B8005-2 Moron Ideology: Instead We Ought To...

      A common argumentation strategy in energy discussions  is the “Instead We Ought To” routine.  Notice how many times a discussion of, say, drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or in Alaska terminates in the hopeless non sequitur of “instead we ought to develop sustainable alternative energy sources such as wind, solar or nuclear energy.”  What makes that statement a non sequitur is its wholesale abandonment of the basic argument about oil.  Remember the discussion or argument is about oil.  Let me repeat: the discussion is about oil.  It is not about alternative energy sources that have no applicability to oil-based processes, fuels, and lubricants.  Wind mills do not and cannot power automobiles in any practical way in an expansive nation like the USA.  So why take the argument away from a discussion of oil drilling (as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil or reducing the price of gasoline, etc.) and into an inapplicable foray into silly assertions about alternative energy that inherently cannot deal with oil dependence or gasoline prices.  Its just as silly as saying, “Instead of paying such high grocery bills, you ought to plant rose bushes in front of your house”
      Notice, too, that a discussion of high gasoline prices begins as an economic argument when some assert that increased drilling will result in larger supplies of oil that will reduce the price of gasoline.  When the discussion is deflected to alternative energy sources, it ceases to be an economic argument and, instead, becomes an ideological argument. When we assert that we ought to do something that does not address the crux of the argument (the price of gasoline), we engage in ideology.