An overview. If you were a 70 year old who had lived in Iran all your life, you would not be able to remember a time, except for a brief interlude in the early 1980s, when your country was neither (a) occupied by a foreign power, (b) ruled by the puppet of a foreign power, nor (c) prevented from free trade by the sanctions of a foreign power. That is what comes of being what the British imperialist Lord Curzon called in 1892—even before oil became a strategic issue—one of “the pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the dominion of the world”. More than a century later, Iran (Persia as it was in Curzon’s day) is still a piece on the board.

Hurricane Florence will make landfall in the Carolinas on the same day the US Department of Energy announces that the US has likely surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia in crude oil production.

What's really happening here? BP bit off more than they could chew, and there was a catastrophe that they weren't fully prepared for. That's stupid and irresponsible. But it doesn't seem equally foolhardy or naive, as this article seems to suggest, to assume that technology will solve our problems like cancer and hunger — of course it absolutely *will* solve them eventually. (Or it won't because we won't invent that technology, and we'll destroy ourselves.) There's a difference between hoping your existing technology will be adequate and hoping that people will continue to develop ingenious applications of science to solve problems. Because that's what technology is. The screwdriver is technology, "top-kill" mud seals are technology. Whether the first incarnation of something works isn't a sure thing, but blaming the non-entity "technology" as something we shouldn't trust because it isn't ready sometimes doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Think more on this.