[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Brashears on Hanson
-
Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson
-
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
-
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 96 02:34:11 GMT
-
Article: 16947 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: Houston Area League of PC Users
-
References: <5840b9$g2p@news1.io.org> <5850e9$6pg_001@pm1-81.hal-pc.org> <Pine.A41.3.95b.961204163414.13254A-100000@dante07.u.washington.edu>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6670 alt.org.earth-first:7175 alt.politics.economics:94556 alt.politics.greens:24340 alt.save.the.earth:27039 alt.sustainable.agriculture:16947 sci.agriculture:16785 sci.econ:61437 sci.energy:59654 sci.environment:113925 talk.environment:80002
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.961204163414.13254A-100000@dante07.u.washington.edu>,
"D. Braun" <dbraun@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, charliew wrote:
>
>> In article <5840b9$g2p@news1.io.org>, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
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. Unfortunately, this is where the real world is heading.
>> >
>> >The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
>> >(self)destruction.
>> >
>> >Ecologically,
>> >
>> >Yuri.
>> >
>> > =O= Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto =O=
>> > --- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
>> >
>> >I take a totally different view of God and Nature from that which
>> >the later Christians usually entertain, for I hold that God is the
>> >immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things. I say, All
>> >is in God; all lives and moves in God === B. Spinoza
>> >
>>
>> Yuri,
>>
>> why is it that as things are getting better, you perceive them as
getting
>> worse? Pollution was much worse in the '60's than it is now. Open your
>> eyes, ears, and nose, and verify this for yourself.
>
>An overgeneralization. In some areas, such as ground water pollution and
>non-point run-off, pollution is worse. In other areas, the rate of
>pollution is down, as well as total amounts, but the totals creep upwrds
>due to population growth and the auto-culture. Many estuaries, such as
>Chesapeake bay, are as eutrophic as they ever have been, mostly due to
>non-point runoff from farms and developed areas that is laden with
>fertilizer/animal waste.
So what do you propose? Sewage treatment for animal waste? This
particular point is ridiculous, unless you are trying to tell me that we
need to get rid of cattle, introduce a bunch of predators to keep animal
populations down, and all become vegetarian.
Acid rain is still with us, and high elevation
>lakes in the Adirondaks and White mountains are still dead, and red spruce
>is still in decline. All our gains can be steadily eroded, because of
>population growth, and our sprawling, consumptive lifestyle.
Certainly, we are irresponsible for consuming more than the bare minimum
necessary for survival. If all of us would just get rid of all our tools
and technology, and live as animals with the rest of nature's beasts,
everything would take care of itself. NOT! I for one, am immensely more
intelligent than the non-human animals in nature, and I intend to use every
bit of IQ I can muster. If some animals are inconvenienced by this, that's
their problem.
> Some gains
>allready are, and some areas are worse than they once were. Saying its all
>better dosen't really help a thing, but feeds directly into the Repub.
>attempt to gut environmental protection.
>
> Dave Braun
And where do you think the Repubs got this idea? From their constituents
who have been losing jobs over the stupid demands of the extreme
environmentalists who cannot agree on anything other than zero emissions.
The only way to get to zero emissions is to die, rot, and turn into a
skeleton (which cannot decay any farther). Short of this, you are
guaranteed to emit something.
For you enviros out there with closed minds, I didn't mean to construct
such a big straw man, but I was hoping to give you a clue. I have no doubt
that you will not understand what I am saying, but I guess I am compelled
to say it anyway (it's a personality flaw).
Follow-Ups:
References: