[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: Jim <msteitz@xmission.com>
-
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 15:50:52 -0700
-
Article: 17172 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: XMission Internet (801 539 0900)
-
References: <574h3l$b6h@cybernews.cyberus.ca> <AEBB37A7-5002F@128.112.44.101><5784p6$fbg@news.inforamp.net> <01bbd9ab$03898600$89d0d6cc@micron-p133><579q46$5o@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com><JMC.96Nov24091753@Steam.stanford.edu> <32A11634.519@mail.snet.net> <JMC.96Dec5154714@Steam.stanford.edu> <Pine.A41.3.95b.961205151120.42692A-100000@dante24.u.washington.edu> <587ohm$lt6@news.inforamp.net> <32a85ed6.1311993@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <589jjn$71g_002@pm3-145.hal-pc.org> <58e2ak$7id@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <58f252$6u8_004@pm9-162.hal-pc.org>
-
Reply-To: msteitz@xmission.com
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6748 alt.org.earth-first:7303 alt.politics.economics:95193 alt.politics.greens:24520 alt.save.the.earth:27330 alt.sustainable.agriculture:17172 sci.agriculture:17063 sci.econ:61708 sci.energy:59985 sci.environment:114440 talk.environment:80754
charliew wrote:
>
> In article <58e2ak$7id@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
> (BIG CUT)
> >
> > You all are going to have to find some other work. The trend is
> >to combust less, not more oil.
>
> If the oil industry lasts about 10 more years, I will not have to find more
> work. At that point, it will be someone else's problem.
>
>
> > If you needed a tree to stay warm, you would tend to not use it
> >inefficiantly. You might want some around for later. Ever eat food from
> >a tree?
> > The "environment" isn't "their" problem. The environment isn't
> >'over there". It's a global thing. Your job is inconsequencial.
>
> This is where people like you start looking totally foolish. I have
> dependents to care for, and so does the vast majority of the rest of the
> adults in the world. If you are looking to change my attitude, you
> definitely cannot do that by calling my job inconsequential. In my
> opinion, environmentalists are often inconsequential, as my daily problems
> of finding food, shelter, and clothing for me and my family have a much
> higher priority than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until
> environmentalists get smart enough to recognize the human nature, and human
> instinct, in the problems they are so concerned about, they are going to
> have a very difficult time impacting the problem in the way that they see
> fit.
>
> In other words, if you are "people antagonistic", you are never going to be
> able to change peoples' attitudes.
>
> > You say you, "see little evidence of pollution". Ever been
> >outside your front door? Do you use a TV? Do you know what a newspaper
> >is?
>
> Yes, I go outside regularly, and I watch the TV regularly. I don't believe
> everything I see in the media (as you apparently do). When I look around
> me, I repeat again that I see very little evidence of pollution. The most
> pollution I regularly witness comes out of the tailpipes of autos that need
> ring jobs; it doesn't come from industries who are intent on dumping their
> waste because of their greed.
>
> >
> > Fear comes when decision makers declair that they see little
> >evidence of pollution.
> >
> >
>
> Fear comes when a pack of environmentalists howl at the moon, lamenting
> that the sky is falling, when simple observation indicates that the problem
> is much smaller than they say.
To charliew-
If you are saying that economic values will not be affected by global
warming, please see Scientific American issue Sept. 89'. Also in
refernece to you statement that problems "are much smaller than they
say."
References: