>> Okay. Like Jim Lewis quite clearly pointed out, growth is not
>> 'sustainable
>> development' & without the application of additional criterion that
>
>Wrong, he pointed out that in his opinion "sustainable development" is an
>"oxymoron."
Which is exactly as I indicated. Sustainable and development are an oxymoron
unless there are criterion or principles of sustainability or measurement
indicators that can be used to assess sustainability.
John
>
>You chimed in complaining about the excessive farming in the U.S. (Water
>shed depletion, etc.)
>
>I respond with...
>
>THE AUTHORS AGREE WITH YOU JOHN. IF YOU READ THE PAPER YOU WILL SEE QUITE
>CLEARLY THAT THEY STATE THAT CURRENT POLICIES IN THE U.S. RESULT IN AN
>OVER USE OF FERTILIZER, HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND ALSO INCREASE SOIL
>EROSION.
>
>(By the way the caps are for emphasis not shouting).
>
>Further you have completely failed to grasp the fundamental point of the
>paper which is sustainable development is development with adding in
>constraints to prevent degradation of ecosystems.
>
>Please read the paper, it is only about 20 or so pages long and uses no
>mathematics whatsoever.
>
>
>
>> covers
>> 'human rights, ecological functions, and economic issues related to
>> equity,
>> fairness, and so on" development will not be sustainable.
>
>Surprise surprise John!! They address many of these issues. John the
>authors are making statements very similar to you. Do you realize that
>this means you are arguing against YOURSELF.
>
>
>
>> I studied with one of the authors of the Bellagio Principles in Graduate
>> School. These principles were used in the development of the principles
>> of
>> sustainability worldwide. I agree fully with Jim Lewis, and if you want
>> to
>> believe what your pinpoint sized pupils tell or admit to you, then that
>> is
>> fine with me.
>
>Why John is that an ad hominem?
Well if you had not started it, then why are not willing to end it? You have
called my reading comprehension skills lacking. So if you can dish it out,
then you should be able to accept it.
>Who cares. The point is THE STATEMENTS
>YOU ARE MAKING ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE STATEMENTS THE AUTHORS >ARE MAKING,
IMO. Further, this is not my paper....I didn't write it. However, your
>distaste for my pro-market positions have resulted in you labeling this
>paper as unworth of your attention.
I never said anything about to downgrade market solutions. I am the one
arguing for market solutions through certification of sustainable forest
products. I am not going to support 'greenwash' and other types of propaganda.
>> Of course I read this paper. What else should I do for you? Sing the
>> praises
>> of 'growth' at any cost to the environment?
>
>Now I think you are not being honest because such a statement is wildly at
>odds with what the paper claims, and if you read you know this. Either
>way your are not being truthful here. If you read it, you'd know that
>statement to be untrue. If you didn't then your claim that you read it is
>untrue.
Well I will re-read it only to be sure that I have not missed anything. >
>> Few people are interested in being slandered by you Steve so why don't
>> you
>> stop that habit of yours first, then participate intelligently. No one
>
>I am trying to, but your preconcieved notions and knee jerk reactions are
>getting in the way of a serious discussion. You dismissed the paper
>without even following the link, imo. If the paper calls for growth at
>any environmental cost as you claim then produce quotes from the paper to
>bakc it up.
Well I quess I can read it again. I will let you know what I think. Maybe I
have to think a bit before I respond once more.
>> can
>> pop your bubble it appears...perhaps they have and we are seeing you
>> deflated. Is that why you are angry?
>
>No, I am annoyed at your flippant, dismissive and arrogant tone of your
>posts and your failure to consider other viewpoints. You didn't read the
>paper just admit and we can go from there.
Only big cats tell little mice and kittens that they are arrogant. You don't
read my posts anyway so why the missive directed to me. Why am I so important?
"When an idea is new, it is seen as crazy. This is followed by a period in
which it is viewed as dangerous. After this, there is a period of
uncertainty. In the end, you can't find anyone who disagreed with it in the
first place".
Stephen J. Gould
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|