[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The Limits To Growth

In article <58ivs6$1c2@news.inforamp.net>,
   sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>>In article <58e2ak$7id@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>>   tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
>>(BIG CUT)
>>>                                                                       
>>>        You all are going to have to find some other work. The trend is
>>>to combust less, not more oil. 
>>
>>If the oil industry lasts about 10 more years, I will not have to find 
more 
>>work.  At that point, it will be someone else's problem.
>
>Not only do you attempt to leave the solution to someone else, but you
>hope and fight to make sure that the problem is not even faced in your
>time. At the least the problem is still there, and most likely it is
>compounded.
>
>>>        If you needed a tree to stay warm, you would tend to not use it
>>>inefficiantly. You might want some around for later. Ever eat food from
>>>a tree?                                                                
>>>        The "environment" isn't "their" problem. The environment isn't
>>>'over there". It's a global thing. Your job is inconsequencial.
>>
>>This is where people like you start looking totally foolish.  I have 
>>dependents to care for, and so does the vast majority of the rest of the 
>>adults in the world.  
>
>And you think you are doing them a favor by leaving them with the
>problems? Do you think you can improve life for them by simply leaving
>them a big fat trust fund? Do you enjoy teaching them that to survive
>they have to step on whoever and whatever gets in their way, and that
>the same will done to them?

You are getting pretty close to my plan, Jason.  In fact, you are finally 
getting to the pessimistic part of my personality, and you are not going to 
like what you read.  When I look into the future of manufacturing in this 
country (U.S.), I do not see a very good future past 10-20 more years.  
Since I work in manufacturing, this has me committed to make as much money 
in as short time frame as I am capable.  Once manufacturing leaves this 
country, and moves overseas, everyone's standard of living will decline.  I 
plan to do whatever it takes to migrate into the "rich" class, while the 
rest of the middle class migrates into the "poor" class.  This will 
necessarily require VERY stiff competition, but I think I am more mentally 
prepared than most.  If I have it my way, I will leave most of the enviros, 
and others who are less fit to compete, in my dust.  Furthermore, based on 
the attitudes and capabilities that I have seen in this newsgroup, there 
will be very little that the average newsgroup poster can do about this 
(either the economy declining, or me getting ahead of them).

>
>>If you are looking to change my attitude, you 
>>definitely cannot do that by calling my job inconsequential.  In my 
>>opinion, environmentalists are often inconsequential, as my daily 
problems 
>>of finding food, shelter, and clothing for me and my family have a much 
>>higher priority than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  
>
>Your job and your life is not inconsequential, but is no more
>consequential than anyone else's. Problems are solved by collective
>effort, not by self-centered competition. 

My problems will indeed be solved by self-centered competition.  If I stay 
in my present income bracket for the next 5-10 years, I can tell my present 
employer to "stick it where the sun don't shine!"

Greed and poverty are each
>direct results of the other; to eliminate one you must eliminate both.

This is a big over-simplification, usually espoused by people who are 
socialistic minded.  Oh, the poor working class!  They need to overthrow 
the greedy, rich industrialists!

In 5-10 years, you can preach this sermon to my CPA!


>The greed you demonstrate and justify with your fear of poverty is
>example enough. Those who benefit from the way things are have a
>responsibility to those who don't.

This is where we strongly disagree.  I make occasional charitable 
contributions, but I don't have a responsibility to raise the standard of 
living of someone in poverty, at my expense.  Even if I wanted to, there is 
not enough money to go around.  Besides this, giving away money *just plain 
doesn't work*!  I know this for a fact, because I have done it before, and 
the gift had big unintentional consequences.

>
>There are nearly 300 milllion people in the United States, most of
>whom are well educated, intelligent and hard-working. Why should
>anyone fear going hungry? Why should anyone fear _anything_? Now
>_that_ would be the greatest country in the world. 
>
>Instead we have trillions of dollars of public debt around the world,
>which is blamed on the poor, (and in your case the environmentalists),
>and held by those who benefit most from the way society works.

I don't blame the enviros for any of this debt at the present time.  
However, if we implement some of their grander (and more stupid) schemes, I 
will blame them big time!

However, I will tell you something that is stranger than what I have 
already said.  If enviros do something that causes the economy to slump, I 
may even be benefitted by it.  Assuming that an economic depression was the 
order of the day, the money I have in savings would get more valuable.  I 
definitely would not want to see this, but I will try to take advantage of 
it nonetheless.

>
>>Until 
>>environmentalists get smart enough to recognize the human nature, and 
human 
>>instinct, in the problems they are so concerned about, they are going to 
>>have a very difficult time impacting the problem in the way that they see 
>>fit.
>
>Impacting the problem involves the definite changing of that 'human
>nature', so to say that they don't understand it is pretty far off the
>mark.

Read your Old Testament accounts of the Israeli march through the desert 
(see Exodus).  If the almighty couldn't seem to change the attitudes of his 
chosen people, how in the world do you expect some wimpy environmentalists 
to do this for a much larger population?

Your ideas were favorites of the communists.  Those guys' theories 
implicitly assumed that people would do the right thing, even when there 
was no material gain to be had from their actions.  This stupid experiment 
has been repeated many times in the last century, and it has invariably 
produced substandard results.  Why do you think your ideas will "take root" 
this time around?
References: