Paul M Foster wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:55:01PM -0400, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 11:15:36PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > But okay, let's just imagine that the environmental movement _doesn't_
> > > have more than its share of nut jobs. So what precisely is the end result
> > > of all this environmentalism? Precisely. Not some pie-in-the-sky nebulous
> > > utopian statement. Something that precisely defines what is and what
> > > isn't acceptable use of the environment, and an acceptable trade-off
> > > between progress (as defined by the sadly misguided few of us who believe
> > > that the environment is here to serve us) and environmental protection.
> >
Ok, lets start simple (I reeeallly want to avoid sending an entire other
book to the list ;). The point of environmentalism is the following:
Careful Progress. In other words, don't do something just because you
can, first know you can, then figure out whether you should or not. What
will be the long term results of an action 50, 100, 500 years from now?
What will be the result to people's lives? Will it be beneficial or will
it be more harmful than good? Unfortunatelly with the way we, with a
"Western" mind set, think about things, it becomes such that long term
means one year, not a hundred. What Enviromantalism tries to do is to
make us look at the long term results. Two perfect examples of this are
nuclear radiation and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Let me
explain:
When we first found out some of the effects of nuclear waste in the late
40's, we did not yet know what the long term effect were to humans. All
we knew was that if it didn't kill you from the blast, it probably
didn't have any long term effects. During the early part of the 50's,
beauty companies began to sell "hairless sticks", which would allow a
woman to simply press this slightly irradiated against their skin and
*poof* hair would go bye-bye. Well, after a few years, they found out
that these sticks were causing cancer on MANY of the women using it
(boy, that would have made for one hell of a class lawsuit...). As soon
as the direct correlation was found, the companies were ordered to stop
the distribution of these things. Fortunatelly they stopped.
Unforrtunately it was already too late for thousands who had died or
were dying of cancer due to these things. This was one example of not
looking far ahead enough with new technology.
Today, we have a similar battle going on with the introduction of GMOs,
Genetically modified organisms. These things are being pumped into the
markets while relatively little research has gone into the long term
effects of these foods on humans. In fact, it's impossible to have had a
long term study yet. However, many side effects have already been found.
A perfect example is the famous "Starlink Corn", which contains a
protein not found in nature, Cry9C. Already, this corn was being slipped
into human food, causing almost deadly allergic reactions to people who
did not previously have allergic reactions to Corn before. What if an
untested bio-engeniered product turns out to cause genetic damage to
those whio consume it? And these, being undetectable for decades
(perhaps even longer), turn out to cause irreparable damage not to only
one life, but rather to an entire species.
In short, to environmentalists, progress should be carefully monitored.
Yes, we should experiment and try new things and think up new theorems
and come up with new forms of power supplies. However, we should also
learn that nature is not here to serve us. In fact, evolution CLEARLY
tells us that we are here to serve nature. Nevertheless,
environmetalists maintain that we should work with nature, and make sure
that we dont' destroy the only home we have. "Economy" does not exist
without "Ecology". We are no longer here simply to serve nature, neither
is nature here to serve us. Rather we are here to work with nature,
shape to our wills if we must, but over al leave it to its own. Leave
only tracks, take only pictures.
> > No, the *reason* you're not going to find an end result is because
> > we've not done it yet. You can't judge progress without having already
> > been there, or without having something fairly accurate to relate it to.
> >
>
> So the environmental wackos are going in a certain direction and they
> don't know where they're supposed to end up? And they don't know because
> they haven't gotten there yet?
>
I dare you to name me one pioneer who knew where the hell he was going
when (s)he started. You won't be able to. Pioneers have what they
idealize to be the end result. Whether it is or not is as unknowable as
the future itself.
By the way, Paul, in what moment of enlightenment did you ever get the
idea that progress = Ecological Destruction? Unless, of course, you
define progrss as some "manifest destiny," which - by the say - is
starting to look an awful lot like where your ideas might have come
from. And yes, you are a sad and misguided few who believe that the
environment is here to serve us. When will you learn that unless you
take care of the environment, you and your children and your children's
children are dead (that is, if your children ever get a shot at having
children of their own - you might well be taking that chance away).
P.S.
The California energy crisis, my friend, was DIRECTLY caused by
deregulation. Why do you think that other states are fighting it so damn
hard now and the only ones speaking for its wonders are rich oil tycoons
like Bush and Chenney, and other assorted right-wing nut jobs and green
eyed monsters.
Norb
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:25:21 EDT