Anti-life....? bioethics... irrationalism?

[pax]

JVD look at the same stats for previous years... you'll quickly see major changes and trends in the last 40-50... We have more of a depopulation, aging and health care crisis on our hands than any overpopulation issue. Well managed the entire world population could live with 5 square meters each on vancouver island in BC. Thats if it was flat! Add one average sized state for infrastructure. Multi level buildings and 2 states worth of agriculture and the rest of the planet could live free of 6 billion humans.

Thats if all was optimal and modern for all of course. But it gives ya an idea of how good we are at doing things.

Ive read abit more on peak oil tho and Id also add that one to the list of issues that need looking at. Oil execs are now coming forward with warnings too... last 4 years has seen almost all countries drop oil production even tho demand is rising. Id say if the analysts are right and peak oil is in 5-15 years we have got a much more pressing issue than any other right now. Only gov taking over oil production and removing it from the market could put it off. But even then only a little while longer...

 

[pax]

Woulda been nice to see Einstein still with us... Imagine having another 100 years or so of being able to continue to develop your mind and your research in such specialized fields

Einstein right now would likely not have much of his intellectual capacity left. Currently we can only prolong life, not youth.
Most people start to get "set in their ways" after a certain age so longer life may ultimately lead to slower change/advancement than we have had the last 60 years.

Well of course to assume bio tech that adds longevity it would also add vitality. We dont want someone with alzheimers live 100 years with the disease or any such... And I dont see why someone at 150 with the mind and body of a 40 year old couldnt still innovate.

 

[London Geezer]

Well of course to assume bio tech that adds longevity it would also add vitality. We dont want someone with alzheimers live 100 years with the disease or any such... And I dont see why someone at 150 with the mind and body of a 40 year old couldnt still innovate.

I think culture would play a big part in that, my 2 cents... Of course we can't generalise, but i would say very few 80 year old people are "modern-minded" today. And we can assume the same would happen in the future for 150 year olds.

Also, did anyone think about the impact on economy, where young working people will have to subsidise for the already growing number of pensioners. God only knows what the economy will be like when people will live until they're 150. Retirement age would go up, we'd be working for 100 years (if we take into account a 25 year old starting employment and having 25 years of retirement, which is quite optimistic to say the least).... Paying higher and higher taxes to support the immense number of retired people who will just not die... Can you imagine??

People often overlook these factors when talking about longevity. Long life is good and all, but the repercussions are far greater...

Many people "up there" already dream for meteorites to fall onto many old-peoples homes and killing off a few thousands pensioners to balance their sheets, and it's only getting worse.

 

[epicstruggle]

As to why I said you advocated execution and murder. If you stop me from getting lifesaving medical treatment,

No one is going to stop you from getting any medical treatment.

by denying me the ability to use the tools of science to extend my life, then it's the same as if you euthanized me. What fucking right do you have to tell me what drugs or therapies I apply to my body?

Again no one will tell you to get whatever treatment you can afford on your own.

How are you going to stop me from increasing my life span? How are you going to stop science,

By not funding it. If the USA does not feel like funding Genetic research, instead using the money for whatever else we feel like it. Than your life expending drugs/therapy arent developed.

and what right do you have to stop people from learning and discovering how our biology works,

As long as they get their research funds elsewhere, I have no problem.

and thus gaining the means to repair it. As I see it, you have ZERO right to dictate to me what I can do to extend my lifespan.

Moreover, your whole philosophy is on massively shake grounds. You have no rigorous argument as to "how to draw the line" How do you decide when to withhold medical treatment?

If you cant afford it. And the public has to pay up for it, we have a right to question what you can or cannot have.

At what age? For what diseases? Which scientific methods can't be pursued.

As a country(and more importantly the president) has decided to draw some boundaries as to what is acceptable or not.

How did you calculate all this? On what rigorous grounds can you back up this policy.

Get your head out of the Malthusian 70s. The world will be facing an unsustainable depopulation crisis in the next century if current trends hold with no changes, and even life spans of 150 years won't stop the depopulation, it will only slow it down.

Here I agree with you. Aids and other diseases will certainly ravage the population of Africa and Asia in the next decade or two. Ontop of that wars/genocides and depopulation trends in certain countries and we are sure looking to decrease the population in the near future.

later,
epic

 

[DemoCoder]

How are you going to stop me from increasing my life span? How are you going to stop science,

By not funding it. If the USA does not feel like funding Genetic research, instead using the money for whatever else we feel like it.

Who's going to stop the funding? We live in a capitalist society, where people are free to save money and invest and fund whatever schemes they want. The demand is there (people want to live longer and healthier), so certainly, the private funding will be there.

Privatize all the research, and we still get to live longer. No doubt, you will be unhappy with this.

Than your life expending drugs/therapy arent developed.

So your theory is that the only way new drugs get developed is because the "public" funds it? Sorry, but you and Leon Kass cannot stop medical research by eliminating the paultry amount of government grants given now. The US doesn't even have government provided healthcare, yet the drug industry manages to get billions and billions from us. It's virtually all private already.

As a country(and more importantly the president) has decided to draw some boundaries as to what is acceptable or not.

Well, we can replace the president and other morons. As for the religiously nutty American people, I'll be moving to China or Korea to get my new stem-cell drugs, if that's what it takes. Too bad the religious nuts can't do anything about the Chinese! It's time to some people in the whitehouse who aren't evangelical fundamentalist kooks.

Here I agree with you. Aids and other diseases will certainly ravage the population of Africa and Asia in the next decade or two. Ontop of that wars/genocides and depopulation trends in certain countries and we are sure looking to decrease the population in the near future.

Well, you misread. We in fact, do not agree. I didn't say anything about wars or disease causing depopulation. In fact, I said that without reduced birthrates, wars and disease can't make a dent in long term population growth. African and Asia have continued to experience population booms, despite massive disease, malaria, chronic wars. The Great Leap Forward starved China, but didn't make a dent in their population. Millions die of war or starvation, but billions are born. World War 2 didn't make a dent in world population. Right after it, we had the baby boom. Crunch all you want, we'll make more.

The population growth rate will suffer it's biggest decline by educating Asian and African women, boosting their economies and healthcare. Only when the total fertility rate is reduced will you see any difference.

Which is why you and jvd and your anti-life rhetoric are corrupt. You misunderstand the whole basis of population growth, and how it is reduced. It's just wrong headed, and dangerous if politicians seriously try to implement any measures to pursue that route.

You won't reduce Africa and India by "letting them die off", e.g. denying food, vaccines, political stability. (what Mr Population Bomb Ehrlich wanted) People respond to economic and political instability by having MORE children, since that's the only way you can guarantee atleast one survives. In animals, you'll have a litter of 4 pups, because hopefully 1 will make it. Or you'll lay 100 eggs, cause 95 will get eaten.

People don't have less children if it is less likely their children will survive, or less likely they will be able to take care of themselves as they age.

 

[DemoCoder]

People often overlook these factors when talking about longevity. Long life is good and all, but the repercussions are far greater...

No they do not overlook it. Discussing the impact of a "graying" society on government transfer payments has been a recurring them on this board, esp between Pax and I, and it ALWAYS discussed in most population studies, since "age structure" is one of the most important factors in predicate future fertility rates.

Simply limiting people's lifespan to 70 years won't make social welfare systems sustainable. But if people retire at 100, and are healthy and vigorous into their 90s, it does make them more sustainable. The implicit assumption you're make is the assumption if lifespan is increased to 100, 120, 150 average, that people will still retire roughly around 70, and they will still be weak, old, in need of constant care, feeble, etc and take out 30-50 years of payments. Like all doomsday thinking, it requires assuming that all else stays the same except for the dependant variable.

The welfare systems will have to be reformed, period. Whether lifespan increases or not. It is not a valid argument to claim we should let the elderly rot and choke off science so we can save some welfare program from failure. Let the welfare program rot instead.

Hans Moravec in Mind Children described the ultimate evolution of social security and productivity advancements: No one works, everyone is retired. A "young generation" of automated production produces everything and is taxed at near 100% to pay for everyone. In effect, humans return to hunter gatherer status as our "environment" provides all that we want. Only, instead of walking through the forest "gathering" berries that grow freely, we want into a robotic car plant, and pick up a "grown" BMW.

If the future workforce is smaller and smaller, it can still sustain a large older population as longer as productivty continues to rise. Those who work in such a situation will make incredible amounts of money due to massive productivity (individuals or corporations), but they will also be taxed proportionately. It would be possible in such a scenario that even after "onerous" 80% taxes, someone could still make more money than a young worker today, yet simultaneously support many retireees.

