🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <afo2dd01jtp@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.17883d872b43c11a989e3c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afkbi90307a@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.17870385780939ef989e35@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> 
> (about replacing petroleum with olive or other vegetable oil)
> 
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, I had been counting on a bit of insight. Number of barrels is 
> >> >certainly not hard to increase to pretty much any level you want,
> >> 
> >> Really?   On whose land?  Under whose authority?  
> >
> >Yes, the land of anyone who wants to do so and the usual, respectively.
> 
> Insight?  You proposed the necessity, I didn't.   Try it on for size.

Mmmm? What "necessity" exactly did I propose? 

> Can you just for a moment consider the amount of land required to produce
> oil-producing crops enough to supply the synthetic rope of the world?  Can you
> please consider the number of human beings you'd have to eliminate in order to
> free that land from food production?

Already done that.
 
> Good.

Thanks.
 
> Now compare that with the amount of land needed for direct hemp fibre
> production.

OK.
   
> >>Right.  Sorry, I forgot about that.   We'll have trees that grow lemon-drops and
> >>gold bullion, too.  Are you sure you haven't been smoking some of that old rope?
> >
> >You should study some more science.
> 
> I was referring sarcastically to the problem of land-use elaborated above.  

Then you haven't studied enough science.

> Sure, it's quite possible that plants can be manipulated to directly produce
> what are now petroleum extracts and synthetics... but is there enough arable
> space on which to grow them?  Not unless the same plants can be found which both
> feed humanity and produce its petrochemicals.

Excuse me but you are claiming there is enough land for hemp production 
so your real claim is this: no amount of selective breeding, gene 
tinkering, splicing, etc. will ever produce a plant that can make as 
much synthetic rope (would it still be synthetic?) per acre planted as 
hemp would make natural rope [per acre planted]. This is a very extreme 
claim for you to be making. What knowledge do you have that leads you to 
put forward such a proposition?
 
> i.e.:  it's not remotely practical, so forget it.

Did you know that Man was never meant to fly and that the earth is the 
centre of rotation for the solar system?
 
>  
> >>> I'd be willing to bet it will be long before we run out of the original stuff.
> >
> >>Petroleum, you mean?   We will probably be forced to stop using it long before
> >Yes.
> >
> >>we run out of it.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet we'll be forced to move human
> >> settlement away from most coastlines before we run out of it.
> >
> >Ahhh you're a global warmer.
> 
> Huh?  I'm just stating a fact.  That doesn't mean I think it's the way things

Whose fact?

> ought to be... I just don't believe humanity's leaders, as a group, will see to
> it that we abandon the use of the stuff until it threatens their own death (or
> perhaps their bankruptcy.)
> 
> >> What's your point, and what does it have to do with the prohibition on hemp?
> >
> >My point? You're kidding right? Somebody mentioned that synthetics 
> >weren't a god substitute rope material because they required the use of 
> >petroleum, apparently this was a negative factor in the use of 
> >synthetics because petroleum was claimed to be non-renewable and now 
> >because of global warming. Hmmmm, that was you. 
> 
> It is non-renewable in the sense that there isn't time to replenish the supply
> once it's gone... this merely assumes that we could somehow mitigate or learn to

According to you. What is your background in synthetic petroleum 
production?

> live with the effects of its continued use until it runs out.  I don't claim
> anywhere that the facts as we know them bear this assumption out.
> 
> The presence and increasing rate of global warming is one reason I believe that
> the facts *don't* bear that assumption out.   I don't think there's enough time
> to find the means properly to adapt or mitigate.
> 
> That time *might* be found if we stopped depending on so much petrochemical
> stuff for which perfectly good short-term renewables could substitute well.
> 
> More science?  Hemp fibre is carbon removed from the atmosphere only weeks

More? So far you haven't preented any science.

> ago... nylon/polypropylene/rayon/polyester fibre is carbon removed from the air
> before our species evolved, and from the re-introduction of which our atmosphere

That's amazing! How do the hempplants know to only take carbon from the 
atmosphere that has been recently introduced?

> might well become the most potent and persistent enemy our species has ever
> faced.
> 
> >I think my point was 
> >pretty clear: "petroleum is unlikely to be non-renewable in the long 
> >term".
> 
> In the strictest practical sense, you're absolutely right: our continued use of
> it will wipe us from the face of the earth before we run out of places to find
> and gather it.

Or we'll find cheap ways to make it or make directly the end products 
for which we now use petroleum.