| | If the "environment is the basis of all wealth", then would you think that a good capitalist will simply ignore the relevant, acceptable, and sufficient implications that this statement brings? Your tone seems to affirm this presumption. Let me answer this $64,000 question for you: a good capitalist plans long-term (and those who don't plan long-range simply do not dominate a free market - they don't have big effects).
Yes, yes Ed, but you and others ignore the undisputable laws of ecology, ie, each area/unit of land has a limited productivity value, and it's the opinion of many scientists that we have breached that limit and are toxifying our soils and water reservoirs{see The Warning to Humanity Statement 1992 and GEO-3 Report 2002,.. 2800 scientists, many senior, warning us}.
These warnings don't back your take on the matter.
David, please buy the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg and read it with a critical mind. To my knowledge there is currently no other book which provides the quantity and quantity of relevant, acceptable, and sufficient data on the major issues of environmental debate. That book is $60 Aus, and is not the work of a credible scientist, IOW, his specialty is either statistics or political science.
When I'm interested in knowledge on the environment, I seek the environments most knowledgeable, ie, ecologist/biologists, I don't take the word of a scientifically illiterate, absurdly optimistic keyboard operator.
I am not optimistic about appealing to critical reasoning over this issue with you,
You have to answer for the laws of ecology Ed, you have to look into concepts such as eco-footprint and eco-deficit.
It's all very well to assume that we can handle massive increases in pops whilst both globalizing and continuing to increase local consumption, but can the productive base support this??
|
|
