Finite resources demand finite demand… or so says logic…

Vicky and I were on the phone this morning talking about the new Chevy Tahoe hybrid, which gets 21 mpg. That’s not a typo. 21.

Now, I love Vicky to death (do us part) but her brand of logic was: People want big cars so auto makers should make big cars. People want big cars because they have large families and the only way to stop that would be to pass a law “like they have in China”. When Vicky gets like this, there’s no talking to her – or, at least, I can’t without saying something insulting. So, I got off the phone.

This really worries me.

Last night’s Democratic debate touched on this topic a bit. They even mentioned Shrub over in the mid-east begging for oil.

I look around and I see a world full of morons.

Listen. It’s very simple.

We have a finite amount of oil. I think we can all agree there’s no infinity well spewing out oil for us to use in perpetuity. So, we can agree on that at least, right?

Okay, so finite supply. This means that if we use it up it will all be gone. Following so far?

Okay. Now, cars with lower gas mileage use gas faster than cars with higher gas mileage. You understand that, right? So, by driving a car with lower gas mileage, you’re using up the oil. There will be less remaining. This also means that more people use more gas. Simple math – you can get behind that, can’t you?

Do you want to have oil for your children? Do you want them to have a world in economic turmoil and environmental catastrophe? Because this extends to other resources as well, you know: wood, metal, food – all finite resources work this way. Sure, we can grow more food and more wood but you can only grow so much.

Okay. Now, here’s the hard part. Ready? Fewer people use fewer resources. It’s just the converse of the above statement: More people use more resources. Therefore, if you have fewer people, you won’t have such a strain on resources. You can rely more on alternate energy sources because you don’t have to generate so much.

Now, to this idea that you need to pass a law “like they have in China”. Think about all the religions and ideologies that tell us that we should have lots of kids, not use birth control, and make abortions illegal. If people prevented pregnancy in the first place, we wouldn’t even need to talk about abortion. If there were fewer babies, there would be fewer people and less of a strain on limited resources. So, you eliminate those ideologies. Further, since the poor tend to have more children, you could help the poor – wait. Catch your breath. Now – help the poor. Educate them. Help them. Yes, even in Africa. Then, they would have fewer children and we would be using, yes, fewer resources. And we wouldn’t need Chevy Fucking Tahoes with 21 fucking miles per fucking hour. Get it?

No… I didn’t think so…