Again, like everything, it all hinges on how efficient future production is. As a very absurd example -- Imagine I am the only person working in the US, however, my job is simply to manage an army of 1 trillion trillion nanites that assemble and produce all goods used. I am basically the manager of a massive computer array. That means, because of my work, I produce atleast $10 trillion GDP worth of goods. So my salary should be a few trillion. SO even with a 99.9% tax rate, I'd still beat Bill Gates, and pay for everyone else to be retired. Will I complain about an "unfair" 99.9% tax rate cause I'm only getting $10 billion a year after taxes?

Point being, there are MANY MANY different ways this can unfold, and it is simply not correct to say for sure that future workers will be overburdened by a massive amount of retireees. If the retirees are healthy, they will work longer. If not, productivity gains could make up the gap anyway. Even if productivity doesn't go up, prices will. You'll have lots and lots of old people demanding goods, but a "labor shortage"of few young workers to supply everything. Resukt: higher prices and profits for young workers, higher cost of living for old people. Net result: wealth transfer from old to young.

 

[epicstruggle]

long post

I like how you miss this part of my post:

As long as they get their research funds elsewhere, I have no problem.

There are 2 types of funding private and public. Public funding does need political support, so we as a country do not have to fund life extending drugs if we feel there are better places to use that money. Private funding is a whole other game. Please read posts more clearly.

Where have I said I was anti-life. Im more pro-life than most people.(with the exception of capital punishment). I have no problem with people trying to extend their lives as much as they can. When public (tax payer dollars) are being used for research then it becomes a public debate of whether or not its a good idea for continued funding.

How did you calculate all this? On what rigorous grounds can you back up this policy.

Get your head out of the Malthusian 70s. The world will be facing an unsustainable depopulation crisis in the next century if current trends hold with no changes, and even life spans of 150 years won't stop the depopulation, it will only slow it down.

Here I agree with you. Aids and other diseases will certainly ravage the population of Africa and Asia in the next decade or two. Ontop of that wars/genocides and depopulation trends in certain countries and we are sure looking to decrease the population in the near future.

Well, you misread. We in fact, do not agree.

Sorry, english isnt my first language. What I was tryint to say, was I do agree that

The world will be facing an unsustainable depopulation crisis in the next century if current trends hold with no changes,

_AND_ I was adding my own opinion that

Aids and other diseases will certainly ravage the population of Africa and Asia in the next decade or two. Ontop of that wars/genocides

would add to the problem(maybe not as much but its still a factor)

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

Democoder,


Yes i agree that there are many ways this can unfold, and it is also true that we have the advantage of "many years" of future before such condition do arise, during which time we hopefully will have thought of viable solutions to the problems.

Also i was taking for granted, and did not specify, the problem that plagues many countries (Italy for one), which is Birth Rate.

Of course if birth rate of countries was high enough, then there would be no problem to support pensioners, it would be like today, only longer and more boring...

However, should birth rate not rise, we would end up paying even more taxes than we do now, and work for longer, and all those effects we can already see at the moment.

 

[zidane1strife]

Currently we can only prolong life, not youth.

Actually, it depends on the organism, from what I've heard some of the simpler ones have been given what seems to be effective indefinite youth. Other more complex organisms, have had their lifespan and healthspan increased by up to 700%. Many of the technics used to extend lifespan, not only lengthen the organism's life, but also delay the onset of aging and aging related diseases.

For example some of the most basic methods for longevity increase used in mice, have yielded human equivalent 80yr old mice with the strenght of 40yr old human equiv mice. With regards to mental ability, 120yr old human equiv. mice with 20yr old human equiv mice mental capacity have been observed. Preliminary data on primate research seems to suggest the same technics are indeed having the same effects on them, and thus may likely have the same effects on us.

When public (tax payer dollars) are being used for research then it becomes a public debate of whether or not its a good idea for continued funding.

The thing is, research on further understanding of molecular biology and modification of biology at said level, will in effect aid this endeavor significantly. Now, what reason could there be for the US to stop such research?ed: Who's going to present a view against this in a public debate?

As for longevity increasing research, many of the technics used in animals have improved their health and lowered disease rates. Many of the diseases asociated with aging could be postponed or eliminated entirely, with this work, diseases that were once considered part of normal aging. Is it worthy to stubbornly avoid the root, and go fiercely at the branches and leaves?

 

[Sabastian]

Einstein right now would likely not have much of his intellectual capacity left. Currently we can only prolong life, not youth.

Oh this is such a sad truth. The older I get the more I wish I was young again. I don't care what anyone says about regret, I would do it all different if I could choose. Wisdom, is a paltry solace to the aged, a consolation of sorts. While youth .. youth is exemplified by vitality and ignorance. Bah, the one who coined the phrase ignorance is bliss was wise enough to realize it. How dreadfully ironic.

I am apologetic for the off topic rant..

 

[Fred]

I hated being a child/teenager, one of the most truly horrifying ages to be alive IMO. We always remember it as being great and grand, b/c human memory tends to omit pain.

Regardless, i'm sorta of the opinion that unless a corresponding revolution in brain cell rejuvanation is instituted, having a bunch of geriatrics roaming the planet might not be the best idea. Of course, this is the pathological case, extending life is more or less a great thing.

I know many scientists who are still productive and extremely smart, even through their 70-80s. However, they seem to be such a minority of the population. Some say its b/c they keep doing mental activities, past retirement age.

 

[Sabastian]

I hated being a child/teenager, one of the most truly horrifying ages to be alive IMO. We always remember it as being great and grand, b/c human memory tends to omit pain.

Regardless, i'm sorta of the opinion that unless a corresponding revolution in brain cell rejuvanation is instituted, having a bunch of geriatrics roaming the planet might not be the best idea. Of course, this is the pathological case, extending life is more or less a great thing.

lol, yeah I do agree sometimes teenage years were so anxiety filled. Mostly, as I grow older, I am becoming infatuated with the excitement of realizing experiences yet to come and the physical vitality that came with youth.

Getting older now I see lines in my face, deeper pores etc. Even now looking at my hands I can see that the skin is not as tight ... When I was young I was quite aesthetically pleasing physically speaking. But the acne, dear god, that was a horrid thing. I still have a serious condition with regards to it and have to take antibiotics to control it. I wish I realized I could have treated it throughout my teenage years though. That would have significantly reduced the grief in those years.

I see youth today and only wish I could go back with all the things I know now and do it all different that's all. The older I get the more I realize the mortality of life and that truly every ones life ends in tragedy. I really should not focus on this topic for an overt period of time nor should any of the living. Its too foreboding.

 

[pax]

Aging is a real plague right now. If this genetic research can lead to at the very least healthy golden years we will soon desperately need it. Ive seen too many people victimized by alzhiemers, strokes, cancers, accidents enter nursing homes for up to 20 years. That a huge chunk of their lives. If this new reaserch can lead to healthier aging we ned to pursue it asap. Recent review at my own facility and its largely the same everywhere we saw over a doubling of the prevalence of alzheimer and senility related illnesses in our community in the last 10 years.

Right now it stands #2 on my list of urgent societal issues... If only because we will hit it shortly -after- peak oil.

Question: can thermal depolymerization tech, which can supposedly be quickly applied to refineries to make fuel from wastes be also used to liquify coal? Or is that another technology and Im wondering how long it would take to implement large scale production of that?...

 

[DemoCoder]

I've always said since I was a teenager that all human beings are born with a terminal disease that eventually kills us -- Aging. But like AIDs, we can develop drugs and therapies to live with it and to remain healthy, and perhaps one day, beat it.

I think without a doubt, the people living today on this message board will be much healthier in their golden years than those in their 70s today. You can already see the basis today: research on double and tripling maximum lifespan of some animals, the discovery of the mechanisms of aging, stem cell research, gene therapy, tissue engineering, neuron regeneration. If you're 30 today, these technologies didn't exist when you were born. Now imagine what another 40 years will bring. Hell, even the mechanisms of Alzheimers were partially unraveled last year, with the principle gene and compound discovered.



As for oil. Oil is just stored solar energy. Ultimately, we have only one major energy source to tap: Fusion. We either get it from the Sun (fusion), or we do it locally. Either way, fossil fuels are just chemical batteries. Once the cost of extracting an additional barrel of crude becomes more expensive than the cost of producing an equivalent amount of hydrogen, ethanol, or some other stored energy, the switch will start to occur. Even in a purely solar (photoelectric, wind, wave, etc) or fusion based energy system, we may still use fossil fuels to store power. The only difference is, we will take CO2 out of the atmosphere to synthetically manufacture it.

The current way oil is produced by nature is monumentally wasteful. (ditto for ethanol) We've been successful in producing bacteria that can produce silk, human insulin, and a whole bunch of other materials. Perhaps we can genetically engineer some bacteria, fungus, or algae that produces fossil fuels more efficiently -- e.g. without the fossilization, and with high efficiencies in converting solar energy. Or we might just do it with semiconductor tech.

Either way, I'm not worried about oil "suddenly running out". It will gradually get more expensive, even after reaching peak, giving us a long time to adapt. You must remember, that in just 40 years (between 1910 and 1950) the most of gas stations and cars were built (relative to population size) In 1910, hardly no gas stations or cars. In 1950, 50 million cars, 50,000 gas stations. Over the next 50 years, oil will get more expensive. Hybrid cars will start to alleviate some of the cost pressure. Then, synthetic fuels will become economical at some point (e.g. once oil becomes more expensive)


Ironically, the adaptation process will probably create a huge number of jobs.

 

[Humus]

Currently we can only prolong life, not youth.

Actually, people in wealthy countries go through a slower aging process than those in less well of countries, because of lighter stress on the body through our lives. I recall like 7 or 8 years ago, I got to know a bunch of people from former Yugoslavia that fled the war and came to my home town. They looked a lot older than they were. An old woman who I thought was around 80 was only 50. My dad is over 60, and he looks way much younger than she did. A guy that looked like 40 was 26.

 

[pax]

I know theres plenty of possibilities in future energy but at what point do we seriously undertake the transition is what I think is debatable. The problem starting with the huge disparity on knowledge of actual reserves and recoverable reserves, depending on who you talk to, that are left and that oil production is dropping year after year with opec barely following its quotas anymore has me worried we arent investing enough in the new tech and energy sources. It smells terribly of bad politics. I mean which is it? 800 billion or 3 trillion Gb recoverable?

I dont think we can afford that much more high energy prices before the necessary changes in infrastructure which may take decades in some cases become apparent and Im not sure its a good idea for the market to wake up to 10$ a gallon gas in midwinter 2010 only to find out it will take 10-20 years to see changes. Such a transition may be too brutal.

Its too fundamental to the economy to simply allow slow market responses here I think we need activist govs to implement serious r&d soon. Maybe not a Manhattan class program as some authors are asking for but probly a lot more than we are doing now. At the very least the public needs to know accurately what reserves we know are out there and what tech such as deep sea is viable and how much is out there and how fast it can be recovered. More in depth and serious studies are required in short order to much more accurately determine oil reserves. Is anything in the works regarding that?

An example of bad accouting here is the media reporting a find off the coast of BC of 9 Gb but not mentionning typically only about half of such finds are recoverable. So its really 4-5 Gb...

 

[MfA]

Ignoring the environment, as always, coal can easily sustain us for a while ... if we really want to go to hell in a handbasket we could switch wholesale to breeder reactors.

 

[Vince]

Regardless, i'm sorta of the opinion that unless a corresponding revolution in brain cell rejuvanation is instituted, having a bunch of geriatrics roaming the planet might not be the best idea. Of course, this is the pathological case, extending life is more or less a great thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if its 2040-2050 before the praxis of this [rejuvination] is capable of being discussed with a solid and proven basis supporting it. It looks promising today, but unknown. Although, extending life by another 20 to 30 years is sustainable from a neurological perspective with neural death being seemingly compensated to a large degree by an increase in connection density and masked by many aspects intrinsic to connectionist systems.

Many of the downsides of old-age are likely rooted in inactivity/lack of stimulation, which logically could be related to the deteriorating physical condition of the person in older-age. In fact, there is an overabundance of trials and cases which have concluded that there is a very real link between continued mental health and continued, strenuous, mental activity into ones older-years. Which is why, as you know, the elderly are advised to keep reading, retainin hobbies or sports which require integrative and motor functionality, or to take part in social experiences, etc. And if this is so, Democoder's argument - which I agree with very much - in favor of extended life with the understanding that the increase in lifespan is absorbed by the productive early/midlife period would provide a condition which is highly conductive to continued mental health.

This isn't covering the problems such as Alzheimer's, although I for one wouldn't be surprised if it's found to have a cause more rooted in virulent entities. And as such, it's premature to make a judgment other than keeping the issues of retaining cognizance/computational ability in some form of connectionist system with sustained and prolonged death of constructs separate from that of illness which isn't intrinsic to the system's constructs. Hopefully you'd agree.

 

[DemoCoder]

Pax, the market doesn't "suddenly wake up" to a shortage of resources, because the dropoffs are very gradual, predictable, and future's traders make intense analysis of the supply their #1 priority.

It's a fallacy to think that one day, gas is $2, and a year later, it's $10 permanently. Rather, there will be a very slow steady rise in prices that will channel increasing fractions of the $200 BILLION annual US oil purchases into other endeavors. Just like gas didn't suddenly drop from $10 to $2 from 1960 to the 2000 "peak", it won't increase suddenly from $2 to $10. The price drops were gradual as will be the rises.

If current predictions hold up, by 2050 we will only be able to produce as much "raw crude" out of known proven fields as we did in 1960. Or in 2020, as much as we did in 1980. However, that's not as bad as it sounds.

Vehicles before 1930 used to have good MPG because of their tiny engines. But mpg went down as cars got heavier and engines more powerful. In 1960, cars averaged about 12 miles per gallon. Today, a Prius can get 50mpg, an Insight 64mpg, and hybrid prototypes have been demonstrated at over 70 mpg. Indeed, Volkswagen has demonstrated a hybrid that can achieve 264 miles per gallon (granted, it's only 8.5hp )

That means that by 2050, assuming nothing more than 2004 Hybrid technology, we will have 5-7 times as much usable oil available as in 1960, or approximate the same amount available as at the hypothetical Hubbert peak in 2000. This assumes no natural gas is used, no coal processing, Canadian shale oil, no tar pit refining, no ethanol, or no other synthetics or alternative sources.

The only reason this won't be sustainable is because in 2050 about 2 billion new Indian and Chinese drivers will appear and start consuming gas, which is about triple then number of people driving today. Fortunately for them, they will most likely by their cars AFTER the switch over.

We don't need government to force people to buy fuel efficient cars. All we need is rising prices. It happened in the 70s after the OPEC embargo, which saw Americans flock to Japanese compacts in droves. If gas went to $10/gallon, Americans would discard their SUVs and buy hybrids like crazy, and their monthly gasoline bill would be about the same. (5 times price rise, 5 times fuel efficiency) The market mechanisms work. Complain all you want about Americans buying SUVs and car manufacturers making them. It's simple economics: oil is cheap, ergo, fuel consumption efficiency isn't on most American's minds. If fuel starts to run out, those SUVs will be in the junk yards and replaced with hybrids real quick.

And the "switchover" time is a non-issue here, because the relevant technology already exists, is proven, and is steadily gaining popularity (hybrids). There will be no doomsday where we wake up tommorow, the oil wells are dry, and we are all stuck with gas-guzzling cars while a frantic Manhattan project searches for a fuel efficient car technology.

The technology for the switch over is already here. Most car companies predict that by 2012-2020 there will be significant percentages of hybrids and hydrogens on the roads. Why force it to go faster? Can't wait 8-16 years?

 

[pax]

The problem is demo that we are not getting the right feedback to allow enough time to prepare for a transition of this magnitude in this case. How can there be so much discrepancy in the numbers as to how much oil there actually is and how much is recoverable when asking one think tank or expert vs another. How can gov and industry ignore the issue when for the last 30 years everything indicates there is a serious issue with regards to falling discoveries of new fields and increasing consumption vs decreasing production on various levels such as national, in terms of individual firms, and global.

I also lost faith quite a bit on USGS numbers. Way too liberal there. Are they the ones you use in your assumptions?

Youd think it was important enough that the data would be largely agreed upon long ago on something as fundamental as this. Yet we have increasing number of analysts, academics, experts and even a few people from the industry now throwing out warnings that we are mere few years away from serious market disruption. And it seems many of them have been staunchly ignored for years even decades.

I dont think we can take these warnings lightly. As well as bad politics I smell old dinosaur firms stuck in their old slow ways to adapt trying to keep a lid on their stock prices while avoiding the profit hit serious r&d would be required to provide a smooth transition.

As it stands I think the transition will be pretty rough. Im not so sure we'll all be able to switch cars that quickly or easily as people at least in canada keep their cars alot longer than they used to. Av 11 years now. And I think its more than just transportation. Id like to see switching all oil fired power plants to coal asap. Oil should be kept for transportation.

Honestly I dont see much happening other than few hybrids coming into market in the next few years. Id like to see more forward thinking and blueprints for changes... Im still scouring the net over info... I find nothing on the issue at major oil sites likes exxons...