Dear oh dear Peter. Go ahead, bomb out of the discussion if you must. But it tells me one thing very clearly – you don’t have a great conviction for your arguments. And it suggests that perhaps you are not really genuine in what you are espousing.

As a retired geologist ad engineer who has worked on a wide range of energy projects, I can sort of understand why you would want to think that energy is unlimited, innovation will save the day and there are actually no limits to growth. It would very much be the sort of thing that big companies that employ people with your sorts of skills would like to hear from their employees. They certainly wouldn’t want to hear my sorts of views!

But… your very long tenure in that sort of employment must surely have made you realise just how REAL limits to growth are!!

So…. why can’t you simply list the main principles of your argument, and allow our discussion to develop from there?

Ludwick,

Since you have now resorted to ad hominem attacks, I'll reply in a appropriately.

If you have above a double digit IQ and an inquiring mind (i.e. not a closed minded zealot), instead of asking your inane question requesting dot points, you’d go back and re-read my comments, say what you understand and what you don't understand, then ask for specific clarifications. Put another way, you’d use some basic research skills to make an attempt to understand before writing you silly comments.

However to address your question simply so hopefully it is not to much for you to understand, and to attempt to lead you on a path of discovery, see how you go with these fundamentals as a first step:

First, you need to recognise that everything humanity has comes from just two inputs (actually, three, but I’ll leave the third until later): 1) human ingenuity and 2) energy. Think about it. Do you understand this? Do you accept it. If you don’t, then do whatever is necessary until you do understand it.

Second, energy is unlimited.
“Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible”:
http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Fora%20Input/CCC2006/Nuclear%20Paper%2006_05.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20070609222700/http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
With unlimited energy humanity will be able to do and have whatever they want (over time).

I doubt you will understand this, or would be prepared to admit it if you do, but I’ve tried.

<< Since you have now resorted to ad hominem attacks… >>

What attack where Peter? There is no such thing. You have CHOSEN to see my comments in a very negative manner.

And then you have chosen to respond in a very poor manner indeed. Any fool can carry on like that.

<< …instead of asking your inane question requesting dot points.. >>

That was a perfectly reasonable request, in the interests of getting past a blockage in the debate. You CHOSE to turn into a negative thing.

Congrats on that! That is of extremely poor form.

So if you can’t conduct yourself in a reasonable manner, then this discussion ends here.

Damn pity really. It could have been a very interesting dialogue.

However, if you’d like to apologise or promise not to behave in such childish manner any more, we may be able to resume the debate.