou Oil Monkeys."
Hehe... those are funny names... wow! this topic certainly sprouted off fast!(not irrelevantly... I mean alot of people &/or the same ones have posted alot)I dunno... it's really weird... I do think that we should be considerate of other people (i.e. Eskimos) and I don't think we should go ruining their lives. On the other hand, i CERTAINLY hope we are past rounding up people and slaughtering them for their land. (that's the way some people depict it anyway) I'm actually part American Indian, not that that has anything to do with a hill of beans. I think that if they agree and are willing to give it up, rather than be "forced off" THEIR land, that it's ok. I really do think it would be great to find some other energy sources tho...
See, it's weird. We enjoy the luxury of our good ol' US of A, but certainly don't appreciate how it was gotten. and I fit right in with this category of mixed gratitude and slight distress... Awful things occured.
We should ask the Eskimos... yeah... that might help...
'Night ya'llses!
David - Healthy debate is a great thing, don't worry about offending us with your comments.
I am not an expert on this, not at all. Here is a comment though.
From a cursory examination of the articles about this, there are 2 sides. One is that it will destroy the land. The other that it is clean and will make no real difference. I think that the truth probably lies between those two extremes. So you're going to mess it up, but not completely. Everything does have a cost. . . so it what you're going to get worth the inevitable mess (environmental, cultural, etc.)? I am on the side here of "probably not." 3 years of forestalling the inevitable? I'd rather just bottle up some lava and test David's theory of oil development. (ie start taking research of alternative solutions more seriously)
Our national history is littered with shame for the ways we treated the natives we found here. I'm not an America hater by any means, but it's a sad sad thing that America did. Europeans introduced alchohol to them, took away their social institutions, and gave them land that no one else wanted. Then when they died their bones were picked and displayed in our museums. It's unbelievable if you really think about it, that all this really happened.
Snakey, sorry about no citations. If you are interested, I have gotten my info from Outside Magazine, "the crude reality" from february 2004, an article that is, surprisingly enough, pro drilling. It says like Jason hinted at, that there is middle ground. They suggest that we drill this middle ground.
The america stats I got from the CIA world fact book. Anybody who is interested, I will send those things to.
"Maybe in a perfectly ideal world, but that's not ours"
Yeah that's the problem. It's hard to find the right balance between developement and preservation. I love wide open spaces and would love to move away from the congestion of the coasts but then I would be contributing to the developement. It would be very nice to move out west and get away from this freaking Newark traffic though.
I'm not 100% possitive I support drilling in Alaska. I just don't think it would "obliterate" the enviroment like some say it would. What I would really like to see happen would be for the U.S. to take over the entire middle east, then we would have plenty of oil hehe.
haha - this is a huge topic but I'm not too sure where I stand. I think I'm more for drilling in Alaska. Senator Pete Domenici, who is the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee, has said that we have the technology to obtain the oil in such a way as would not disrupt the environment or the inhabitants.
Check out http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138058,00.html
I need some sources about all the oil spills and the Government 'safety-stamp-approved-although-permanently-ruined' land in current drilling spots in Alaska that Collin mentioned.
And hey, what about all the other animal habitats and ecosystems and environments that are being effected by oil drilling? How careful are they over in the Middle East to preserve their unique wild life? In America we have GREAT concern for this kind of thing - the environment is really important and so is preserving it - and America is full of very opinionated and active environmentalists that don't let anyone forget it. But we also have cars, and I don't know about you but I'm partial to heating systems especially around this time of year.. - we are an industrialized nation that heavily relies on oil...greatly. I read somewhere that the President is going to focus on alternatives to oil, so maybe someday we won't have to drill and disrupt any ecosystems. However, under present conditions and especially because of the war in Iraq, I think it's important for America to be able to produce it's own oil - it's more secure and also cheaper. If we can do that with minimal damage done to valued and rare wildlife and its habitats, then great! And from what I've read, the experts say that's what we're able to do.
-Rachel
There should be a $1/gallon tax on gasoline that is used to fund the Iraq war and seek alternatives to oil. However, truckers and industry would be exempt. (That way we wouldn't see the prices of everything we use rise).
As much as I am against higher and higher taxes, this one makes sense to me. We pay far too LITTLE for gasoline, and if we had to pay more, we would be less apt to waste it. We would drive more fuel efficient cars. We would give rides to other people and share the gas cost. We'd fill our tires so that our car drove at peak efficiency. . . We do need to get a sense of the true cost of gasoline. . .
By the way, here is a link about some of the pollution that has occurred at the "environmentally safe" oil operations in Alaska:
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pollution/oil-pipes-example-1.htm
. . . I just wanted to hear more about cold fusion and powering New York City with a glass of water . . . I never wanted to melt any eskimoes . . . I like eskimoes . . . and caribou . . . their both cute.
David--EX Band Member. :)
Watch yourself! They're going to excommunicate you from the band... and keep your drumset... :)
Hey! I'm #10845 on Amazon now! not just in my genre, but in the total downloads!
