====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Louis wrote: "The president of Bolivia has called attention to the possibility that the melting of Andean glaciers will rob his people of drinking water. It does not get more disastrous than that." Really? So the *possibility* of glaciers melting away in the future is more disastrous than the *certainty* of widespread poverty and exploitation in Bolivia today? A very convenient argument for the president of Bolivia, I'm sure. But if he's really worried he should ask glacier-free Australians how they get their drinking water. After all, the Bolivian glaciers could melt away for entirely natural causes, just as glaciers have been doing for thousands of years. Then what would 'his' people drink? Mark wrote: "But if they say something about it, it's rejected as merely anecdotal". Anecdotal evidence can back up just about any case. It should not be rejected, only accepted for what it is - no more than anecdotal evidence. Paula ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
