Lisa wrote :

>Of course there are problems with these theories...
>They are theories. :)
>
>The problem with all this is do the assumptions about global warming
>strengthen or weaken the premises about the global warming arguments
>everyone is making about these theories.
>
>|Per say we have not proven what is going to happen with global warming
>there is speculative proof,. as to what could happen. In my opinion, I think
>we should be worried about the implications of cause and effect, in all of
>this. If we don't do this, then X. If we do treat these problems then X
>Obviously, if every person in the world stopped driving, there would be
>reductions of emmisions, then X.  The problem in all of this is the "then X."
>would no one owning a car, stop emmisions? What if some natural phenomenon
>produced as much CO2 as car exhaust? The problem is the unknown.
>Personally I would really be interested in hearing,  about how this may
>have an effect to an ethical implication. If we know driving our car causes
>pollution
>to X,  what are the moral implications involved in caring that we are causing
>harm to the planet. For some reason I can't find a moral code, which states
>this act of me not wanting to give up my car is wrong even though I know by
>driving it I am causing harm. Is this an evil act?

Some thoughts in response to yours. The reason why you can't find a moral
code, and don't feel bad about driving, is, at least in part, that 
all our moral
codes are inherited from previous generations. Over many many centuries,
all soceities have developed belief systems which support some conduct
and discourage other conduct - e.g. telling lies, stealing, rape, murder,etc.
These belief systems are taught to little children and just become a part of
one's make up, one's conscience and sense of right and wrong, good and evil.

The problem nowadays is that the circumstances that we live in are changing
so rapidly that we cannot rely upon whatever wisdom we inherited from our
parents and grandparents any more. No previous generations have had to
work out moral codes for such things as aeroplanes, tv, computers and
motorcars. When these products appeared people just seemed to assume
that they must be 'good' because they made life easier or more interesting.
Nobody stopped to think what the downside would be.

What this means, in effect, is that we are having to work very hard to make
intelligent appraisals as to just what we should do.

One approach which I favour is Bill Mollison's Permaculture. This involves
using design. What it aims at is designing your surroundings and your
lifestyle in an attempt to mimic natural ecology. It's a kind of compromise
between the lifestyles of traditional tribal peoples, and all the stuff being
thrown at us by modern soceities. The idea is to re-invent ways of living
that could, theoretically at least, be sustained indefinitely into the future,
hence the name permaculture. Lots of people are doing it, all around the
world, and there are courses you can attend to learn the basics. IMO it is
not the complete answer, but it's a move in the right direction.

C.L.









%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%