On 2 April 2014 06:31, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah I like thorium too. I realise it isn't the universal panacea but >> seems like a good bet if handled carefully. >> > > It's a bit off topic but all my life I've heard people say X is NOT a > panacea but never once heard anyone say Y IS a panacea. For something to be > meaningful contrasts is needed, If absolutely nothing in the observable > universe is a panacea the word would be as useless as if everything was a > panacea. >
The term is a little dated with the invention of antibiotics etc. It's basically the same as "cure-all". > > > if oil production is still increasing, >> > > It is. > > >> > that isn't good news for the environment. >> > > If increasing oil production keeps 7 billion large mammals (who happen to > be my favorite animal) happier healthier and more prosperous than if oil > were not increasing I would say increasing oil production is very good news > for the human race. Does that mean that some other animals in the > environment that aren't on my top ten list will suffer as a result? > Probably. > That isn't the point. The point is that increasing pollution is bad for *humanity*. Since you're replying to a straw man I won't bother with the rest of your post. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
