Well stated litany of universally common concerns, Frank. Unfortunately, at this point, negotiating the world allows (demands) ecological offenses be inflicted on ourselves. A suspicion of the "Chicken Little" motives, along with a well founded faith in the headlong advance of technology, have blunted the point of claimed concerns. >From the time we are small, we take out cues from the grownups. Obviously, to >this point, the message isn't either believable or clear enough to incite the >drastic action claimed needed.
Jack --- On Tue, 1/19/10, frank theriault <[email protected]> wrote: > From: frank theriault <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: OT: I REALLY hate squirrels > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 10:21 AM > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:54 AM, > William Robb <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" > > Subject: Re: OT: I REALLY hate squirrels > > > > > > > >>>> Gore is a charlatan, but doing one's best > to live cleaner and consume > >>>> less is a worthy goal. As long as one > doesn't trample on the rights of > >>>> others in the process. > >> > >>> Your car tramples on my right to breathe fresh > air. > > > >> > >> Starting to get confused, there, Frank. > >> I suppose you want everybody on bicycles now? > >> > >> That's a head shaker, pal. > > > > Is it? Many places have laws prohibiting smoking > around other people because > > second hand tobacco smoke is "dangerous". > > I believe in your neck of the woods, Keith, that > smoking on outdoor decks is > > prohibited, even though the smoke will just waft away, > the same way 10,000 > > card exhaust gasses will do the same thing. > > Car exhaust is equally, if not more dangerous, and yet > we not only allow it, > > we actively encourage people to drive. > > The old adage "your rights end at the tip of my nose > could be very > > applicable, and at some point it's very possible that > some smart person > > could use the no smoking in public laws as a precedent > to push for no car > > exhaust in public laws. > > It would likely be a non starter, but that is only > because there isn't a > > legal system going that isn't rife with hypocrisy. > > I said I wasn't going to continue to participate in this > discussion. > > Clearly, I lied. > > ;-) > > However, just to clarify and expand (in response to Keith's > post), I > was thinking exactly what you said, Bill: > > "Your right to swing your arm around ends at the tip of my > nose." > > Does Paul have a right to live his life without being told > by > environmentalists or government or anyone else infringing > on his > rights? > > Sure. > > Until exercising his rights affects the rights of someone > else. > > If we lived a hundred years ago and there were a couple of > hundred or > thousand cars on the whole continent, I'd say, "Sure, go > for it, drive > to your heart's content!" Because Paul driving a > single car in > Michigan wouldn't affect me. > > However now Paul's one of hundreds of millions of car > drivers who are > contributing to foul air everywhere, so in fact anyone who > drives must > share responsibility for that. Even beside the > question of whether it > causes global warming, it's clear that there are more > pollutants in > the air and the environment generally than the earth can > absorb and > "process". > > So, Keith, I'm not advocating that we all ride bikes > (although I > continue to believe that if we did, the world would be a > much better > place). > > I also don't hate cars. What I hate is the result of > billions of them > worldwide and what they've done to my world (especially if > you include > all that has resulted from the oil industry and the > "protection" of > it). > > Paul has mentioned business and commerce and the economy in > other > posts, and I would submit that herein we come to a > particularly thorny > problem. Under a capitalist model, Paul has every > right, if he has > the money, to buy as many cars as he wants, drive as often > and as far > as he wants and use as much gas as he wants. Under > that model, it's > not an ethical issue, it's an economic one, and in fact > Paul is a > capitalist hero, because he's stimulating the economy every > time he > fills up his gas tank. > > Problem is that model doesn't take into account a very > important > thing: the Negative Externality. It's a term > coined by leftist > economists (yes, they do exist!) for a negative consequence > of an > action that a system simply doesn't take into > account. In this case, > all the pollution, wars, deaths and injury caused by > highway > collisions, repair and maintenance of roadways and bridges, > etc., etc. > Paul doesn't pay for that. The car makers > don't. The oil companies > don't. > > Some of it is paid for by the taxpayers (how fair is that?) > because no > one else will take responsibility. Some of it is > simply never dealt > with at all - and people die and live in squalor and can't > breathe, > but everyone says, "well, I didn't cause it, so how can > possibly I fix > it or take responsibility for it?" > > Do I have an answer? Yeah, but this isn't the place, > and most people > wouldn't like it anyway. > > And I didn't mean to pick on Paul, but my initial post was > in response > to his assertion of rights; in fact in this > discussion Paul > represents everyone in the west, and increasingly those in > developing > countries, too (yes, me too, because I'm part of the > problem even > though I don't drive a car). > > So to bring this back to where we started, yeah, we all > have "rights". > But their not absolute, and where they conflict with the > rights of > others, we have to do a better job of deciding whose rights > are > paramount, or at least how we can better resolve such > conflicts. The > model that we use now just isn't working (despite what some > here say). > > Well, my promise to stay out of the fray didn't last long, > did it? > > ;-) > > cheers, > frank > > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri > Cartier-Bresson > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
