Michael Tobis wrote:
> I find the idea that it is dangerous to interfere with the economic
> system, an artifact, every bit as bizarre as the idea that it is *not*
> dangerous to interfere with the biosphere, at the very least an
> astonishing and rare accident of nature.
The issue is not whether it IS dangerous to interfere with something
that is itself a human construct - such a suggestion would probably be
silly, since its mere existence is the result of much continuing
"interference" (OTOH, any particular course of action will benefit some
at the expense of others, so perhaps even this is dangerous interference
to some, but that makes the term rather vacuous). The issue is whether
it may be dangerous to interfere *in a particular manner*.
I hope that the fact that economic factors may severely ("dangerously")
impact on peoples' lives is not a matter for disagreement. Try going to
central Africa and tell the people there that the difference between
your life and theirs is just an artefact!
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
