Writes Mark:
>
> Yes, anything is possible. But there is a danger of runaway warming.
> The problem I have with this is not just that it sounds like whistling in
the dark,
> but that it sends out quite the wrong message ... [snip]... Those who
> try to save themselves and say devil take the hindmost, are putting
themselves in
> the position of the wealthy males who bought seats on the Titanic's
lifeboats and
> left women and children to die. It's not very edifying. I can't believe
that you of
> all people are suggesting that! Are you?
Of course not.
Quickly, what I am saying (what I SHOULD have said, perhaps) is this:
1) "Gee Mark, I agree that planet heat death is a likely outcome, but I have
an honest disagreement with you over the ranking of the probabilities, and
there is a wide variety of scenarios and little agreement without more
data."
2) "As the crash deepen,s our culture will devolve into disconnected (from
each other) communities."
3) "As Stan has observed, the most immediate danger is the governmental
[capitalist/fascist]response to warming, population overshoot, and the rest.
We should have an eye to doing what we can to diminish the negative
consequences. All of us should be conscious of this right now, regardless of
our differing policial/social/economic orientations."
(sigh) This is an imperfect medium at best. I had assumed that one was among
colleagues here on the list, at least to the extent that one could speak of
components of the crash without always having to spell out the larger,
overriding "right message to be sending out".
You and I have a few differences of opinion as to the nature and character
of the impending crash scenario, and that is all. This is true among
everyone who is aware of the problem at this point in time, right?
It is soooooo easy within this medium to always impute the most negative of
implications to another's post -- particlularly with the muffled background
noise of posts like Carrol's, Hallyx's, Mac's and Rob's. (not to mention my
own carping. <G>) I guess that's sometimes more of a problem to the
discussion than getting the facts straight.
I was not suggesting some Mad Max-style TEOTWAWKI scenario with "devil take
the hindmost."
What I should have said is "As the crash spirals civilazation down, there is
a window of opportuinity for communities to take advantage of biocentric
thinking in order to combat the consequences of anthropocentric disaster and
anthropogenic-generated problems. It could save some pockets of humanity."
I gave the example of Inuit communities. (I did not recommend individuals be
selfish) The Inuit would be well within their rights to adopt a "devil take
the hindmost" attitude, don't you think? However, I don't see them doing
that, do you?
Individuals will not survive by emulating Mad Max. ... not very long,
anyway.
I don't know how to get around this always imputing the worst implication to
one who assumes a position in the discussion opposed to anonther. It seems
rampant among all of us discussing the crash right now. Dieoff and ROE are
uninhabital over this right now. I suppose it's because we all care so much
and hate to see the Earth die. I am thinking of unsubscribing from here and
everywhere else (the crowd cheers!) The marxist/anti-marixist battle does
not interest me, either, all this ideology and name-calling seems trivial
compared with heat death of the planet, non?
oh well.
thanks for listening
Tom
"This is not an experience I haven't been through before."
-- Secretary Alexander Haig
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