Yeah, Jason you may be right about the American people taking gasoline for granted...but I happen to be one of the many poor college students who can hardly afford these outrageous gas prices let alone by a more fuel efficient vehicle. We need a long term solution, certainly - but we also need a short term one as well.
-Rachel
Gas costs less than milk or orange juice. It costs about the same as bottled water. It costs less than half what it costs anywhere else in the world. I don't think the prices are outrageous at all. But I would agree that low income people should somehow be exempt from the $1 tax, because some people can literally not afford it at all.
But most can, and should I think.
By the way, I'm really not for taxes at all. But I do agree with paying the true cost of something. And both alternative energy searches and wars fought to secure our energy future cost money, so they should be paid for by people using that energy.
Ian,
I couldn't agree more, and as the new Bush administration and Republican Congress gear up to try to open the Arctic to drilling, we need to do something about it now. The Wilderness Society has started an outreach campaign, and you can take action or learn more by going to: http://www.wilderness.org/arctic.
Yeah, too bad our cars can't run on 1 or 2 gallons of gas each week just as milk is used by most families. I'm not trying to argue this point though - I'm just saying that oil is necessary for the vitality of our country and that it would be better to become less dependant on other countries for it. Again, credible sources have said we can do this without detremental effects. I still need to research that more though - I've just not given in to the mindset that drilling in Alaska will cause a rare breed of deer to become extinct or greatly hinder the native people. I have to go to class so I'll try to post later...have a nice day!
-Rachel
Did you know that the U.S. has a reserve of oil all ready drilled ready to be used for three hundred years so why are u worrying about this dumb oil issue. Get A life and start putting some new songs on your site!
300 years! Not sure about that one.
We're working on the new stuff!
The American Petroleum Institute (API) estimates remaining recoverable U.S. oil is about 200,000,000,000 barrels(2) . According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of Oct 2000 the U.S. oil demand is 420,000 barrels/day(4) .
Using these figures, I calculate the following first figures:
420,000 barrels/day times 365 days/year = 153,300,000 barrels/year
200,000,000,000 barrels divided by 153,300,000 barrels/year = 1,300 years.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mdmcnally/AimeeoilsuppliesR.htm
there is where I got it go head and look
a tear comes to my eye. it feels like old times...
first, wow... shane that was mean, kidding or not, calling david an ex band member. i understand, you're just sticking up for your brothers and all. but david, shane wasn't kidding when he said watch yourself, he'll attack you from behind, when you're in a match with someone else.
secondly, you should also ask yourself will snake man lose all his money at poker tongiht? yes
Hey Everybody! I think it's awesome that everyone is expressing genuine interest and concern for the oil drilling issue in Alaska. I realized that as I read the different points of view from you guys that I did not know enough facts myself to form a nonbiased view, so I did some research :) I agree that the answer to this problem does probably lie somewhere between the two point of views. However, what I gathered is that in the past oil spills created major problems in the environment, however current technology has radically reduced much of the potential damage. Also, the majority of the damage is not from the drilling itself, which studies show has not harmed the surrounding wildlife and has actually increased the caribou population, but from the damage done to the open areas from the infastructures built for the workers, including housing and roads.
"The report also says that thousands of acres of tundra vegetation have been destroyed and that "wilderness values" - a broader term encompassing solitude and scenic qualities - have been compromised in a much larger area. The problem has not been the individual wells but associated infrastructure, like
roads, pipelines and housing." http://www.gaspig.com/nytimes04.htm
However....
"When the 800-mile trans-Alaskan pipeline was built, temporary access roads were required for construction and maintenance. A breakthrough in road technology has eliminated the need for these gravel roads that leave an impact on the environment. Ocean water is pumped onto the tundra where it freezes to form an ice road from which maintenance can be done during the winter. In the summer these roads melt and leave no trace. Vehicles with huge rubber tires use the roads. Ice roads are also used for oil exploration."
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2788
I think it is very encouraging that there are these postive breakthroughs that are seeking to keep the environment protected! The idea that oil drilling always results in terrorizing the environment is exagerrated.
For example the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge said..
"It is important to realize that the Exxon Valdez oil spill was not an anomaly. Oil spills are a common occurrence at oil production fields and during transport. At Prudhoe Bay, for example, there is at least one reportable spill a day." http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/complaint.html
However, another website says...
"At Prudhoe Bay the vast majority of oil spills are small and never leave the gravel pads. All spills are promptly reported to government agencies and thoroughly cleaned up. There are about 250 spills each year, which sounds terrible, but a “spill” includes a single drop of oil. By this standard the average parking lot has more oil spills than that each year. Of those 250 spills, nearly half are zero-to five-gallon spills that never leave the gravel pad. The contaminated gravel is all scooped up and taken to an incinerator where the oil is burned off." http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2788
Statistics can be twisted in order to meet an agenda.
Some other developments...
"The oil is not pumped from the wells but, when the reserve is tapped, the oil flows out under natural pressure. This means that the wells are not only small, but quiet. Modern technology has made it possible to build the oil fields on gravel pads that make a solid foundation for the equipment and insulate the underlying permafrost. Previously, oil drilling pads had to be big enough to accommodate many reserve pits to hold the waste water and mud from drilling. Now, however, a new technique of pumping the wastes back into the ground eliminates the waste of space, maintains a sub-surface pressure high enough to keep oil flowing, and reduces the possibility of spills on the tundra. If oil is not found directly beneath the well location, the well can be drilled horizontally, again reducing the area of land affected by the oil development."
AND
"Environmentalists claim that oil drilling affects the wildlife; however, if the drill sites are any indication, most animal populations are not affected or their numbers have risen. Caribou numbers, for example, grew from 3,000 at the beginning of Prudhoe development to 5,500 at the end of development. From there the population steadily increased to its present number of 20,000 animals. A group of about 100 caribou usually winters in the Prudhoe area. The oil producing companies have taken great care to elevate the pipeline or build ramps over it for caribou migration. The only snow goose colony in the United States has also steadily increased from 50 to 180 nests."
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2788
However, drilling can never come without costs.
"The National Academies of Science and Engineering yesterday delivered a mixed verdict on the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration on Alaska's North Slope, crediting the oil industry and government with doing much to minimize the environmental impact but warning that adverse consequences have not been eliminated and will continue to accumulate in the region." http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=20689
Some of the rules for drilling do seem a little extreme....
"One rule bars tundra travel unless there is 12 inches of frozen ground and six inches of snow cover."
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23126/newsDate/16-Dec-2003/story.htm
"To put the size of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in perspective, keep in mind that Alaska contains 591,000 square miles, or about 378,000,000 acres. The ANWR is five percent of Alaska or 19 million acres. Of these acres, eight percent have been proposed for development, and only one percent would be affected by oil production. This means that about 15,000 acres, or .004 percent of Alaska, would be affected. Actual production facilities including roads, drilling pads, living quarters, and pipelines would cover a thousand acres." http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2788
So, this is NOT a huge area--the result is not going to be a beautiful environment that is 1/2 the size of Alaska transformed into Swiss Cheese :) .004 percent is pretty darn small if you think about it and this is including the roads and living quarters, not just the drilling.
I found lots more and I can try to post more later. I see both sides of the issue but I do think that there are positive changes and that it is vital that we become less dependent on Middle-Eastern oil :)
---Katie
This is really amazing... yesterday there were 20 comments and now 42 i believe. Wow thats gotta be a record. Ok well I have been following along with everything and katie has a great point. I mean yes i agree that strting that project is wrong in a sense that these people living there will be kicked out and such and i do care but hey it IS pretty small. I'm not choosing sides here. Im just saying how i feel from what i read so far. Katie states back pretty strong and has well researched her comments. Yet again so has everyone else who feels that we shouldn't drill there. I really don't know what to pick because both views have strong evidence and good theories to back it up. Also Rachel is right too. Becoming dependent on other countries is turning up sour and we should be less depedent however drilling into a land with natives that have been ther for generations? yea it is pretty messed up but ahhhh. You know i just can't choose because all of you make such great points. Keep up the good work and im gonna research a little about this so that i can actually see what is wrong and what is right. My curiousity is very bad heh.
~Poncho
Wow
Nice, Katie :) - beautifully researched and stated.
-Rach
Some of the "technological breakthroughs" are nothing but cheaper and more destructive ways of doing things. The ice roads that are mentioned above are FAR more destructive that gravel or even paved roads. The tundra is a very delicate environment where much of the plant and animal life is decimated by the salt in the water used. The salt also seeps deep into the ground and into the water table causing damage that spreads far out beyond the immediate area. So those "harmless little roads" are basically an 800 mile ribbon of poison being poured into the land. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pollution/oil-pipes-example-1.htm
Also, yes, there are a lot of very little spills, but oil companies and people pushing for developent use that to point the finger at environmentalists and act like they are blowing things out of proportion. THERE ARE VERY BIG SPILLS TOO. 228,000 gallons were spilled in one incident, and 92,000 in another. These were 2 of hundreds of large spills. http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pollution/oil-pipes.htm
Also, some claim that wildlife numbers have increased since drilling has begun, but these #s are misleading. Over 500 scientists sent a letter to the federal government explaining that the drilling is a confounded variable. The things responsible include strange weather patterns, new hunting laws, and the death of natural predators. http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=735
Basically, it is a BIG problem but people try to cover it up to push a political and finantial agenda, so don't research lightly. Push through the fluff and find out what is really going on.
After perusing everyone's opinions (I didn't read any of them), I think it's clear that Childish is insecure about the fact that Snake Man is about to lay down the hammer and take all his/her money in poker tonight.
** - Note the use of "his/her" in the above wordage. Ask yourself why the all-knowing Snake Man would use that phrase when he would obviously be aware of Childish's gender. Then laugh if you catch the Snake Man's drift. Haha. Like that.
Snake Man 1
Childish 0
Any topic where we can get the Snake Man to post comments is a great one in my book.
There are so many conflicting statistics and numbers that we could argue about them untill hell freezes over and the polar ice caps are entirely melted.
Think about the last point in my post. We consume so much oil that we will still be dependant on foriegn oil if we drill there. Granted, it would be less, but still we would be quite dependant. The known oil reserves in the world are being depleted. I say we save ours for a rainy day.
"We consume so much oil that we will still be dependant on foriegn oil if we drill there."
- Maybe not so much according to Chairman Pombo:
"As we continue our work on a national energy policy in the 109th Congress, the successful Gulf policies should serve as a model for other domestic projects, especially ANWR. ANWR, for example, would yield roughly 1.5 million barrels per day to the U.S. market. Couple that with the Interior Department’s estimates for future Gulf production and we could replace the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iraq combined." http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/releases/2004/1116incentives_access.htm (I don't know how to do a direct link either...)
I also recommend visiting:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/issues/emr/report/resources.htm#undiscovered
This guy Pombo also says: "If we are going to be serious about decreasing our dependence on foreign sources, we must increase access to currently off-limit and resource-rich federal lands for energy production. We know from our success in the Gulf that this simple measure breathes life into the market, increases supply, and creates good jobs for Americans. The Gulf history also reinforces the fact that a thriving energy market fosters the innovation of new technologies for the future. In short, it is clear that where there is access and incentive, there will be innovation and increased supply. We will ‘run out of oil’ only when we run out of the will to fuel innovation."
Jobs (or lack thereof) was a huge topic of interest during the presidential election. This endeavor would create quite a good number of job openings and help boost our economy more.
If we don't drill, then our reserves will dwindle and we will become even moreso dependant on foreign sources.
"Bush said he stopped in Alaska a week ago on his way to Asia and met with many Alaskans, including "native leaders who want to preserve the grandeur of their state while carefully developing the energy beneath a small fraction of it."
"New technology makes this possible. Our national security makes it urgent. Alaskans know firsthand that modern technology allows us to bring oil to the surface cleanly and safely, while protecting our environment and wildlife," Bush said. "We should listen to Alaskans who support exploring ANWR in a safe and clean way."
http://www.rense.com/general20/bushsaysdrill.htm
There is risk involved in Alaska - the Governor of Alaska knows this and still he supports drilling. I think America becoming stronger and stabler is cause enough for facing those risks with responsibility and safety precautions. The leaders of our country are telling us this is what we can do, so let's do it.
-Rachel
The Leaders of our country said we could win the war in Iraq and be out of there in no time. That's why I trust them so much.
Simon
I wish I could come up with retorts like Simon. When I try, I just end up stammering or crying or drooling. Alot.
Rachel, note that these are our republican leaders saying this. Ask Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, they will give you a different story. Now I understand that Clinton had sex with somebody who wasn't his wife and supported abortion while he was in office, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider a democrats point of view.
In the past, our leaders have said all kinds of interesting stuff we could do. Like, "it's fine to own slaves" and "it's ok to be seperate if we keep things equal." It's good to have some faith in your leaders, but not a blind faith.
I stammered once. For 20 minutes. Naked.
Al Gore invented the internet, sliced bread and the Rocky Mountains. And ice cream cones. He rocks.
But I still think we should melt the Eskimos and turn Alaska into oil-flavored swiss cheese.
("Oil-flavored Swiss Cheese" is a sweet band name if I ever heard one. And I've heard one.)
Yes, I understand this - very true. I think that came out differently than I intended, but I want to say that I do not have blind trust in the government or in Republican leaders...I just tend to agree with Republicans more. My main stance was that America needs to become less dependant on foreign oil. In addition to this, researchers, scientists, and political leaders submit to us that we have the technology to perform Arctic 'sensitive' (for lack of a better word...it is 2 in the morning...) drilling procedures. Not that we should do whatever they say without even checking sources. That's what I meant, but thanks for calling me on that one.
-Rachel
If you check into the "sensitive" ways for drilling, they are far less safe than drillers and republican leaders would have you believe.
1. Using ice for roads... Using salt water is horribly detrimental to the arctic environment and there is not enough fresh water to accomplish this task.
2. Creating "back pressure" underground so we don't have to drill deeply... this involves the use of millions of gallons of guess what... salt water. It is not only polluting, but it also stirs up lots of junk that corrode the insides of the pipes in pipelines and cause MAJOR spills in remote areas of wildlife preserves.
3. Government regulations to promote safty... these regulations do not apply to the pipelines, only the actual drill sites. The worst spills and leaks occur for away from the drill sites.
So yes, there are technological advancements, but these do NOT garuntee safe and non toxic drilling. They are currently being used in the Alaskan oil fields that are in use, where some of the worst pollution in history has occurred in the last 5 years. If you want sources, I have em. Don't be fooled by politicians with huge sums of money on the line. There are real concerns being masked by "New "Technology."
After perusing everyone's opinions (I didn't read any of them), I think it's clear that Childish is insecure about the fact that Snake Man is about to lay down the hammer and take all his/her money in poker tonight.
** - Note the use of "his/her" in the above wordage. Ask yourself why the all-knowing Snake Man would use that phrase when he would obviously be aware of Childish's gender. Then laugh if you catch the Snake Man's drift. Haha. Like that.
Snake Man 1
Childish 0
Snake man i forgive you for attcking me(so hurtful). i realize you are doing so just to hide your own painful issues of gender. i can see through your facade. You are overly compensating for it. i mean SNAKE MAN, come on, why don't you call yourself jig man or third appendage man instead. my heart bleeds for you.
You are a hermaphrodite, and there's nothing you can do about it. come to grips with it, man (or should i say it). everyone already knows that you're a hermaphroditic, horrid poker player.
sorry didn't mean to paste snake man's comment to my post... please forgive.
snake man 1 childish 10
I was reading this and I favored leaving the arctic pristine untill I read the incredible arguments for how drilling would provide jobs and boost the economy. Now I am all for it!
The economy is important, and anything that adds jobs is a blessing. People need to work, right? Industry is essential for people to get jobs. Like the pornography industry. It's a multi billion dollar industry stimulating the economy and providing jobs for thousands of actors, producers, writers, directors, sales reps, etc... it is an essential part of our economy.
How about the abortion industry?! Think about all of the doctors that buy themselves a lexus with the proceeds from fetus killing. Their lexus purchases support countless assembly line workers, miners, dealers, and the like.
Now you have convinced me, we need more abortion, more porn, and we should drill in Alaska! Or maybe you need a new argument.
Simon
Again! If I had tried to say what Simon just said, it would have come out like, "Yeah, We-we-well you're more stupider than the economy"; All the while, I would be drooling and then I would probably slip and fall on my drool puddle as I was leaving.
Kudos to Simon the Arguistic Genius!
Why thank you, Xerxes, the nudistic genious!
Simon
Who is this one who calls himself Simon?
simon i simply love you...you are amzing. palkovitz's-excellent arguments. be wary of those that argue with you using stats from fox news reports...even demons would quote scripture to prove a point.
here is the official list of who is right and who is wrong...
Jason you are right. Americans pay the least amount for gas in the world. Europeans pay way way more, so they are more conserving of resources. Of course this is out the window if the whole lava is oil thing happens...
David you are wrong. Sure people can write gorgeous caveats about the beauty and grace of oil drilling, but odds are they are making money from it and live nowhere near where it happens. It ruins environments and any place where nature is making headway is simply an attest the awesomeness of God's creation.
Collin Ian- Christians nowadays cant stand when an argument that anything is more important than money is floated. Protect nature! Preposterous! Obviously you are naive in the ways of the world. Money is God to many Christian.
Rachel- wrong..but then you always are!
Snakeman-wrong..but i have no reason to say so. so what?
Josh- right..check with me in four years when this country is a Taliban-like religious regime awash in pollution and poverty.
blah
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
At least I was right about the Lava thing. Keep in mind Jaret and I came up with this before I found this article. Yeah, I'm a genious.
Oh please :) 'Blah,' I'm sorry - I must not have gotten the memo that said that you were overseer of all that is right and wrong :) This is how I see it - whether we drill or not we have got to become less dependent on the Middle East (who just LOVE us..) one way or another. So, either we drill and at the same time try to preserve the beautiful arctic - or we sell our cars and buy real good bikes to peddle our ways to work and school :) I'm done - have fun ordaining who is right and wrong.
-Rachel
Xerxes... you make me laugh... that was GENIOUSLY funny!!!! I even copied it down into my little book of quotes and things to have memories about... good job :-)
question? What is with all the "nakedness"???
Also, I actually met a little girl who was born hemaphroditic and she was so cute and sweet :-) Weird concept... but hey, it happens.
oops.... wrong one
Snake Man: [innocent comment not relating to Childish]
Childish: "Hehe, Snake Man's gonna lose money in poker! Hehe!"
Snake Man: "Childish is a girl."
Childish: "Hehe, [various inappropriate sexual innuendos]! Hehe!"
Snake Man: "Childish is an overgrown second-grader with the intellectual capacity of asphalt. And he/she lost all of his/her money in poker whilst Snake Man did not."
Childish: "Hehe, I said 'hermaprhodite' again! Hehe!"
Snake Man: 2
Childish: is a girl
Rachel, maybe you are onto something that every other country in the world has already cought onto. Maybe if we can't afford gasfor our big guzzling cars we should get smaller ones. Don't have the money? Maybe we SHOULD get biles. I have spent a few months in Thailand. The per capita income there is less than 1/4 of what it is here, yet gas is twice as expensive. Everybody stil manages to get around. They have good transportation but guess what else... BIKES!!! Everyone and their mother rides little mopeds that get like 50 miles to the gallon. You don't even have to be rich to afford one either. You can buy a moped for like 500 dollars and then get like 70 miles to the gallon. So there is no question about whether we CAN afford more expensive gas. It is whether we want to give up our cushy cars or even thnk about anything besides ourselves when we drive.
Sone colder countries in Europe (where you can't ride a bike all year) have gas that is like 4 times as expensive as here. People still manage to live quite well. They carpool, hitch-hike, use public transport and drive smaller cars. There are ways around it.
Collin - I think you're right. But I don't know how realistic it would be for America - even though I think it would be really good for the American people (I'm sure it would help the obesity epidemic, etc.). In this hostile time we have to be concerned with security, also. So I don't really know what would be best to do - just keep all this in mind along with your environmental concerns.
