[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
-
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 18:41:38 GMT
-
Article: 17107 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, tor.general
-
Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users
-
References: <574h3l$b6h@cybernews.cyberus.ca> <AEBB37A7-5002F@128.112.44.101><5784p6$fbg@news.inforamp.net> <01bbd9ab$03898600$89d0d6cc@micron-p133><579q46$5o@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com><JMC.96Nov24091753@Steam.stanford.edu> <32A11634.519@mail.snet.net> <JMC.96Dec5154714@Steam.stanford.edu> <Pine.A41.3.95b.961205151120.42692A-100000@dante24.u.washington.edu> <587ohm$lt6@news.inforamp.net> <32a85ed6.1311993@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <589jjn$71g_002@pm3-145.hal-pc.org> <58e2ak$7id@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6731 alt.org.earth-first:7263 alt.politics.economics:95008 alt.politics.greens:24468 alt.save.the.earth:27215 alt.sustainable.agriculture:17107 sci.agriculture:16985 sci.econ:61630 sci.energy:59895 sci.environment:114279 talk.environment:80496
In article <58e2ak$7id@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>
> You all are going to have to find some other work. The trend is
>to combust less, not more oil.
If the oil industry lasts about 10 more years, I will not have to find more
work. At that point, it will be someone else's problem.
> If you needed a tree to stay warm, you would tend to not use it
>inefficiantly. You might want some around for later. Ever eat food from
>a tree?
> The "environment" isn't "their" problem. The environment isn't
>'over there". It's a global thing. Your job is inconsequencial.
This is where people like you start looking totally foolish. I have
dependents to care for, and so does the vast majority of the rest of the
adults in the world. If you are looking to change my attitude, you
definitely cannot do that by calling my job inconsequential. In my
opinion, environmentalists are often inconsequential, as my daily problems
of finding food, shelter, and clothing for me and my family have a much
higher priority than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until
environmentalists get smart enough to recognize the human nature, and human
instinct, in the problems they are so concerned about, they are going to
have a very difficult time impacting the problem in the way that they see
fit.
In other words, if you are "people antagonistic", you are never going to be
able to change peoples' attitudes.
> You say you, "see little evidence of pollution". Ever been
>outside your front door? Do you use a TV? Do you know what a newspaper
>is?
Yes, I go outside regularly, and I watch the TV regularly. I don't believe
everything I see in the media (as you apparently do). When I look around
me, I repeat again that I see very little evidence of pollution. The most
pollution I regularly witness comes out of the tailpipes of autos that need
ring jobs; it doesn't come from industries who are intent on dumping their
waste because of their greed.
>
> Fear comes when decision makers declair that they see little
>evidence of pollution.
>
>
Fear comes when a pack of environmentalists howl at the moon, lamenting
that the sky is falling, when simple observation indicates that the problem
is much smaller than they say.
Follow-Ups:
References: