I also do not agree with the Alaskan oil drilling proposal. I will always favor absence of human activity over human activity. However, the world is getting crowded, and oil-energy/non-recycleable (thermosets) hydrocarbon products will be in extensive use for decades into the future.

It is U.S. land, and there is probably a lot of oil in Alaska. This should be better than trying to bargain/bribe/deceive/influence/take-over other underdeveloped countries to provide us with oil.

Are government and company ecologists and engineers still as stupid as ever, can they not obtain the oil while preserving a stable environment?

I would like to think that all humans can work together to share the world's natural resources responsibly. But there will always be big oil companies that will manage/take advantage of our natural resources. It is the natural progression of the freedom we have to form businesses and to have those businesses to grow as they see fit.

The government is paying money for alternative energy sources. Through its various branches, (civil and military) it doles out probably hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars every year for that purpose. It is the black hole of academia that swallows this money and produces nothing but scribbles on paper, that serve only to entertain the majority of "scientists" that do little but amuse themsevles through their highly paid and tenured lives.

Sorry about my tone, I'm really cynical these days. There are probably a lot of good scientists out there (but their funding should still be regulated much more). And big oil and government may have truly become evil entities that are controlled by a few evil people, and do not represent their individual, morally neutral employees.

But why should we care about natural resources and really stupid animals? If one studies (non-human) animals at all, it can be seen that they're not all that nice, or innocent either. That's why the worst of humans are often compared to dogs or other animals. I hear all the time that unique ecosystems are important for the medicines/materials of the future. But even this is a short sighted argument becuase all it can encourage is more human population growth.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, why should we care at all? Human population will aways continue to expand into surrounding territory, I do not think it is possible to argue to people that "enough is enough, you can't have kids anymore because it's too crowded". People have known that it is too crowded on Earth for thirty years. Again I apologize for the tone, I guess I have to take an ethics course to really make my arguments precise, and to avoid ranting.

I know what you're trying to say. And I understand the argument and can agree with some of its points. My problem is more along the lines of this not being a real solution, but rather legislation designed to help businesses make money (after all, the price of oil is artificially controlled by OPEC and other conglomerates, much like diamonds), and I personally would rather not have trees replaced by concrete everywhere.

I don't particularly think money is being wasted, or needs to be more tightly controlled than it currently is, when it comes to research into alternative fuels. These things take a long time, and the breakthroughs tend to be sudden and significant, based on my limited knowledge. Much like medicine, only the financial incentive for medicine is much higher.

And while I think the argument for preserving ecosystems for the purposes of future research or stability in the natural order are important, mostly I think it would be a shame for these animals, plants, and ecosystems to be lost. Even though wolves may eat babies, I don't think you should go off a kill all the wolves or disregard them when you are doing things.