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

Re: Economists on ecology (Re: GOODBY MIKE!)



On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:20:37 -0800, Robert Vogel <vogel@mail.snet.net>
wrote:

>Seems to me the facts are simple. 

Facts are never simple.

>Our planet uniquely supports life for the time being.

HIghly unlikely.  Of course you can't prove a negative, but we've
started exploing a one-digit number of planets, and we find possible
signs of life on Mars already.

>Pollution, deforestation, over population, desertification, and other
>consequences
>of profligate development can quickly render the planet lifeless.

Might screw up the humans a bit.  "Lifeless" is rather going
overboard, seems to me.

>Republicans are promoters of unlimited development.

Some are, some aren't.  Most of them are just dolts, as far as I can
see.  Many of them, however, are intelligent, well-informed, and
sensible people who are appalled by the style of Democratic politics.
The good news is we now have Dick Armey and Phil Gramm to show that
Republicans can be every bit as coarse as Democrats.

>Therefor Republicans are wrong, and those who choose life will oppose
>them all.

Uh, ahem.  Lemme get this straight.  Your claim is you are in favour
of life, and anybody who disagree with you in death?  I think maybe
you jumped a rail back there someplace.
 
Morals and whatnot apart, There are only two ways to win in politics:
by killing all your opponents, or by winning a fair fight in which
there is mutual respect.  In the first you stand a 50% chance of
losing, so it's not a terribly good deal to try on.  In the second you
are almost certain to win a great deal of the time, and to do OK even
when you're losing.  This makes it the choice of sensible people.
 
                                                       -dlj.
 





Follow-Ups: