thats basically it. it depends on if the death and disease and destruction that will be caused is worth it. (if you ask me, i get less people in the world, and beach front property here in az. WIN WIN. )
On 1/28/08, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 28/1/2008 8:28 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: > > > > > > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > > > It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. > > > > An ill conceived solution will make matters. Let us not waste resources > on > > crazy solutions, but use them to adapt if necessary. We cannot save > > civilization by dismantling civilization. > > > > I saw a science show on Saturday that said global warming will cause the > > sahara to get green again, and then they called that a bad thing! How > can > > that be bad if it was once green? > > > > Change happens. Change is continuous. Something somewhere gets better, > > something somewhere else gets worse. Animals adapt. But, we humans > don't > > want to adapt. We want to stop change, no matter what the cause of the > > change, rather than adapt. > > > > We want the sea shore to stay right where it is now, everywhere, and we > will > > commit unlimited resources to make it so. At sometime in the past, > evidence > > shows levels higher and lower on this planet. It changes > continuously. Let > > it go. Adapt! > > > Adapt or die! ;-) > > Harry > > -- That which yields isn't always weak.