-Rachel
Rachel, maybe it wouldn't be the most convenient or comfortable thing, but it is not in any way unrealistic for americans to ride bikes or motorcycles. I'm telling you, billions of other people do it just fine. I do it quite often. There is nothing wrong with that Idea except that people would have to change their preconceived ideas of what is acceptable. Is there any reason you NEED to ride in a car on your way to school instead of a moped?
Snake man, I am a caring, sensitive soul (cough). And I was just reaching out to you to help you with your "condition", and you pushed me away so hurtfully. I may very well be an over grown second grader, with the IQ of a donut hole. But you of all people should know how hurtful it is when people insult other people about their gender issues. I mean, I’ve been there, I’ve heard it when kids and random people off the street come up to you and say, "Hahah, you have ovaries." or "EWW, that man has a uterus, mommy." I see the pain in your eyes. It is alright man, we all are only here to help.
Collin - I think it would be great if Americans became less dependent on cars and explored other alternate means of getting from place to place - bike riding would suit me fine! But even though there are people who already do this, such as yourself, I don't know if America as a whole (or even as a majority) could ever become like England or other countries who only resort to cars in cold weather. Vehicles are engrained in our culture now, for one thing. Turning 21: you legally have the right to drink. Age 18: now you can smoke. Age 16: Wahoo, now I can drive and buy my first car! I'm not saying this can never be changed - but it definitely would be tough. You also have your business man/woman status to uphold - your car and how expensive it is is an asset to you seen by your superiors - just like that nice suit or black dress. Ya know what I mean? I'm not saying I uphold all this or am proud of it, but that's the way America is. Or at least the more industrialized parts. I think it would be great to go out west or anywhere with actual clear countryside - it would be such a joy to be outdoors walking or biking places. I could be wrong, but unless the government starts limiting oil availability to the American people, I don't see a change in our dependancy on cars.
-Rachel
i like it that here in these United States of AMERICA. Here we have these symbols of status and age. It puts everyone in their place. We don't want people thinking they're better than they are, now do we. Driving, smoking, and drinking are the prime examples. Heck, i like to express my american status (drivingsmokingdrinking) all at the same time. ROCK ON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
~ Jeremiah Johnson
Rachel, I have nothing against cars or people who drive them. I just think people should realize that they don't NEED to keep the lifestyles they have.
Collin - how do you propose going about that? It could happen - people's lifestyles and views can change...but I can't help but be pessimistic about this one. I think people should realize that they don't need to keep their current lifestyles, too - but I don't think it will happen. Such an overthrow of cultural and popular thinking would be extremely hard to accomplish - I can't even imagine a plan or pose a solution that would bring about this change in America...well, at least not in this century. Just my thoughts...
-Rachel
anyone else think snake man just slithered away to hide under a rock?
One way to force a change in lifestyle would be adding a $1 per gallon gasoline tax. More expensive gas = more carpooling and more public transportation and more efficient cars purchased.
If gas was $5 per gallon, I bet that you would suddenly find that you could afford a more gas efficient vehicle, that, "oh my gosh! I could drive less!" or that you could car pool. Money is a powerful motivator, it changes societies like nothing else. Just ask the Inuputat.
Ok, maybe...but that doesn't fix the dependancy problem. I don't mean the dependency that Americans' have on their cars - I mean the dependancy of the United States on the Middle East.
-Rachel
I think Ian is getting to one concept- money! Those oil prices are jacked way too high! They/we don't need all that tax. We should dump it all in the bay some night dressed as Afghans....hmmm
Yes, we should be concerned about oil spills, and 'saving the planet', but I don't think taking a few thousand acres of ALASKA (state motto: 'alone and nowhere to go') is going to do anyone any harm. I've enjoyed reading all this and those brilliantly researched comments about the oil lasting 1300 years or whatever. This can be taken right along with the people who say the world is overpopulated so lets use birth control...
~ET
E.T. I can only hope you were using satire.
Go look at the wonderful 1300 year research. It is a website litterally put up by a second grader based on their calculations.
Yeah, it's time to think about birth control. I don't know what planet you are from, but mine is filling up way too fast. Sorry to shock you, but wake up! Humans are going to starve themselves.
Sure, Alaska is huge, but if you want to know the reasons that I think drilling would be harmful, you can read my original post. In my opinion, the costs of drilling now far overshaddow the benefits we might get from it. but go ahead, overpopulate the world, burn too much oil, destroy the last wild places, then when you are done get back on your space ship and disappear into your lala planet. I mean come on! It's not like you have to share this planet whith anybody else, do whatever you want with it!
Rachel, the U.S. gets surprisingly little of our oil from the middle east. Europe and Japan import more from them than we do. We already produce half of our own oil, and much of rest of it comes from south america. I think that the problem of dependancy will be best solved by diversifying our sources. we could import from brunei, russia is opening many new reserves, East Timor (a new country in the Indonesian arpichelago) has vast oil reserves, and on top of all that you could conserve by driving a smaller car.
PEOPLE, NEITHER OIL NOR MELTING ALASKANS IS THIS INTERESTING. PLEASE MOVE ON TO MORE MEANINGFUL TOPICS, LIKE HOW COOL IT WOULD BE IF IT RAINED CHOCOLATE MILK EVERY WEDNESDAY. THANK YOU.
(side note: Childish is still a girl, and I don't talk to girls with beards. Especially not online, because girls with beards tend to be bad, bad people. Like Peewee Herman and Al Gore.)
I just got on here to say what Ian said, but I won't repeat it. He's a quick commenter.
As far as birth control goes, I do hope you were kidding. I know people who "don't believe in birth control." Well you better freaking believe it, because if everybody had as many kids as those people do, there would literally be 216 BILLION people in the world within our lifetimes!!! There is no possible way that our world could support that many people. Everything has a maximum carrying capacity, and the earth's is FAR less than 216,000,000,000!!! I will write a whole post on that sometime, but I just wanted to give you a sneak peak.
GASP. Well, I must have hit a nerve. True, oil in Alaska is no big deal. We could get along without it. A second grader's website? Wow, this second grader knows how to do some work! Too bad not all children are this educated. (must be homeschooled) grin.
As for overpopulation: What are we suggesting, that God forGOT the second coming so now we will run earth dry? God put Adam and Eve in the garden and said be fruitful and multiply yet didn't think it would EVER grow to 6 billion people? Yikes, that's scary, we are surprising God! Blessed is the man whose quiver is FULL of them (meaning children!). Who do you know that would go to battle with his quiver full of 2 arrows? Yes, there is an extreme, but isn't it God who opens and shuts the womb anyway? It is a mathmatical fact that (ok, the stats were "only" on a population of 5 billion) every person in the world, if the high rises were like NYC, could live in an area the size of WV, OH, IN, MO, and IL- the rest of the land could be for farming, and precious wilderness for dose poor widdle animals. Every one in the world could have a 70 acre farm and we would only fill the US, MX, Brazil, Venezuala, and Columbia. The ENTIRE EASTERN hemisphere wouldn't need to have any dirty humans on it. So, we are NOT overcrowded. Mismanaged perhaps...due to sin. Poverty does NOT come from overpopulation. This from a book by an INDIAN missionary TO India:
"India's squalor and poverty is the fruit of Hinduism;
Haiti's sqaulor and poverty is the fruit of voodooism;
Afghanistan's squalot and poverty is the fruit of Islam; N. Korea's squalor and poverty is the fruit of communism; Laos and Cambodia's squalor and poverty are the fruit of Buddhism;The Philippines squalor and poverty is the fruit of Roman Catholicism; The USA's liberty, affluence, and prosperity is the fruit of Christianity! America didn't make Christianity great, Christianity made America Great! We, of course, are falling because we have lost that concept, and any other nation would be blessed if they would accept that concept- just to clear up any misunderstandings. grin
~ET
Is Saudi Arabia's incredible affluence (all of their citizens get free education, health care, pay NO taxes, and many in fact get nice hand outs) due to the fruits of Islam?
God opens and closes the wombs, yes true. Does that mean people have no responsibility in the way they use them? He creates hands too, right? But does that mean one can use hands to strangle someone? He created eyes, but does that mean I can use mine to watch pornography? Or is the womb the only body part that is somehow unaffected by a fallen world, while all others need to be used with discretion. . . God has created all body parts with a certain function, but there is still a responsible and irresponsible way to utilize those functions. . .
Who is going to be the one to tell Jesus that he disobeyed God's command to be fruitful and multiply and that now he has to go into battle with no quivers? Or maybe such reasoning would be taking verses out of context? You decide and then deliver whatever message you see fit. :-)
AhHA, but in that instance it would GOD who chose for that person to 'go to battle with no arrows', not US. My point was, we shouldn't play God. We do what He asks, and leave the rest to Him. Some will only have 2, some will have 10. That is up to God. Besides, doesn't it makes SENSE to raise up godly children to combat the evil of the world? If Muslims are each having 5-7 kids and Christians only want '1.2', who is going to have the most influence on today's culture? ~ET
The best form of birth control would be abstinence, are you saying that people are sinning if they choose not to have sex at all possible times?
I know you're not. . . I'm just making an extreme point.
I differ from Collin in that I think it is someone's choice whether they want to have 5-12 kids, and that is fine. He makes some good points about overpopulation, and I think people should make the decision responsibly, but I don't think it's morally wrong to have a lot of kids.
But I also differ from you where you think it's a mandate to have as many kids as you can.
That is simply not a mandate that applies to every human being, not at all. Paul says that the abstinent life is a wonderful (even preferable) one. If one remains abstinate, one will have no children. So you have God telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply (which makes sense, right, since there are no people yet), and then you have Paul telling the NT church that it would also be good if they didn't have kids at all (which again makes sense, since the world was by then populated and there were many other things with which people could be occupied). So everywhere between those 2 extremes (many kids and no kids) is fair game, and within "God's will."
I myself have a bias "for kids" but "not too many kids." But that's just it, a bias that I've formed based on personal experience, and I have to realize that.
