Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Inspector

Limited Resources

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(Moderator's note: This discussion was split out from a thread on Vegetarianism (link) .

Please don't be daft. I didn't say any such thing. I don't even care if I receive a warning for this, so I'm going to say it. Instead of talking out of your --- and putting words in my mouth, go back and read again what I actually wrote. All I am suggesting is that there is a limited amount of suitable land in this world...

Okay, you didn't say that it was PRIMARY, which as I indicated would be silly. So we agree on that. The point is that I don't like it when people assert that this or that problem could be solved by some sort of deprivation-based "conservation of resources" solution when clearly there are MORE than enough resources to go around. I would equate your argument of people needing to eat less meat in order to more efficiently use crop space as similar to the "you all need to drive electric clown cars" argument. There is more than enough land area and more than enough petroleum to go around. The problem is irrational government and the solution should be the removal of said irrationality. I don't think that people should "give in" to this irrationality and somewhat sanction it by giving up cars or eating less meat. That's the equivalent of the popular saw "then the terrorists win."

(and farmland isn't HALF as scarce as oil!)

In short, I don't take kindly to people telling me I should deprive myself of something I like, especially on the grounds of Malthusian nonsense.

Now I don't take your language personally, but I also don't think I'm pulling it out of *ahem* thin air. Your argument is quite familiar to me and it smacks of environmentalism, whether or not that is an ideology you'd drop like a hot potato if you knew it.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that I don't like it when people assert that this or that problem could be solved by some sort of deprivation-based "conservation of resources" solution when clearly there are MORE than enough resources to go around. I would equate your argument of people needing to eat less meat in order to more efficiently use crop space as similar to the "you all need to drive electric clown cars" argument. There is more than enough land area and more than enough petroleum to go around.

Now I don't take your language personally, but I also don't think I'm pulling it out of *ahem* thin air. Your argument is quite familiar to me and it smacks of environmentalism, whether or not that is an ideology you'd drop like a hot potato if you knew it.

My argument "smacks of environmentalism" because I'm a biologist. I'll take this case by case.

There is enough petroleum to go around until about 2039-2050, after which demand will exceed supply. Eventually, the supply will run out entirely. I can come up with the source for this figure tomorrow, if you wish. Petroleum comes from dead plant and animal matter, compressed over millions of years of geologic activity and deposited in the Earth's crust. The carbon in those molecules goes back into the atmosphere when we burn gasoline. In order to get it back into the Earth's crust as petroleum to use again, it needs to be fixed into sugar by a plant, the plant has to die or be eaten by an animal or a decomposer organism, and millions more years will be needed to form all that oil petroleum again through geologic activity. There is not an endless supply of any matter, as there is no such thing as an infinite quantity to an entity. So when you say there is "enough to go around" I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I seriously doubt whether the entire population of the world would be able to survive on 100% meat diet even if it was physiologically possible for humans (see my figures above on how much energy is lost as heat with each increase in trophic level), but I don't deny it might be possible. See the figures above on how many calories are consumed by humans in meat form: it's only 30% worldwide.

People in the US do not need to eat less meat because we have plenty of natural resources here, enough to sell to a great deal of the rest of the world in addition to having surplus for ourselves. There is no food shortage and probably never will be with our rate of population growth, barring a massive outbreak of disease on our cereal crops, which is certainly not impossible - things like that have happened before. But if you think human population can grow exponentially and infinitely, that there is an infinite number of resources in this world, you are simply wrong. The difference between me and most environmentalists is that I think people can realize this on their own when they reach a crisis and when things become bad enough, rather than having to be coerced into action by governments. I don't do silly things like proclaim to know the actual number of humans that could live on this planet, but I will say, confidently, that there is a limit, and it is not governed solely by how much space each human takes up and how closely we could pack like sardines.

