Re: synth vs. the environment (I don't think that there is any Audi content anymore, except for maybe the idea that we need to have somewhere to have Audis!)

[Richard Beels <beels@technologist.com>]

>I feel compelled to respond since the reply to this subject tore off into
>the idea of trying to conserve our environment.  I must preface my response
>by saying that I think that Richard's ideas are interesting, but maybe a
>little to slanted to the $$ that would be preserved by not conserving vital
>environmental processes that may be in jepoardy:
I felt compelled to respond because my experience and reading has shown
that the doomsdayers are almost invariably not backed up by the facts or
trends.  

>First, the post related to USED OIL AND RECYCLING, not the environmental
>movement. 
>Second, however, I note that Richard must agree with me concerning the use
>of motor oils.  

Pour 'em down the drain, I say.  Nothing like a cuddly, oiled-down baby
seal to club!  <gdr>
Just kidding....

>of this consensus seem a bit hollow?  SOme would say the consensus doesn't
>exist, and I would cite them to the US Presidents Council on Sustainable
>Development (web presence at www.pscd.gov - I think - its part of the
>whitehouse server).
If anyone thinks that any collection of 'environmental' scientists done by
the White House (read: Al Gore) is anything resembling comprehensive of all
views - especially views contrary to the current doom and gloom, you must
have been the one inhaling while Bubba just watched....

>Since resource use came up, I admit that I've never heard of Simon and can
Shame.

>subject shouldn't believe everything that they read - especially on the net
>- even on the PCSD server.  I would propose that interested parties refer to
>"Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome or "The Path Not Taken" by Amory
>Lovins.  Their theses have stood the test of even the harshest assault.  I
>would cite them, and I believe that the concepts that they espouse would
>prevail in any argument on the issue.
<clipped from email> You don't need to tell me about the mess of crap out
there on the net.  I've been on the net since, well, let's say I can
remember thinking those new 1200 baud modems were smoking!  And you didn't
need to use an acoustic coupler even.  Ah, progress!  JS is not an Internet
gadfly.  Unfortunately, he died in February.  Before he died, he published
most of his works on the web to disseminate them as far as possible.  

>future.  Therefore, the whole debate that you propose is only a matter of
>time.  Is it your Grandchildren, or their children that will deal with the
>problem . . . or their children?  Does it matter to you?
<clipped again> Yes it matters.  But the matter of time isn't in the next
20 years or probably the next 200 years.  I guess I'm a bit more optimistic
about things.  I put it in the post I wrote to Huw: zero-sum and
underestimating technological progress.  We don't give ourselves enough
credit to figure things out.




Cheers,
	Richard
	88 90Q - <insert pithy witticism here>
	88 Golf GTi - PRO Rally