I am not sure if - Steve - you have come across any works written by the
mathematician George Cantor. As a mathematician Cantor was fascinated by the
concept of the infinite. The infinite can be viewed mathematically two ways:
as a quantity that is either infinitely small or infinitely large, since
the number one is both infinitely small depending on the object or body it
signifies, or infinitely big; bigger numbers than one are infinitely smaller
than one. Why? It is very easy to prove! Go dis-prove this. The infinite is
only an attribute of a body or object. The physical proof is so simple that
any one of average training and intelligence could prove this. In symbolic
logic therefore a set, [with its proper domain to include all things
existing now in the universe] which is termed infinite, to be infinite must
contain all subsets. What does this mean? Es mas facil! Is it one or many?
How can one thing with it's value set to unity contain multiplicity? Is
there a inherent contradiction here in logic?
Since as you say firms pollute by necessity, and firms are necessary to
commerce and civilization, it could be concluded that pollution is necessary
[evil or otherwise]. Carrying forward your arguement that no firm cannot
fail to pollute [even a cow farts methane], since costs are infinitely
large for reducing pollution to zero, at which point therefore is the break
even point acheived on the return for expenditures to reduce pollution?
At 11:32 AM 11/9/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>Yes Corey it is that simple. It is that simple because ALL firms
>pollute to some degree. Thus, ALL firms are engaged in criminal
>activity and since zero pollution is the goal then you shut down ALL
>firms. Why is this so difficult?
>
>This is why I think the costs of reducing pollution to zero can for
>all intents and purposes be considered infinite. Given this, shutting
>down all firms is not an option and neither is achieving zero pollution.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>---"M. Corey Watts" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> At 10:31 AM 11/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> >You missed the point Corey. I don't think people were pissed because
>> >it was Exxon, but what happened. Steven Bissel has taken the
>approach
>> >that any firm (why only firms is totoally beyond me...I guess he
>> >thinks firms exist independently of humans) that pollutes is engaged
>> >in a criminal activity and should not be allowed to pollute at all.
>> >If this is indeed the case then the solution is obvious. Shut down
>> >all firms. Simple ain't it.
>> >
>> >Steve
>> >
>>
>> You're pretty good at facetious comments Steve. Nothing's simple.
>>
>> I did put a query to the floor regarding the identity, rights and
>> responsibilities of corporate identities a little while ago, but
>no-one
>> thought it was of any interest.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Corey Watts (PGDipSc Student)
>> Centre for Conservation Biology
>> The University of Queensland
>> St Lucia, Qld, AUSTRALIA 4068.
>>
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Telephone: +61 7 3365 2475
>> Facsimile: +61 7 3365 1655
>> CCB Website: http://www.ccb.uq.edu.au/website
>>
>> "Wings and feathers on the crying, mysterious Ages...
>> ...all that is right, all that is good."
>> D.H. Lawrence, "The Wild Common."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
