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

Re: The Limits To Growth



In <59hfsr$bag@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A
McGraw) writes: 
>
>In <59h0e5$dfh@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
>writes: 
>>
>>In <598162$daq@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David
Lloyd-Jones)
>>writes: 
>>>
>>>On 17 Dec 1996 22:38:12 GMT, davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt)
>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <32B5A4A2.1538@bionomics.org>,
>>>>Max Jacobs  <mjacobs@bionomics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>    .  The Earth is so immensely complex that humans cannot manage
>>>>>it at all.  Remember Mt. Pinatubo?  One volcanic eruption
basically
>>>>>eliminated all the global warming that had occurred for the past
>100
>>>>>years of industrialization.  That is not to say that we arent
>>negatively
>>>>>affecting the environment, but we are not managing it, and we
>cannot
>>>>>ever hope to do so.
>>>>
>>>>That is one of the points we environmentalists like to make.  We
are
>>not,
>>>>and can not manage our planet in a better way than nature.  
>>
>>This is obviously, palpably not so.
>>Only people drugged by ideology can believe
>>it, or even believe they believe it, while
>>they themselves choose to live in the more
>>man-managed parts of the planet.
>>
>>We *are* managing the planet far better than
>>nature. Unmanaged, wild environment is hostile
>>to *all* the species that inhabit
>>it; they are all riddled with parasites -
>>hardly a healthy wild animal or plant in the world -
>>they are mostly at the edge, the margin
>>of survival. There's no harmony in live nature,
>>except in individual organisms. *They*
>>have been optimized by selection - their environment
>>has not. 
>>                                                                     

>    False. The environment is an indelible part of selection. 

Of course it is.

>The environment today, as affected by those previously selected, is
> affecting selection itself.

Of course it does: it *does* the selection.

It destroys the less fit, or the less lucky.
But it is not itself a *product* of selection
between competing environments. Nor does it possess
a mechanism of heredity that would have permitted it 
to adapt under selection
if there had been a selection. Nor is it a functional
whole like a machine. It is a haphazard mess that
is mainly destructive. 

> You'd embrace the selection of those who
>survive what you advocate.                                            

Sorry: I do not understand this sentence.
Embrace the selection? 
Survive what I advocate?
This rings no bell. 

>>By contrast, inhabited lands are habitable, 
>>hospitable, pleasant and safe to be in. They
>>were not like this originally, they
>>have been made so by the generations of humans.
>>Consider Holland: a large part of it wasn't
>>even land before people managed it.
>>The rest of the ocean, jungles, swamps, polar ice,
>>tundra, taiga, not *yet* as hospitable - but can be 
>>made so if we go on as we do. 
>>Every acre of "rainforest" cleared by loggers, 
>>every new road or power line, every 
>>disease-causing species going extinct, is a victory
>>for human management of nature. Each is a little
>>act of geo-engineering. If we only stay on course, 
>>we'll make this a really nice planet yet, 
>>a garden of Eden come true, where all nonhuman 
>>creatures, all "nature", exist for our benefit 
>>and add to our joy. We are *domesticating* nature, and 
>>should go on.
>>                                                                     

>    I think you are being dishonest. 

Too bad. 

>Are you saying that replacing a
>rain forest with a road, is creating a garden of eden? 

It is certainly a step towards a Garden of Eden,
compared to a roadless rainforest.
You can tread the road without myriads
of nasty things biting, stinging, poisoning,
infecting, threatening you. You can drive
the road in an airconditioned car, in comfort,
and breath freely. The jungle stinks and there
isn't enough oxygen in it.

It is still better to raze the rainforest
altogether and plant a garden - with roads and alleys,
and plants seen to the best advntage.

>Are you saying
>that a road would make it "really nice"? 

See above.

>Which adds to your joy?: The
>destruction a rain forest replaced by a road, or a rain forest? 

The former.

> Who would do a Joy/Benefit analisis? You?                            

Yes - for myself only, of course. 
I can't tell other people what they should like.
But I won't be told by them, either. Buy yourself
a few acres of rainforest, preserve them all you 
wish. Don't tax me to do that, and don't regulate
what I do in *my* back yard.