The problem the peak fill-in-the-blankers are having is that they've been screaming this for over 30 years. There's been someone saying we were right on the verge of running out of something for so long now, without it actually happening that no-one believes them any more. Eventually, it will happen, these are all finite resources, however they've been way off on when it'll happen up to this point. They may be correct now, but they've lost credibility.

There's a semi-famous individual (economist? scientist?) who has been offering bets that commodities will be cheaper in 10 years then they are at the time of each bet. So far, though no-one has taken him up on it, he wouldn't have lost a single time. At this point, we'll need to see something run out before anyone starts believing again and unfortunately, it'll probably be oil that provides the example.

"If, for example, it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it can ever collect from the sun, of what benefit was it to build it? (This problem plagues some or perhaps all photovoltaic technologies.)" - Judas Gutenberg

While this is no longer true (if it ever was), there can be reasons to build such a hypothetical device. One is to arrange for more distributed power generation. If power is difficult to transmit to an area or the additional costs of transmission push the cost higher than the cost to make the solar panel, then the panel becomes the better bet. Also if reliability is an issue.

Alternately, it makes sense to build such devices if the building of them allows scientists to learn enough to make more efficient and cheaper successor devices. Eventually the balance shifts and the construction pays off.

Most of the arguments I've seen claiming that X technology costs more to create than it generates are based on faulty assumptions and/or faulty logic and/or outright lies. There are a great many people out there who want to cry DOOM for some reason, so they naturally claim that advance is impossible.

Especially "Mikes Pace"

Nice try bringing out that same old conservative crap that they used on Dukakas way back in the 80s. The answer is that I'd be upset at the drunk driver, because he was drunk and driving. I might even be upset at him for other reasons that have nothing to do with the event, because he is illegal, because he is an immigrant, etc. In the end though, it doesn't matter how I feel in the heat of a moment.

We are a nation of laws, not of emotion and calls for vengance. The crime is drunk driving and that's what should be punished in accordance with the law.

ann1960:

The rate at which the world population is expanding has slowed significantly since the 1970s. It is even conceivable that an equilibrium can be reached soon. Food production is in no way struggling to keep up with the population expansion. There is far more food produced every year than is required by the world population. The problem lies in distribution, not production. Poverty, farming subsidies, corrupt governments, poor infrastructure, etc... all prevent people from receiving the food they need.

Increasing worldwide living standards, especially if it can be done in a "green" way, will do far more to feed the hungry than by filling more warehouses with surplus food. It will also eliminate illegal immegration. If there's no compelling econominc reason to come to the USA, they won't. Why risk coming to America illegally if the living standards are reasonably similar in Mexico, China or wherever else you're from?

Then we wouldn't be subjected to your inane ramblings.

Instead, it wasn't, he wasn't deported, leading to the second crime, which is drunk driving and manslaughter, which NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if we punished the original crime

You can do chains like this leading back to any number of incidental points. For example, the drunk driving and manslaughter would also never have happened if he hadn't been able to get alcohol that day, or if he hadn't been able to find his car keys or if he'd left the house 5 minutes later or if mankind hadn't evolved in such a way that imbibing alcohol resulted in inebriation.

The crime in question is drunk driving and manslaughter and I'd want the punishment to be the same if an illegal immegrant did it or a legal immegrant or you did it.

In the meantime, lay off the "crazy pills".

You're extrapolating from one example to condemn a larger, unconnected group. He didn't say illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crime, he said immigrants are less likely to commit crime.

David Sugarman says: ignoring the crucial implication, namely that *third* generation immigrants...

What generation are you, Dave? I'm third generation myself. Some of my ancestors have been in North America since the 1600s, others were here when Columbus arrived. However, my father's parents arrived in 1914. My mother's mother's parents came to the USA around the same time. A native-born American.

That's his point, by "third generation" he means "average Americans". When did your ancestors come over? Grandparents? Great-Grandparents? If any one of them came to America you're 3rd or 4th generation.