|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 18, 2009 21:41:34 GMT
Well, I think part of the matter might be that both of us have certain ideal states of being that we envision when discussing these problems. My ideal state of being is a world where people are free to chose, where all interaction is based onf voluntary consent, and where externalities are treated kind of the same as accidents of nature and the weather - that is to say, people prepare for them in a million different ways, but don't always succeed in fending them off. Your ideal state of being, if I understand you correctly, is a world where life is sustainable rather than self-destructive insofar as the progress of human civilization is planting the seeds of its' own ecological demise. In fact, however, I cannot avoid taxes and you cannot avoid death - to put a spin on an old pun. Our ideal states will always remain just that, and just as I have to accept the existance of government as a fact, so to you must accept that no matter how green or conscious peopel get, the environment will still never be perfectly in harmony with human beings. I agree with all that. I am sure most of the rest of your post is incorrect (especially with regard to the nuclear record - Chernobyl took place in the absence of a strong safety regulatory regime - the safest nuclear power is where regulation imposes the highest standards) but neither of us can prove our viewpoints correct, so I think I'll just leave it there. I'll carry on working to protect the environment and try to step on business as lightly as possible in the process, and you go on keeping the world economy turning and try to step on the environment as lightly as possible in the process. Deal? Martin |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 18, 2009 22:03:57 GMT
Deal  Pete |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 2, 2009 18:10:47 GMT
Interesting article here discussing the best way to save the planet given human nature, plus lots of comments at the bottom (and spilling onto multiple comments pages, many worth reading, though they get flamey and entrenched by page 5) giving diverse views. It covers population, selfishness, market forces, government regulation, competition vs co-operation, you name it, all the stuff I've exhausted myself arguing with Pete about. It's impossible to agree with all the differing views expressed. Some are closer to my point of view, some to Pete's, the truth probably lies somewhere in between but not necessarily with the author's views. Anyway, it's worth reading. Happy to read anyone's comments here. Martin |
|
