Tom's cynical statement seems to imply acceptance of an illogical premise: because we didn't die of all these things, we really had no need to worry.
There is a big difference between doing nothing to avert a disaster that never arrives and heeding warnings and taking action that staves off a disaster or at least mitigates the damage caused by it. The concern might be unwarranted in the former case -- nothing was done in response, nothing happened, so the concern may have been a waste of time. In the latter case, a risk was perceived, a response was implemented, and the disaster averted. While some may argue that the concern was unwarranted, others can argue (possibly more convincingly) that the response to the perceived risk was effective. A basic thought experiment bears out the fallacy of Tom's apparent premise. Let's say you are driving toward an unguarded railroad crossing. You see warning signal indicating an oncoming train, but decide to run the crossing anyway. You beat the train. You could argue that the warning was unnecessary, that the concern was overblown, but odds are if you continue to run the lights, you will in time run out of luck and have a high-speed meeting with a much larger and dangerous object. Now if you see the warning signal and stop, letting the train pass, would you seriously argue that there was no need for concern? Or would you argue that you were not hit by the train because you opted for the prudent response -- stop and and wait for the train to pass. In some of the examples Tom cites below, ultimate destruction never happened because we realized the risk and took steps to minimize them -- like installing the hotline between the White House and Kremlin to avoid accidental nuclear holocaust. In other cases, they have happened -- like Chernobyl. In still other cases, Tom seems to assume that because a disaster didn't happen to him, there was no cause for concern, but I suspect the many victims of fire, flood, etc., would beg to differ. Dave P.S. I agree with Tom, however, in his determination to live as well as possible despite all the potential sources of death, doom, and destruction in the world today. ------------------------------------------------------ David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com ------------------------------------------------------ "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Patton Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Overshoot, Homo colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, pestilence, nuclear meltdown etc., ad infinitum. Tom: This is a common attitude these days and somewhat understandable. However, those of us witness to the loss of endangered species, widespread habitat alteration, and other impacts that seem irreversible beg action from us who can see across timespans. One thread which seems to hold promise is that of setting future goals, planning on how to achieve the goals, and taking first steps towards action. One example is the U.S. EPA's environmental futures initiative (http://www.epa.gov/osp/efuture.htm) and Project Horizon. While being of the same generation as you, I cannot stand by and be silent as the majesty of Nature is decimated by human greed. For me, it's a matter of respect, responsibility and my own self-esteem. This is my personal choice and my personal opinion. Cordially yours, Geoff Patton Tom Schweich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I dunno ... the first I remember is being taught to hide under my desk at school (1952), bend way over and kiss my ass good-bye because the commies were going to blow us to smithereens. Then I think it was all the smog in Los Angeles that was going to get us. Then all the nuclear power plants were going to simultaneously melt down. Then we were going to completely run out of oil by year 2000. Then all the pollution was going to kill us. Not to mention forest fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, and floods. I've given up dying over and over again, and plan to live a little in my few remaining years. Until then, I'll try to be efficient in my use of petroleum products and not contribute to over-population, excessive pollution, or set off any earthquakes. -- Tom Schweich http://www.schweich.com stan moore wrote: > Folks -- > > Professor William Catton is Professor Emeritus in Sociology and Human > Ecology at Washington State University. aIn 1982 (isn't it hard to believe > that was 1/4 century ago!) Professor Catton wrote "Overshoot: The > Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change", which some people have said is > among the most important books ever written ... etc. > > > --------------------------------- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
