Paul is getting close to what I was originally interested in. Although the
discussion exactly what I was talking about; personal character
assassination rather than substance.
The thing that has intrigued me for the past 30 some odd years is the
willingness for both sides of the environmental debate to hold the other
side in contempt. Neither side seems willing to accept that there may be
worthwhile issues on the other side, and so the tendency has been to believe
the other side is venal. The discussion on global warming on this list has
been just that, attack the persons holding the views or their motives for
holding the views. Any rational look at the data tells us that there are at
least several interpretations possible, so why are those who hold different
interpretations not talking to each other to work it out? Instead they hold
the other side up to ridicule, I suppose in order to make their own view
more---what do I say? They want to be the winner?
I've suggested Pascal's Wager as a way of this dilemma over global warming a
couple of times, but no takers, so I guess that dog won't hunt. What do we
do and why do we do it? I guess we wait until the evidence on global
warming, one way or another, is conclusive and then the winning side gets to
say "I told you so." Let's hope it works out.
Steven
On the other hand, prophets have a way of outlasting politicians. Gandhi
has outlasted Nehru, and it appears that Confucius will outlast Mao
Tse-tung.
Huston Smith
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Kirby
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Global Warming motives
Setting aside individuals, as DavidPearson requests, might there not be
value in "environmentalism" offering an attractive lifestyle. Provided that
it does not involve hypocrisy why should we not aspire to work in pleasant
offices and wear smart clothes? If we are to persuade the majority perhaps
we should spend less time trying to make the environmentally acceptable
desirable and more time making the desirable environmentally acceptable.
Stretching Jim's recent point out of shape somewhat, why should we have to
suffer dutifully to be virtuous?
Kind regards (and wishing for a nicer office and new suit)
Paul K
|