Let me make it clear that I do not think people should have their choice taken from them. I would be sad to live in a society where your sex life offspring are regulated by the government. Nor do I think that it is always morally wrong. I am from a family of 4 kids and I would never wish that my 2 younger brothers had not been born.
What I DO think is that somewhere along the line, People have to make decide to consider the rest of humanity and God's creation when they are making decisions about their families.
Sorry, that was confusing up above. I didn't mean to say that governmental control of family is not wrong. I think that is wrong. I meant having a big family is not always morally wrong.
Hey Childish, I bet this kind of stuff just warms your heart huh?
ET, there are things in the bible that are Direct commands from God. You HAVE TO REALIZE that some things in the bible are contextual. Here is a good example.
Numbers 31: 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." ...(there is a whole story of the brutal vengance they took) 15-18 "Have you allowed all the women to live?"..."Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
ET, do you think that sounds like some good advice for you to follow now? That was to a specific people in a specific time. It would be dead wrong if you decided to go out and slaughter a bunch of midianites.
"Be fruitful and multiply" was a command given to 2 people who were the only 2 people alive in the world. They were fruitful... they multiplied... It worked and now there are billions of people in the world. We can stop multiplying. If we continue to multiply at the current rate so that we are "fufilling a biblical command", it may be akin to going out and looking for midianites to mercilessly slaughter.
Adoption anyone? There are plenty of little babies who would be growing up bhudist, hindu, muslim, and starving to death while they are at it. These people need out help. How about rescue some arrows and fill your quiver with them.
Does that mean the 10 commandments were specifically only for the Isrealites at that time? Just curious. Got more to say, but will just bid everyone a Happy Thanksgiving! Thanks for helping me think about what I believe everyone! ~ET
No, that is not what I am saying. You should look into the context and the intent of what is said in the Bible. The 10 commandments were given so that people would have a guide for their actions. It is still good today to have a guide for your actions. "Be fruitful and multiply" was said to the only 2 people alive. If they were not fruitful the human race would be extinct, but they were, and the human race is not extinct. The world is populated now, so if everyone continues to try to populate it, we will overpopulate. That is the mathematical nature of something that is exponential.
HAPPY BLACK FRIDAY EVERYONE
you know it's great they finally are giving the african american community a holiday. thus, i will honor all the struggles and triumphs of this proud tradition of the afri-americano with my shopping at old navy.
Jeremiah Johnson
I have one more thing to say on these subjects. No sense beating a dead horse. grin You all have given me lots to think about. I hope I have done the same for you. I do not mean to come accross in a demeaning manner. I believe marriage was intended primarily for raising godly children. I Tim. 5:14, Titus 2:4,5. Paul was saying that yes, singleness IS the best route to serving God, but God also made some people with the need for each other (I Cor. 7) But marriage is for family. To see people who are willing to commit 'small abortions' (not all forms of birth control is a small abortion, these are the ones I have a big issue with) if you will, in order to have 'fun' without the 'responsibility', is saddening especially when the world could use more Christians to stand up. But if we aren't willing to stand up than what's the point anyway? Yes 12 kids in 12 years is a bit much. (though Susanna Wesley had 25 and look what some of THEM did!) I'm not for seeing how many kids your wife can kick out, good heavens no! That's why God's laws are the best. He HAS some that are not meant to be taken as Salvation, just like MOST of His old testement laws. You don't HAVE to follow them (why Paul says what he says in Romans); you can eat pig all you want. BUT God WAS giving guidelines saying you WILL be the most prospersous, the most healthy people in all the land if you follow these. Africa (and America) have a problem with AIDS which incidently came from Monkeys (THAT'S a big break in morality 'laws'), and that is a reason I believe God did tell all the Isrealites to KILL ALL the Mideonites- to possibly keep a disease from the Isrealites. God has built into the human body a natural means of birth control IF His principles are kept. In this instance, I agree with you Jason. We DO have a responsibility over that area of our body. Thus, I think to understand these principles and follow them (such as length of days the woman is unclean, self-control etc. etc.) is the best method and 'artificial birth control/drugs' should never be used. It is our responsibility to know these principles and I think too often today, young people are thrown into big-time huministic teaching and don't know much of this. "Children are a BLESSING from the Lord." (Ps 127:3) but, yes, I guess it is your choice to refuse that blessing. Adoption is great too! There are no waiting lines for handicapped or bi-racial babies.
I also am not against 'saving the planet' or using our resources wisely, but I DO think our efforts, especially as Christians, can be put to a much better eternal use especially since I know our world ISN'T overpopulated or struggling for oil. God bless! ~ET (yes, I can't wait to get back to my 'Home'!)
I don't believe that sex is primarily for the building of a family. Why do you think this? What is this based upon? It it for intimacy, and procreation. But primarily for intimacy.
Want to know what they call people who practice the "rhythym" method as you mentioned? They call them parents. . .
It is a THEORY that AIDS came from sexual contact with monkeys, and not a well supported one. To mention it as an accepted fact undermines everything you say!
ET, Here is something that you can do to save the planet from overpopulating while using no form of birth control... go screw yourself.
R.
mairiage is primarily for having children, then why is the church the bride of Christ?
Post a Comment
<< Home