[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew)
-
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 22:48:49 GMT
-
Article: 17221 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: <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> <58f252$6u8_004@pm9-162.hal-pc.org> <Pine.SUN.3.95.961210195247.724A-100000@garcia.efn.org>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6766 alt.org.earth-first:7337 alt.politics.economics:95342 alt.politics.greens:24566 alt.save.the.earth:27419 alt.sustainable.agriculture:17221 sci.agriculture:17114 sci.econ:61775 sci.energy:60069 sci.environment:114554 talk.environment:80940
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.961210195247.724A-100000@garcia.efn.org>,
John Flanery <jflan@efn.org> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, charliew wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>There is no conflict between employment and the environment. Oh, certain
>jobs should be eliminated, but the overall employment level is controlled
>by the Federal Reserve, not by the amount of economic regulation.
>
>But your point is valid. So long as you are dependent on holding on to
>your job, you are compelled to defend your employer, even when they do
>not deserve it.
>
I agree. This is what you call a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, I
find myself dealing with more conflicts of interest as I get older, but I
don't think I can do anything about it, as I seem to slowly have less and
less control of my own destiny.
References: