On Friday 14 November 2008 10:22 am, Edward K. Ream wrote: > I wouldn't say it's hard, but you must separate evidence from self > interest. People tend usually to believe what is comforting or > lucrative.
Well, my prejudice is to be pessimistic, but the evidence is that we're still here after all these millennia. Some of the question's would seem to be: * if we had slowed growth many years ago, would we have experienced as many wars, famines, ... * if we slow growth now (or even shrink) will we avoid wars, famines, ... BTW, Edward, I appreciate your tolerance of this discussion here--we seem to be having a fairly nice relaxed discussion. I'm sure if it gets out of hand, you'll have to put your foot down, but for now it seems like a nice place to discuss this. > If you can get beyond that, you have a good chance of seeing clearly. > You evaluate the quality of evidence, *independently* of where the > evidence leads. This is what science is (mostly) about. Randy Kramer -- I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. 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/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