Earth is a closed system, and if you think you can live apart from it at this stage in human history, like some character in Star Wars or whatnot (strangely, we never see these characters eat or are told where the fuel is coming from propelling them through space), then put your money where your mouth is and move to the moon or to Mars indefinitely, with no exchange of materials with Earth. What will you eat? Every single thing you eat, whatever animal flesh, can be traced back to a photosythetic organism (in the vast majority of cases, a plant). What will you fall back on if your artificial system up there fails (of course, NASA has invested lots of money in these biodome type projects because they are interested in knowing these things)? I hear this kind of nonsense all the time - than man can somehow live as a species apart from nature in some kind of vacuum. I'm not saying it mightn't eventually be possible, but at the present time, the idea is suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is enough petroleum to go around until about 2039-2050, after which demand will exceed supply.

See, that's exactly the sort of nonsense that your argument smacked of. If it walks like a duck...

Now, to address your point: Nonsense! The same exact thing has been predicted every five years or so since Malthus himself. And it's ALWAYS been wrong. I recall certain wagers made about resources "running out" that ended badly for people like you. I think you can find it somewhere on Michael Crichton's website if you care to.

I say "if" because frankly environmentalism is a religion and not science. The "scientific" standards of the "scientists" who "prove" environmentalist chicken-little-ism is self-addmittedly based on ideology over fact. If you have, yourself, accepted a rational epistemology then you really need to be more careful who you "hang out" with, so to speak. If not then you have my pity.

I seriously doubt whether the entire population of the world would be able to survive on 100% meat diet
Who suggested that? Either in confusion or intentionally, you're attacking a straw man.

People in the US do not need to eat less meat because we have plenty of natural resources here

More importantly than that, we have more freedom here. "Natural resources" are less important than you think and human production is more important.

But if you think human population can grow exponentially and infinitely, that there is an infinite number of resources in this world, you are simply wrong.
In a sense, I do. While obviously not "infinite," every new person adds more potential productivity. Life is not a zero sum game. The root of wealth and production is the human mind, which can overcome any "scarcity" issue LONG before it becomes a problem, provided that it is FREE.

I will say, confidently, that there is a limit, and it is not governed solely by how much space each human takes up and how closely we could pack like sardines.

I do know that as recently as a few years ago, the entire population of the world could fit into an area the size of the state of Texas, and that's at the population density of the so-called "suburban sprawl." Long, LONG before such a situation becomes even a problem, much less a crisis, the PRODUCTION of all those "bodies" will solve it... provided, again, that they are FREE to do it.

I'm not saying it mightn't eventually be possible, but at the present time, the idea is suicide.

See, now that's just silly. When will such lifestyles be NECESSARY? By the time they even become CLOSE to necessary, they will be child's play, technologically speaking... Provided... that... men... are... free.

This Malthusian nonsense was wrong a hundred years ago and it's wrong now. The motives of the charlatans who create it is hatred for mankind. I hope you can realize that, but since biology and earth science are hardly my areas of expertise, you're going to have to find that out for yourself. Good luck.

(oh, btw, plenty of people here seem to have a good grasp on the statistics involved here... this is the point where I invite those kind folks to step forward and demolish these greeny myths)

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to address this is to take one single resource as an example. Let's take food-crops.

Also, instead of discussing whether we can grow an infinite amount of food-crops, let's take a certain multiple. Can the food crop in the world be 10 times what it is today? Is there some resource required for food crop that limits this and makes it very difficult to produce 10 times what we do today?

What is the limiting factor? Land? Sunshine? Water? Nutrients in the soil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is enough petroleum to go around until about 2039-2050, after which demand will exceed supply.
I'm not interested in a source for this figure, but I am interested in a scientific defense of that estimate. Here is a simple meta-question: at what rate have the annual estimates of petroleum reserves increased over the past 100 years (you can break that up into 20 year chunks if that helps)? I assume you get the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, ignoring the specifics on the numbers, do you think natural resources are limitless or not?

I think the most important "resource," human productivity, is no more limited than the universe itself. I'm sure I don't know what THAT limit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ignoring human productivity, do you think fossil fuels, for example, are limitless?

You mean in the entire universe? Again, whatever amount is in the universe is there. Whatever amount that is, I am sure it is more than enough.

Were you talking about on earth? That would be physically impossible, so your question confuses me.

But who's to say they can't be synthesized? It's pretty hard to ignore human productivity, as you suggest...

And why do they need to be limitless? All they need to be is ENOUGH that they make chicken-little scenarios pointless. Which they are, wouldn't you agree?

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is enough to make chicken little scenarios pointless, I agree with you, but I don't have any confidence as to the facts on the issue as I've not looked into it. I'm only interested in sheding light on the idea that if a specific thing is limited, and if the limit is approaching, wouldn't it be worrthwhile to plan for life after this specific thing?

If what David is alluding to is that estimates have been increasing every time they make them, and if one can, with confidence, say that there will be nothing but chicken-little scenarios to think of for the next, say, 20 generations, then I'm with you. I just want to admit that if the "ifs" line up, I don't think ignoring an oncoming limitation is wise. But again, I have no idea as to the figures on any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is enough to make chicken little scenarios pointless, I agree with you, but I don't have any confidence as to the facts on the issue as I've not looked into it.

Ah, then I'm sure that there are those here who can point you in the right direction. Looks like softwareNerd has already gotten started in this regard. The Sowell example is a good one. If you actually have his book (and I do), there is a passage in there about a man that bet we would have less resources in twenty (?) years. (this bet was made around 1980... he lost) I'll dig up the passage and get you more detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day a lot of people bet real money on whether crude oil will be in short supply or not. That is reflected in the prices of the "futures" for crude oil. Interestingly, looking even 5 years out, the prices of Oil futures do not show an upward trend. Of course, it could be one of those times when the "market" is mistaken. If so, it could be a great opportunity to make some money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That man was Paul Ehrlich. Quoting from Sowell,

The starvation of "hundreds of millions" is not the only Ehrlich prediction to have missed by miles. He was equally certain, equally wrong, and equally unblemished by his predictions about the exhaustion of natural resources. In 1980, economics professor Julian Simon challenged anyone to a bet as to whether various natural resources would or would not become more expensive over time -- as would happen if they were in fact becoming more scarce. Professor Simon offered to allow anyone to pick any resources he wished, and any time period he wished, in which to test the theory that resources were becoming more scarce or approaching exhaustion. In October 1980, Ehrlich and other like-minded predictors of natural resource exhaustion bet $1000 that a given collection of natural resources would cost more in ten years than when the bet was made. The Ehrlich group chose copper, tin, nickel, tungsten, and chrome as the natural resources whose combined prices (in real terms) would be higher after a decade of their continued extraction from the earth. In reality, not only did the combined prices of these resources fall, every single resource selected by Ehrlich and his colleagues declined in price.

How could a decade of extracting these minerals from the earth not lead to a greater scarcity and hence a higher price? Because supply and demand are based on known reserves and these can just as easily increase as decrease. For example, the known reserves of petroleum in the world were more than twice as large in 1993 as they were in 1969, despite massive usage of oil around the world during the intervening decades...

In some abstract sense, there is indeed a fixed amount of any natural resource in the earth and usage obviously reduces it. But no one knows what the fixed amount is, and since the process of discovery is costly, it will never pay anyone to discover that total amount. Depending on various economic factors, such as the interest rate on money borrowed to finance exploration, there is a variable limit to how much it pays to discover as of any given time -- no matter how many more untold centuries worth of supply may exist. By dividing the currently known reserves by the annual rate of usage, it is always possible to come up with a quotient -- and to use that quotient to claim that in ten years, fifteen years, or some other time period, we will "run out" of coal, petroleum, or some other natural resource.

The rest of the quote continues into what Oakes already quoted. I'd also suggest you look into what Michael Crichton has said on the subject, not to mention the ARI, Peter Schwartz, or other prominent Objectivists. Examine not only the data, but the epistemological methods of who is producing the data (or "data" as the case may be), and judge for yourself whether we are going to "run out" of oil any time soon. :)

Edited by Inspector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But who's to say they can't be synthesized? It's pretty hard to ignore human productivity, as you suggest...

I agree with that; the only thing ultimately limited IMO is time :)

If there is enough to make chicken little scenarios pointless, I agree with you, but I don't have any confidence as to the facts on the issue as I've not looked into it. I'm only interested in sheding light on the idea that if a specific thing is limited, and if the limit is approaching, wouldn't it be worrthwhile to plan for life after this specific thing?

If "chicken little" scenarios are about people overreacting, then "big chicken" scenarios are about people not reacting to impending problems?

I'd have to agree here to an extent also. I don't think it would be proper to assume that oil will never run out. The question might then be what kind of "planning" is proper? Taking for granted societal (read: government-forced) conservation plans aren't desirable.

Of course, the sooner oil runs out, the faster the impetus to create fusion power, Galt engines, and Holtzman generators :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do know that as recently as a few years ago, the entire population of the world could fit into an area the size of the state of Texas, and that's at the population density of the so-called "suburban sprawl."

Could you tell me where you found this information?

I have seen it mentioned in debates about over population before and would love to have the original source available for referencing, should I care to debate the subject again.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you tell me where you found this information?

I have seen it mentioned in debates about over population before and would love to have the original source available for referencing, should I care to debate the subject again.

:)

Page 68 of that same book, if you would believe it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not interested in a source for this figure, but I am interested in a scientific defense of that estimate. Here is a simple meta-question: at what rate have the annual estimates of petroleum reserves increased over the past 100 years (you can break that up into 20 year chunks if that helps)? I assume you get the point.

Okay, David, I'll try! I'm busy now, but I will put some time into this later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also a recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject of oil and it's non-scarcity, here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007377

Excerpts:

The limits-to-growth crowd has predicted the end of oil since the days when this black gold was first discovered as an energy source in the mid-19th century. In the 1860s the U.S. Geological Survey forecast that there was "little or no chance" that oil would be found in Texas or California. In 1914 the Interior Department forecast that there was only a 10-year supply of oil left; in 1939 it calculated there was only a 13-year supply left, and in 1951 Interior warned that by the mid-1960s the oil wells would certainly run dry. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter somberly told the nation that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."

We can ridicule these doom-and-gloom predictions today, but at the time they were taken seriously by scholars and politicians, just as the energy alarmists are gaining intellectual traction today. But as the late economist Julian Simon taught, by any meaningful measure oil (and all natural resources) has gotten steadily cheaper and far more bountiful in supply over time, despite periodic and even wild fluctuations in the market.

This spectacular pace of technological progress explains why over time the amount of recoverable reserves of oil has increased, not fallen. Between 1980 and 2002 the amount of known global oil reserves increased by 300 billion barrels, according to a survey by British Petroleum. Rather than the oil fields running dry, just the opposite has been happening. In 1970 Saudi Arabia had 88 billion barrels of known oil. Thirty-five years later, nearly 100 billion barrels have been extracted and yet the latest forecast is that there are still 264 billion barrels left--although the Saudis have never allowed independent auditors to verify these numbers.

In this industry, alas, bad news tends to crowd out the good. When Shell announced earlier this year that its oil and gas reserves were down by 30%, there was a global outcry. But when Canada announced in 2004 that it has more recoverable oil from tar sands than there is oil in Saudi Arabia, the world yawned. There is estimated to be about as much oil recoverable from the shale rocks in Colorado and other western states as in all the oil fields of OPEC nations. [Emphasis added by Kitty Hawk] Yes, the cost of getting that oil is still prohibitively expensive, but the combination of today's high fuel prices and improved extraction techniques means that the break-even point for exploiting it is getting ever closer.

Our point is that the constraints on our ability to find and extract new oil are not geologic or scientific. The real constraints on oil production are barriers created by government. Myron Ebell, an environmental analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, notes that roughly 90% of the oil on the planet rests under government-owned land and these resources are abysmally managed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, that's exactly the sort of nonsense that your argument smacked of. If it walks like a duck...

Okay, so you are rejecting my argument based on the fact that these arguments have been wrong in the past. Let me ask you this: If a boy cries wolf three times and is wrong, he will necessarily be wrong in the future?

The "scientific" standards of the "scientists" who "prove" environmentalist chicken-little-ism is self-addmittedly based on ideology over fact. If you have, yourself, accepted a rational epistemology then you really need to be more careful who you "hang out" with, so to speak. If not then you have my pity.

This sounds strangely defensive and circular. Kind of like the Christians saying "Evolution is a theory believed and studied by atheists, so we know we can't trust them." Rather like the posture of the religionists who insist that evolution MUST be wrong (although they accept the rest of science and what it does for them) because they think it intereferes with their ideology. Evolution (replace with environmental science) is just some wacky idea cooked up by a bunch of conspiratorial people over the past two centuries!!!! Riiiiiiiiiight. And thanks for the advice on who I should hang out with, but having been brought up by a bunch of people who place their confidence in faith healers over doctors and having abandoned that sort of thinking long ago, I think I have enough sense to figure out for myself how to wade through mystical garbage, be it environmentalism or religion.

"Natural resources" are less important than you think and human production is more important.

In order to produce, man needs something to transform. His mind and body do not work in a vacuum. That i all I am saying. If I wish to produce a plastic bottle, I have to drill oil out of the ground. If I want to produce steel, or Rearden metal, I need some raw material.

I do know that as recently as a few years ago, the entire population of the world could fit into an area the size of the state of Texas, and that's at the population density of the so-called "suburban sprawl."

So what? I could put 100 goldfish in a 10 gallon fish tank, but assuming it is a closed system, even with the most marvelous filtration system, the fish will soon die. You have done little except to show how little you know about nutrient cycling.

I certainly hope you are right about infinite productivity and solutions to problems. I have a lot of confidence in the scientific process. But we have a long way to go. So before you believe by faith Hollywood stories that other planets can eventually be "terraformed" let's actually see if we can do it.

David: As for the 2039-2050 figure, this was produced by a prof (Charlie Hall) and a couple of grad students at my college. I tend to put a lot of confidence his work, as he generally challenges the popular beliefs in his field (energy issues and ecosystems) and has debunked certain supply-demand theories in ecology in the past. I will provide more details later.

softwarenerd: we are generally limited in agriculture by the amount of nitrogen in the soil, which can be placed there by two processes, chiefly: nitrogen fixation by bacteria OR the addition of ammonia based fertilizers, which are produced by heating nitrogen and hydrogen gases (This requires a large amount of energy input by fossil fuels.) About a quarter of the world's nitrogen is fixed into useable form to organisms by this latter way. It comes with its own set of problems, such as surface runoff. The first is more energy efficient because the reaction is catalyzed by an enzyme that lowers the activation energy for the reaction. We have done some pretty marvelous things with genetic engineering, though, in getting plants to tolerate even the worst env. conditions.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this just boil down to an argument of facts, and to assessing the validity of particular claims? Certainly I don't think anyone is arguing here man could live in a vacuum with nothing but his productive mind. Certainly no one is saying we should toss caution and long-range planning to the wind on the notion that human productivity can work independent of these two. So, what are the facts?

I have a more essential question, however. To the people who are seriously concerned about the end of particular natural resources. What is your motive? Are you motivated by self-preservation, by the desire to educate others of what you seem to singularly know, and thereby save yourself from the eminent collapse of entire economies, which would inevitably affect you? Are you looking out for yourself? Do you really think the end of a particular natural resource will come suddenly, abruptly? Or, is it some other motive?

I wonder because, while I don't have a "faith" in anything, I have confidence in the free market. That is, I have confidence that those profit-seeking greedy capitalists out there will not be so idiotic as to keep selling fossil-fuel burning products if it is factual that fossil-fuels are dangerously low. I mean, am I going way out on a tree limb here in saying that the people pumping out oil, the people at the ground level, have reasonably good means of predicting whether or not they have enough oil for the next, oh I don't know, 25 years? Don't they monitor oil levels themselves? And if so, wouldn't the profit-motive lead them to plan for life-after-empty if they know they are coming up on empty? Am I a fool for having confidence that they know their industry at least this well and that they are half-witted enough to understand the concept of long-term planning, for the sake of continuing to make money?

I mean, also, aren't we talking about a slow process, not a sucker-punch in the gut? Won't those money-seeking bastards have to figure out a way to keep making money after their oil runs out if their oil is truly running out and if they wish to stay in business? Is there some conspiracy going on whereby the oil guys truly are going to be at empty in five years, but they're selling decades-long oil contracts anyway (meaning they truly are this idiotic)? We all know how long such businessmen last. To be truly in trouble here, I'd say they'd have to be some massive conspiracy whereby most oil men would be idiotic enough to get together and lie about how much oil is left. What would be the point of this? Even an idiot-businessman knows that if he can't produce tomorrow, he's done. So where is the evidence that even if oil is to run out in some fifty years that it would be an abrubt collapse?

Also, do we here really think that altruistic motives for our fellow man would motivate scientists out there to tell us that we're really in trouble? We all know that while many people accept altruism, no one truly practices it. Do we really think that we have concerned scientists looking out for us, or far more less likely, concerned scientists looking out for themselves in some range-of-the-moment fashion? The profit motive is insatiable, the desire to amass wealth nearly unstoppable. Are we to think that scientists working in their campus labs know better than the people on the ground working with the oil?

So, to sum up, on the surface we need to evaluate the facts of any claim as to the longevity of particular natural resources, but also I'm interested in finding out what conditions are necessary for scientists (who are more likely motivated by the "publish or perish" motive) working in campus labs to know better than the profit-seeking oilmen working at the ground level do, in terms of ethics. And, if indeed these conditions are as far-fetched as I suspect they are, what does that mean as far as the motive of the people who are concerned about the running-out of natural resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what are the facts?

Hopefully this will help. It's a link to Hall's article in which he predicts when oil demand will exceed supply at low demand (NOT RUN OUT). Anyway, I will sum up the article in further detail later this week for those of you (I assume most) who do not want to read it.

Hallock, J., Tharkan, P. ,Hall, C., Jefferson, M. and Wu, W. 2004. Forcasting the availability and diversity of global conventional oil supplies. Energy 29 (2004) 1673–1696.

http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/Hall_PUBS3.htm

I have a more essential question, however. To the people who are seriously concerned about the end of particular natural resources. What is your motive? Are you motivated by self-preservation, by the desire to educate others of what you seem to singularly know, and thereby save yourself from the eminent collapse of entire economies, which would inevitably affect you? Are you looking out for yourself? Do you really think the end of a particular natural resource will come suddenly, abruptly?
I assume these questions are directed at me. So: yes, yes, and probably not. Please see my post also in the Peak Oil thread.

Am I a fool for having confidence that they know their industry at least this well and that they are half-witted enough to understand the concept of long-term planning, for the sake of continuing to make money?
Not all. But companies like GE have been trashed on this forum as being "environmentalist" for doing just that: long-term planning and shifts toward other sources of energy.

I mean, also, aren't we talking about a slow process, not a sucker-punch in the gut?
YES.

Also, do we here really think that altruistic motives for our fellow man would motivate scientists out there to tell us that we're really in trouble?
This is like saying that people who work on campus labs on cancer research are altruistic and their research must be nonsense, because it doesn't produce a sellable product. Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, but what conditions, in terms of the ethics of the men involved, do you think would be necessary for there to be as widespread a lack of understanding of the near end of natural resources as some would have us believe exists? The conditions necessary for scientists at campus labs to know better than the people actually bringing out the oil? Given these conditions, what do you think is the likelyhood of their existence today?

I wasn't making a blanket statement about non-profit directed scientific research as such, but about the likelyhood of the validity of such research as compared to private-based, profit-driven research done by the actual companies bringing out the oil. Which leads me to this.

Perhaps this last point deserves a thread of its own, but let me ask you. If the government wasn't involved in funding science, do you think there would be nearly as much funding for anything that wasn't either directly or indirectly geared toward making money as there is today? Secondly, would you see that as a trajedy and why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...