[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: "Don Dale" <dale@princeton.edu>
-
Date: 25 Nov 96 10:47:17 -0500
-
Article: 16561 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.environment, talk.environment, tor.general
-
Organization: Princeton University
-
References: <5784p6$fbg@news.inforamp.net>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6590 alt.org.earth-first:7002 alt.politics.economics:93656 alt.politics.greens:24063 alt.save.the.earth:26487 alt.sustainable.agriculture:16561 sci.agriculture:16343 sci.econ:61012 sci.energy:59061 sci.environment:113022 talk.environment:78734
Jason McGinnis wrote,
>The statements by Mr. Purchase are a perfectly logical example of the
>logical system accepted by environmentalists, biologists, etc. used to
>determine impacts and relationships within an environment, called Life
>Cycle Analysis. LCA's are the only logical way to determine the true
>benefits and problems of a system or product.
The statements by Mr. Purchase were a classic textbook example of "post
hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. If this is "the logical system
accepted by environmentalists, biologists, etc. used to determine impacts
and relationships within an environment," well, that's the saddest thing
I've heard in a long, long time.
>I won't deign to offer you a prize for your closed-mindedness, but I
>do offer this prescription: replace your daily viewing of Baywatch and
>Melrose Place with no less than 2 hours of a non-commercial medium of
>your choice. Handing down judgement on usenet doesn't count.
Very nice ad hominem attack, and very irrelevant. I'm not a Nielsen
household; my TV viewing choices don't affect you. If you wish to exchange
insults, we can do it elsewhere.
Don
Follow-Ups: