[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
-
Date: 30 Nov 1996 03:48:48 GMT
-
Article: 16772 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: Netcom
-
References: <56fhn4$das@news1.io.org> <56fuha$77i@nbdchc4.bnr.ca> <E0x0zD.7I8.0.sheppard@torfree.net> <56i5rt$nu3@nbdchc4.bnr.ca> <56mruo$rhb@news1.io.org> <56n9r0$dnp@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca> <56ns5b$cdg@agate.berkeley.edu> <56o321$rt1@news.inforamp.net> <57bei6$nah@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <32a001f9.2218734@news.sasknet.sk.ca>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6636 alt.org.earth-first:7105 alt.politics.economics:94051 alt.politics.greens:24196 alt.save.the.earth:26756 alt.sustainable.agriculture:16772 sci.agriculture:16564 sci.econ:61266 sci.energy:59399 sci.environment:113497 talk.environment:79458
In <32a001f9.2218734@news.sasknet.sk.ca> bob.evans@sk.sympatico.ca
(R.J.(Bob) Evans) writes:
>
>On 25 Nov 1996 06:32:38 GMT jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, from thinking what it is like to the hundreds of millions
>>who have been saved from misery.
>>Statistrics of hunger and disease matter a lot;
>>but the numbers of healthy, happy people in the world,
>>of children with a future of hope, matter the most, and are
>>increasing the fastest. We are living in times of wonderful progress
>Also remember that this has been accomplished on a minimum of arable
>land thereby preserving the genetic diversity and fragile ecosystems
>on the great majority of the planet.
Why, yes. This matters little to me, but it is true
and may matter to others.
>>The main obstacles on the way are environmentalists
>>and regulators.
>For which we have only ourselves to thank. High-yield agriculture is
>the only true environmentalist solution. We elected the regulators.
Again, true, if "we" means the majority.
It must be respected to some extent.
Some day, it may change - if people see the issue as
habitats vs. jobs. Meanwhile, the best
way may be to bypass the regulations and to make them less
enforceable by limited funding and by insisting on due process.
The regulators themselves help by
making so many regulations that full enforcement becomes
impossible.
And again I have to agree about "true environmentalism".
Not being an environmentralist,
I never make this argument myself.
But indeed more wild nature can be preserved by
urbanization and by intensive
agriculture - by *concentration* of human
presence and activity - than by any other reasonable means.
I just do not think this is a Good Thing
because I see no compelling reason to preserve wild nature
or existing ecosystems. Why preserve what you can improve?
References: