[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
In article <5922b9$784_002@pm8-149.hal-pc.org>,
charliew <charliew@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>In article <591kg2$lec@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
> davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>>A two-year old human can talk some too. Is that instictive? No, it is
>>learned. Perhaps the two-year old is, as when speaking, immitating a
>>behavior they picked up from adults when acting selfish? The sure would
>>have plenty of role-models in today's society.
>
>Much of the mechanics behind speech may in fact be instinctive. A baby
>doesn't know any language at birth, but obviously has the ability to adapt
>its brain to the language it hears all the time. This is not a learned
>behavior, as the brain "circuits" of that infant are being "tuned" during
>this period of development.
The mechanics behind speach may be instictive but the language is not.
Babies learn to speak by immitation which isn't perfect at first so it
sounds like gibberish (ie - "baby talk") but clears up after more
imitation et cetera.
>However, I do get the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, you are
>wrong. Many parents consciously work to set a good example for their
>offspring, in the hopes that the good examples will help "civilize" their
>little ones. Assuming that parents just always acted on their own
>self-centeredness leads to some interesting conclusions:
>
>1) They never would have become parents in the first place, because raising
>children is a very difficult, tiring, relentless job.
While I don't have the statistics I would bet many or most children were
not planned so saying parents would not be parents if they didn't feel up
to the job isn't always so. Also many parents have no idea what to
expect, probably as a result of their parents.
>2) Each new generation would learn behaviors that were worse than their
>parents, because children always try to "push the boundaries".
>Civilization would not long survive in this scenario.
A word of advice, take a psychology course. Children often do immitate
their parents but not always and not necessarily to a greater extreme.
Often if a parent is at one extreme it has the opposite effect on the
child making them go to the other extreme.
>Based on your suspect conclusion, I assume you have never raised children.
Based on the fact that I am gay I doubt I ever will. I have studied
enough to know what I am talking about and if you are basing your
conclusions on your personal experience I would suggest you take a broader
look at humanity. Not everyone has the same relationship as you do.
>>We are not against natural changes in the biosphere. We ARE against
>>negative man-made changes including mass extinction and pollution. To
>>simply say because we do it it is nature's way is naive. If I killed you
>>would that simply be an act of nature?
>
>Are you against every spec of pollution, or just pollution that is more
>concentrated than a specified maximum threshold? In other words, is one
>molecule of a pollutant harmful to the environment in some way?
I guess that would depend on the molecule. Molecule for molecule,
plutonium is far deadlier than carbon monoxide. There are acceptable
limits because every organism that exists produces wastes. When those
wastes cripple the ecosystem, then that is a problem.
>>The US consumes 75% of the planet's resources at produces 85% of the
>>hazardous waste. If we can make changes here, it will be good for its own
>>sake. Eventually, with a little pressure from within and without, the
>>other nations will change as well.
>
>Like they already changed to a democratic form of government in China,
>based on the Tienenmen (sp?) Square demonstrations? You are getting naive
>on this one.
That was only a few years ago. The key word here is "eventually" and yes
China has changed some and most analysts don't think the Communists will
be in charge for much longer.
>>Seeing as how the public is already pro-environment and is getting more
>>and more that way every day I don't see how you are in the position to
>>speak that way.
>
>The public is not going to be so pro-environment when EPA starts hounding
>them every time they get their car inspected.
If you've ever driven in a smog-ridden city you will find most people are
more than happy to have stricker emissions standards. Most people know it
is good for them and get sick and tired (litterally) of the smog.
> The public is not going to
>be so pro-environment when the government takes over U.S. energy in an
>effort to control CO2 emissions.
Yeah, they really screwed up with TVA. Government interference in energy
is so harmfull.
> The public is not going to be so
>pro-environment when unemployment goes way up as environmental concerns
>force most manufacturing jobs out of this country.
There is no evidence to prove this would happen and in states with strict
environmental standards unemployement has not gone up. You are simply
trying to scare people.
> I think you are
>counting your chickens before they are hatched.
And I think you are becoming desparate.
**** David Whitt davwhitt@med.unc.edu
** ***
** No one can make you feel inferior
*** without your consent.
**** -Eleanor Roosevelt
*** *
*** ** * People often find it easier to be a result
*** ****** of the past than a cause of the future.
*** ***
References: