[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Brashears on Hanson
-
Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson
-
From: tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
-
Date: 4 Dec 1996 16:52:16 GMT
-
Article: 16924 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
-
Organization: Atmospheric Oceanic and Space Sciences
-
References: <5840b9$g2p@news1.io.org>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6664 alt.org.earth-first:7163 alt.politics.economics:94478 alt.politics.greens:24318 alt.save.the.earth:27014 alt.sustainable.agriculture:16924 sci.agriculture:16752 sci.econ:61404 sci.energy:59611 sci.environment:113847 talk.environment:79924
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: : I'm sorry, my point, not well made, is that as long as you accept
: : Jay's assumptions, he is correct. Unfortunately, those assumptions to
: : not apply in the real world.
: Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: reality.
An incorrect one, alas.
: The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: (self)destruction.
Perhaps so, but using invalid arguments to support this position,
as Hanson does, serves to discredit rather than justify such a
position.
As far as your statement goes, perhaps you would do better to
qualify "destruction" and/or define "Nature". To a physicist,
for instance, your position is utterly meaningless.
Asserting your feelings is not a way to have the slightest influence
on those who disagree with you in the first place, but perhaps it
will make you feel better.
For myself, since I do think that environmental problems are indeed
serious, and that progress on them requires careful reasoning,
your and Hansen's shabby arguments and vain emoting make me feel
substantially worse.
mt
Follow-Ups:
References: