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

Re: The Limits To Growth



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: