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

Re: The Limits To Growth



charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:

>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.

Not only do you attempt to leave the solution to someone else, but you
hope and fight to make sure that the problem is not even faced in your
time. At the least the problem is still there, and most likely it is
compounded.

>>        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.  

And you think you are doing them a favor by leaving them with the
problems? Do you think you can improve life for them by simply leaving
them a big fat trust fund? Do you enjoy teaching them that to survive
they have to step on whoever and whatever gets in their way, and that
the same will done to them?

>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.  

Your job and your life is not inconsequential, but is no more
consequential than anyone else's. Problems are solved by collective
effort, not by self-centered competition. Greed and poverty are each
direct results of the other; to eliminate one you must eliminate both.
The greed you demonstrate and justify with your fear of poverty is
example enough. Those who benefit from the way things are have a
responsibility to those who don't.

There are nearly 300 milllion people in the United States, most of
whom are well educated, intelligent and hard-working. Why should
anyone fear going hungry? Why should anyone fear _anything_? Now
_that_ would be the greatest country in the world. 

Instead we have trillions of dollars of public debt around the world,
which is blamed on the poor, (and in your case the environmentalists),
and held by those who benefit most from the way society works.

>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.

Impacting the problem involves the definite changing of that 'human
nature', so to say that they don't understand it is pretty far off the
mark.
                                                                      
>>        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.

Maybe you should try more than 'simple' observation. BTW, the sky
isn't falling, it's just being irreparably damaged.


Jason McGinnis



Follow-Ups: References: