[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
In <59hfsr$bag@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A
McGraw) writes:
>
>In <59h0e5$dfh@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
>writes:
>
>>Negative effects are side effects
>>of our living, consuming, producing.
>>If we can reduce a negative effect
>>without reducing corresponding positive effects,
>>then we should do it. For example, cars pollute the air,
>>but they also help people move around. More efficient
>>cars reduce pollution *and* are better for
>>the owners. It is, then, a good idea to improve
>>gas efficiency. But prohibiting private cars
>>wouldn't be a good idea, even if it
>>reduced pollution even more.
> Are you saying that it is possible for polluting cars to be
>beneficial?
Certainly: *all* cars are polluting, and nevertheless
beneficial - or else why do people buy them?
>Are you saying that less polluting cars have been
>introduced because they are "better" for the BUYERS?
In part: more fuel-efficient cars are also less
polluting - and fuel efficiency saves the buyer
money and refilling time. In part, for other reasons.
What's the point of these questions?
Follow-Ups:
References: