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

Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy



dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
>>On 10 Dec 1996 06:04:21 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
>>
>>>Comparing our current situation to the past may show us some areas of
>>>improvement, but it also shows us that at no time have we had the
>>>destructive potential that we do now. And that we're not putting that
>>>potential to much better use than we ever have.
> 
>This just isn't true.  This may seem like a small point: our
>destructive potential was far greater ten years ago than it is today.

Prove it.
 
>In that decade the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world has
>declined by perhaps as much as 40%. All the major powers, including
>France and China, have ratified and come under the aegis of the
>nuclear test ban treaty.  The Union of South Africa has given up its
>nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapons programs of Iraq, Egypt and
>North Korea have been halted.

I mentioned nothing about nuclear weapons, but since you did... 

There are still well more than enough of these weapons to destroy
every populated area on the planet. Just those under US control would
probably get the job done. The Defence Department has stated
repeatedly that nuclear weapons will remain the main element of their
'program of deterence' for some time. This is not the most important
point though. 

Ten years ago the main threat was still considered to be a major
strike/counter-strike exchange between the two then superpowers;
because of it's very nature this threat was much more stable and
unlikely than the problems which we face now more than ever. 

Any country, rogue state or terrorist organization which can get their
hands on enough bomb-grade plutonium/uranium can build a bomb while
facing very few technological hurdles. I could tell you where to find
the instructions. The chances of a nuclear incident increase greatly
when the deterring factor of retalliation is removed from the picture.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, large quantities of these
materials have been found proliferating (that fits doesn't it) through
underground markets. No one knew how 'nuclear capable' Iraq was until
after the actual materials were found on their soil. The ingredients
are out there.

The actual feature was much better, but check out:
http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/guides/loosenukes.html

>Major weapons systems have been slowed, e.g. the B-2 and Sea Wolf,
>while others, such as the racetrack missile and the bugso Star Wars
>proposition have been halted.  

And yet the US continues to spend a huge percentage of their budget on
defence, about twice the amount spent on medical and space research.
And this with no apparent threat; I guess it's to defend against those
aliens that are coming. <g>
 
>At the same time the United Nations has substantially increased its
>still small and weak military force. The Russian Army is now back in
>Russia, except for a few units serving the UN.  

And militia activity in the US is rising, many of them preparing to
fight those same UN forces. Don't ask me why. 

Just because the threat of a major war is gone doesn't mean we're
acting any more peacefully. We just have a monopoly on military power
and politics, which is dangerous in itself.

>Not bad.  We haven't gone far, but we're going in the right direction.
>Going slowly in the right direction is far better than going wrong at
>great speed.

None of your comments 'destroyed my claims', as you seem to think. 

A nuclear holocaust is a threat we can all see as real and don't mind
paying billions of dollars to avoid, but nuclear fission is only
humankind's  _second _ most powerful accomplishment. The first, as I
stated, was our ability to increase the temperature of our entire
planet, albeit beyond our control and intention. This is not as
obvious a threat as a sudden volley of destructive missiles being
lobbed across the planet, but it is just as real.

Even if the population never increased past it's current level, we can
still expect the remaining 75% to become industrialized. Although they
have some impact now, that's an additional 300% polluting and
consuming at our level _without_ an increase in population. If you
believe that our atmosphere can handle even another billion
automobiles, you're more than blind. This is just one example of many.

Most environmental problems don't offer economy-friendly solutions
like the need to build lots of big missiles and satellites. If they
did, they would be being addressed more readily. Very few people want
to buy an electric car, especially if it's more expensive. Even more
disturbing: nobody wants a car that lasts forever, even if it's
cheaper.


Jason McGinnis



Follow-Ups: References: