Thanks JP,
Progress <could> also mean we grow up and start behaving like citizens of
the Earth instead of selfish little brats. As a rule, the naysayers are
either bought and paid for by the hydrocarbon industries, or, as you
suggest, just too human-centric to give the rest of the biotic community
any
respect. And the latter is a hugely short-sighted attitude, seeing as how
our existence depends on healthy ecosystems. Even if all the climate
change
deny-ers are correct, we will still be better off moving to an economy
based
on renewable, non-polluting energy sources.
Jim Mason, Naturalist
Jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Plains Nature Center
6232 E. 29th Street North
Wichita, KS 67220-2200
316-683-5499 x103 - voice
316-688-9555 - fax
www.gpnc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "JPPelham" <zapjammer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "Leps List" <LEPS-L@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 10:14 AM
Subject: Climate Change
> All,
>
> I have been staying strictly out of the Global Temperature debate; it
has
> been and remains a contentious and fruitless discussion on list-serves.
> However, after reviewing the various exchanges and visiting some of the
> suggested websites, my conscience will not allow me to refrain any
longer.
> There are obviously agendas at play. I cannot fathom all of them, nor
> will I make the attempt.
>
> Global Warming/Cooling, CO2, Hot/Cool Sun...whatever. A majority of
> scientists studying earthâs climate are concerned over the
potential
> effects that humans are having on the climate. I think this statement
is
> beyond dispute. As an example of how people try to negate this fact, I
> heard one soul proclaim that upwards of 30% of the scientists at a 'Bali
> Symposium' refused to sign a declaration of consensus on the subject,
> demonstrating considerable dissent. I later discovered that these
> recalcitrant scientists were upset that the measures discussed were too
> lenient! Was this is a simple oversight on the part of this poor soul,
or
> blatant misrepresentation for the purpose of misleading people? This
> happens so often that I suspect an intent to defraud.
>
> People do misrepresent themselves. They can also be misrepresented.
Both
> are lies, but apparently, 'we' are becoming immune to dishonesty. It
> seems to me that we shall not know who is 'right' as to whether humans
> influence climate for at least half a century. But there is something
> unsaid in all of these arguments. There is something that disturbs me
> about what seems a widespread anti environmentalism. It is possible
that
> it has something to do with these agendas I cannot fathom.
>
> While cruising the internet, I read some incredibly absurd arguments
from
> people who seem supremely qualified to post them. There is a lot of
that
> going around these days. As a result of my incredulity, I formed some
> questions. I think the answers are obvious enough, but I would also
guess
> that they will generate great indignance.
>
> 1. Can there ever be too many people on the planet? Is ever increasing
> human population growth not only conceivable but preferable?
>
> 2. Can 'Human Progress' and development of resources expand
indefinitely?
> Is there no end to human potential?
>
> 3. Is it demonstrable that the human presence on our planet does not
cause
> stress to environments and the diversity of organisms that dwell within
> them?
>
> 4. Can a secular argument be generated that humans are, collectively,
> 'better' than any other creature?
>
> Can anybody examine our natural world and find evidence that any
creature
> is better than any other? How can it be possible to show that we
humans
> are superior creatures, especially in light of our ephemeral existence?
> One cannot merely cite our 'accomplishments' as evidence of our
> superiority. A complex creature is not 'better' than another simply as
a
> product of its complexity. Is an ant better than a solitary wasp?
>
> The reason I exclude spiritual arguments seems obvious. I know that
there
> are spiritual arguments for and against, just as in the secular world.
> However, the sources for spiritual sup****t of an argument are not
subject
> to the same scrutiny that secular facts can be. They are <de facto>
> unassailable.
>
> In my nearly 60 years on this planet, I have seen one after another of
my
> favorite places developed or destroyed. This has been incremental and,
> sorrily, I do not see an end in sight. Many of you of similar
experience
> (as old as me!) will note the same. The only defense I can distill from
> the many arguments in sup****t of human progress, is that people come
> first, all else is (apparently) subservient to our needs. If this is
so,
> if people are actually so precious, then it would seem that we ought to
> consider what the next several centuries will present us. Instead, we
> plow straight ahead, blissfully unaware of consequences.
>
> If incremental development and human progress continue at the same pace
as
> they have, there will be no room for e.g. butterflies & moths, save
those
> that can adapt to our environments.
>
> That concerns me.
>
> JPPelham
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
|
