[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The Limits To Growth




In article <32b45d30.25567235@news.airmail.net>,
Sam Hall <samhall@dkdavis.com> wrote:
>On 15 Dec 1996 19:45:06 GMT, davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote:
>>>Ignorance, greed, and apathy are not instincts? Look at any human two
>>>year old. Concern about anything other than immediate self
>>>satisfaction is a learned behavior.
>>
>>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.
>>
>Is that the best you can do? 


I gave an example showing your assumption may be wrong.  In return you
give one sentence demeaning what I say but offering nothing constructive
in return.  A better question would be is that the best YOU can do?


>>>Man was created by nature and his actions are a part of nature. He is
>>>just better at it than any other species.
>>
>>Better at what?!
>>
>
>Changing nature to suit him


You mean pillaging nature to make a buck.  Why does something which has
worked well for billions of years need our "improvement"?  


>>>1) You want all of mankind to work together. That is not nature's way
>>
>>Who are you to say?!
>
>History is quite clear. War after war. From tribes in Africa and South
>Seas islanders to world wide conflicts. 


History itself is the product of civilization which by definition is
mankind working together.  Without people working together there would be
no religion, government, writing, etc.  It is in our nature to work
together far more so than to fight.


>>>2) You want to change man's natural behavior in ways that you think
>>>would be better. 
>>
>>True.  What's so bad about that?  Sounds very nice to me.
>
>Who put you in charge and why do you wish to change nature? Maybe you
>should start trying to change other species behavior. They might have
>a better chance to survive that way.


As a member of the human race I have the right (one may say the
responsibility) to work for the betterment of mankind.  My working to
better mankind is not the same as my being in charge of mankind.  I'm
amazed you can't see the difference.  What I would like to change is the
negative aspects of our behavior and focus on the positive aspects.  In
the end if we do not save ourselves no other species will survive (except
perhaps the cockroach, they thrive on your so-called "improvements").


>>>3) You are trying to prevent certain changes in nature. That is not
>>>nature's way. This biosphere we are a part of is always changing.
>>>Species come and go. Temperatures go up and down. Coastlines move back
>>>and forth. Change after change. Nature never sits still.
>>
>>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?
>
>Man-made changes are part of nature, how could they not be since
>nature made man. Beside, who is to say that certain changes are
>negative? Just because you don't want certain changes, doesn't mean
>they should not happen.


As for the nature-made-man-therefore-man's-actions-are-natural dribble,
all of our society is based on what is natural and what is artificial. 
Natural is that which is based on nature.  Artificial is that which is
based on technology.  One happens without purpose, the other with.  There
is a fundamental difference here that even a grade-school student would
understand.  As for the not-all-changes-are-bad tripe, I clearly stated
that I was against "negative man-made changes".  I see your reading
comprehension skills need a little brushing up on.


>>>Besides, it won't work anyway:
>>>1) China is not listening to you. That's about a quarter of the
>>>world's population. If you think the mess the USSR made was bad, wait
>>>until you see what China does.
>>
>>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.
>>
>Good luck. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?


Again, is that the best you can do?  Nothing constructive?


>>>2) The need for energy in the second and third world is going up, up,
>>>up.  Unless we start building them cheap nuclear plants, they will
>>>biuld coal or oil plants and they won't put much in the way of
>>>emissions controls on them.
>>
>>How about more research into alternative energies?  The US spent more in
>>one day during the Gulf War than in the last decade and a half on
>>alternative energy.  As for nuclear power, what do you intend to do with
>>the waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years but it stored in
>>barrels which leak after only 100 years?
>>
>We are not doing it. "Should" doesn't cut it.
>France doesn't seem to have any problem with their nuclear waste. They
>reprocess it and sell it. 


Reprocessed for making nuclear weapons.  Isn't that such a better idea! 
Let's build hundreds of nuclear plants and we can make nuclear weapons out
of the waste!  Your buddies at the NRA can fight to have nuclear weapons
made available for personal protection and hunting.


>>>3) You are not going to make the changes you want to in the US. The
>>>rest of us won't let you.
>>
>>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.
>>
>Then why did the Texas EPA (what ever their name is) have to start
>using unmaked cars. Seems they were having troubles with the
>farmers.Why is illeagal imports and sales of CFC's a major problem.? 


Because a vocal minority of people like Ron Arnold, Chuck Cushman, Bill
Grannell, Grant Gerber, Clark Collins, and William Perry Pendley have
excited these people with propoganda telling them they'll lose their
houses, jobs, and starve to death if industry can't have its way.  They
are told environmentalists are pagans and communists and as any
God-fearing American [redneck] must do they must fight.  Violence is
encouraged to the point of arson and murder.  Most Americans DO support
the EPA.  Keep in mind farmers only make up 2% of the population and not
all of them support Wise Use and other anti-enviro groups.



      ****                   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: