I already did. But I can do more.

Before there were carbon-based economies, there were economies already. The Phoeniciers were well-known around the Mediterranean Sea; they traded all goods while there wasn't yet any oil. The bronze age is ofcourse named because people were extracting metals using fuel. But I would not call it the essential source for their overall economies, helpful at best. Using oxen and horses, or simply manpower, these economies were far from carbon based. Sailing on the waters, wind energy was used a long time ago.

We are in an important transition period right now. Let's agree that we both say it is going way too slowly, there is sand in the machine of true progress, but that means we are not organized as a species in the best possible format.

As you can see, Hershey, I do come back time and time again at human beings not capable of organizing ourselves very well. When I look here at the United States, I see close to the entire population complaining about our politicians and our democracy, but when asked to embrace something better, there is nothing but dead silence and a lot of feet walking in opposite directions.

It shows how our system of divide-and-conquer has penetrated every aspect of our thinking in that we cannot get together to organize ourselves well. Our governments are weak; they are involved in a lot of finger pointing and spin; they are forced to look out for number 1 and are therefore engaged in far more than being our representatives; and we only have two parties to effectively pick from while competing with one another.

That said, I do see the truth come out, but this tends to be 8 years, 20 years later. It is not happening in the here and now. Our democracy is super weak and that benefits those businesses that want the quick buck (and give some of it to 'our' representatives).

Allow me to attack your position directly (I do not attack individuals, but I will try to kick the ball they are holding up in the air), and say that the discussion about capitalism being good or bad is the wrong discussion.

It is like saying that basketball is good or bad. It is a sports game, and only after we have agreed on that identification can we dig into the specifics and say the game is unfair because folks 4.5 feet tall will never be playing this game (there are a few short players, but the emphasis is on few).

So, if you undermine anything good about capitalism, then there is no conversation. It means you are hogging the field with your position, and I figured out already that there is no budging on your side.

Only when we dive into the different fields of capitalism can we have decent converstations. It means that words must be qualified. They cannot be like red flags that make the bull charge.

Last comment therefore on words: There is no truth to words unless declared in a context.

Blue is a word that says nothing unless declared in a setting. At the paint store, blue means something else than on the couch with the shrink.

Thank you for your communications.