[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: 
>                        
>>Negative effects are side effects
>>of our living, consuming, producing.
>>If we can reduce a negative effect 
>>without reducing corresponding positive effects,
>>then we should do it. For example, cars pollute the air, 
>>but they also help people move around. More efficient
>>cars reduce pollution *and* are better for
>>the owners. It is, then, a good idea to improve
>>gas efficiency. But prohibiting private cars 
>>wouldn't be a good idea, even if it
>>reduced pollution even more. 

>   Are you saying that it is possible for polluting cars to be
>beneficial? 

Certainly: *all* cars are polluting, and nevertheless
beneficial - or else why do people buy them?

>Are you saying that less polluting cars have been
>introduced because they are "better" for the BUYERS?                  

In part: more fuel-efficient cars are also less
polluting - and fuel efficiency saves the buyer 
money and refilling time. In part, for other reasons.
 
What's the point of these questions?