After World War Two, we ruled the world for a couple of generations. The outcome of World War Three would not be so favorable for us. At the very least, it would leave us attempting to run things on about one-quarter of the oil we're used to. That does not suggest a seamless transition between how we behave now and how the future will require us to behave differently.
SHOOT: I also think the next 3 months ought to be interesting. Something is going to happen. On the stock markets, possibly military adventures. One thing that is certain, we're not going to see a seamless transition from where we are now, to where we're going. Rather, it will be wrenching change.
SHOOT: I also think the next 3 months ought to be interesting. Something is going to happen. On the stock markets, possibly military adventures. One thing that is certain, we're not going to see a seamless transition from where we are now, to where we're going. Rather, it will be wrenching change.
Something's got to give in the remaining three months of 2009. My guess is that attention will shift overseas for a while. This will not be due, as many probably think, to a cynical effort by the government to divert attention from the financial fiasco, but because the intrinsic tensions in the Middle East are reaching the snapping point. Iran is being called out on its nuclear program. If, from the start, it had just maintained the need for electric generating power in the face of dwindling fossil fuel reserves, they might have gone unchallenged. As it happened, though, the elected leader of Iran made too many intemperate remarks about wiping other nations off the face of the earth, and this has only prompted the leaders of other nations to take his remarks at face value and presume that Iran's nuclear program was devoted to armaments, not electric power generation. I rather imagine that China would not like to see the Middle East blow up.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment