John D. Giorgis wrote:
>At 05:01 PM 7/17/01 +1200 K.Feete wrote:
>>Eh, yes, but when the solution is something like "stop using so much
>>stuff" people actually *prefer* the problem. It's not that "we" greeners
>>are short on solutions; it's that we're short on ways of getting people
>>to *impliment* solutions. Not in all cases, but in at least a few.
>
>Of course, what point is there in preserving a static environment if it
>impovershes us all?
Hum. I'm trying to think of a nice way to say that you've just pointed up
the major, irreconcilable difference between our viewpoints here, John.
You seem to think there needs to be a reason *not* to ruin the Earth. I
think there'd better be a damn good reason *to* ruin it.
>
>If environmentalitsts were more serious and honest that we need to make
>*tradeoffs* someone might actually believe them.
Eh, if capitalists had shown any signs of noticing when we asked nice...
oh, hell, mudslinging gets us nowhere.
>A good start would be pointing out that burning a gallon of gasoline
>currently produces more damage to the atmosphere than is collected in
>taxes. A serious argument for slowly increasing gasoline taxes
>(especially now that the price is coming down) could go a long way.
There is an entire large section of environmentalism devoted to this
idea, John.
>
>Instead, environmentalists just wail about how we need to force ourselves
>to *not* do things (with those things we must not do being dictated to us
>by the government.) If the greens would show a bit more interest in
>having *markets* not the elites in government decide how to best help the
>environment, maybe they would get somewhere.
Um, and there is another large segment of environmentalist thought
devoted to *this* idea, too. I think this must be my punishment for
making blanket statements about Reagan or something....
The hard part is getting politicians to listen to moderate views.
Politicians are generally a bit deaf; one has to shout *really loudly* to
get their attention, and when one is screaming at the top of one's lungs
certain finer points of the argument tend to get lost.
A lot of people *are* very interested in getting markets to help the
environmentalists... a *lot* of people. Sadly it hasn't worked too well
to date. It's too hard to explain, say, the "value" of a wilderness area
in Alaska to an economist, because the defining characteristic of a
wilderness is that it has no value. It's free. This word "free" brings
horrified looks to the eyes of any good capitalist, and the discussion
tends to break down shortly afterwards.
>Oh yes, it is so reassuring to see all those people protest against two
>consenting adults agreeing to make a trade that benefits both of them. I
>can't tell you much more comfortable I am knowing that thousands of
>protestors trained in everything but economics are going to keep me from
>purchasing rice produced by a poor African farmer.
And I can't tell you how reassuring it was to know that I could no longer
make choices based on my opinion about, say, genetically engineered food,
bad fishing practices, the use of banned pesticides, or the explotation
of underage workers thanks to the decisions of large, faceless
corporations (*not* individuals, John) and a bunch of economists trained
in everything but science.
> Indeed, its not
>surprising that most of these wealthy rich kids are involved, since most of
>the barriers to trade are in things like agriculture and manufactured goods
>- which - surprise, surprise, end up raising prices from exactly the goods
>that poor people spend most of their money on.
Do you want to compare family incomes, John? I admit most of the
environmentalist movement has been middle-class or upper middle-class,
but that *is* changing. And I haven't noticed any prices going down from
the removal of those trade barriers. By your logic, shouldn't that have
happened? *Has* it happened? Well?
>
>If this your vision of morality, Kat, give me hedonism.
Gladly.
Kat Feete
------
I have six locks on my door, all in a row. When
I go out, I lock every other one. I figure no matter
how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they
are always locking three of them.
- George Carlin
