*notes that mr. trips is a captain and salutes, smartly*

ahoy thar cappy! i'd like to know your response to my post too, if ya can do me the courtesy, mate!
and you also, Crystal, oh popular and well-liked moderator!!!

-MeadHallPirate

Of course that's debatable.

I think they're a good set of rules to aspire to live by if you're so inclined.

Personally, I think that there are about three of them that should be forced on people.

The other seven are based on a questionable philosophy, so I think compliance should be a matter of choice left up to the individual.

I don't see what good could possibly come from my keeping holy the Sabbath or being extra careful not to worship "false idols".

On the other hand, doing those things would be an unnecessary hardship to me.

Why should I be asked to make changes to my life that would do little, if any good, but would cause me an unnecessary burden?

It depends on what those actions are.

In the example that you gave the state of New York passed specific regulations to address a specific problem. There was a definite and provable cause and effect relationship between utilities releasing dangerous levels of SO2 during energy generation, acid rain, and dammage to NY State's waterways and wildlife.

There was clear and concrete evidence of a problem and its cause. The regulations targeted the cause and the problem abated.

That's good science, good government and good legislation.

But...

How would you feel if you were a resident of upstate NY and the government passed that legislation, you incured a greater expense for your electricity, but the acid rain problem continued unabated?

See, we can't write laws that punish business, increase expenses for everyday people, and drive jobs overseas based on questionable evidence, incomplete and inconclusive science, and a knee-jerk reaction to envirnomental activisim.

In summation I'm going to go back to your 10 Commandments analogy.

Much like 70% of the 10 Commandments are bunk philosophy, at least 70% of the global climate change debate is bunk science, or incomplete and inconclusive science at best.

The 30% that is based on good science, indicates a definate cause and effect relationship between specific human activities and specific environmental problems, and offers clear and cost effective solutions to those problems should be addressed.

The other 70% needs to be further investigated before costly, inconvienient, and misguided "solutions" are mandated.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

*salutes the Soot*

well, perhaps you were takin' me too literally, and i should have been more specific. i think the lot of us would have issues and respond with a shrug at alot of them commandents also.

takin' the lord's name in vain seems pretty harmless, if you're not inclined towards actually believin' in christianity. so does working on the sabbath . i guess what i was referring to were the more commonly understood commandments that are applicable to non-believers, in the year 2007.

i mean, i think most 'o us would agree its good to honor our mum and pop, unless they are full under the axe murderer/chronic rapist/etc catagory. and we'd all agree that things like murder are not too good. likewise the other stuff, you know....things like lying, or sleeping around behind yer mates back, or spending yer days coveting yer neighbors wife.

things of that nature, most folks would agree are decent principles to try and live by, christian or not. imma referring, i 'spose, to the main applicable thrust of the commandments, in general, and i shoulda been more specific, lest i draw a response from the sophists and the hair splitters who walk the decks, aye.

likewise, i don't really care about the science behind global warming too much, matey. none of me sentiments suddenly sprung to life because al gore made a movie, or produced a book with big pictures and alot 'o captions.

if some businesses get punished, or some expenses are incurred, well....heck me friend, thats just tough shit *RAWR*. businesses get punished everyday, and expenses (both reasonable and ridiculous) are incurred on folk all the time. if i give up smokin', and as a result one person at phillip morris is outta work and has some costs incurred upon him...well, thats tough luck, aye? i mean, should i keep smoking to keep that person employed or somethin'?

and if jobs are driven overseas, thats regrettable, especially if its because america has stringent enviornmental regulations. first, though, you'd have to take an honest look at why certain industries in america are no longer competitive, mate, and you and i both know that thar would be a long, long, long list 'o things that have caused the collapse of certain job sectors.
this, to be honest, is another converstation, but imma sure you get me point, mr. soot.

no one is suggesting that america rushes into things, willy nilly, without regard for proper vetting. on the other hand, this is a country where we can't even agree on the theory 'o evolution, 100%, so there has to be a reasonable litmus test on these things, without askin' for 100% certainty.

most folks would agree that mankind be compromising the planet we make our home, in some way or another. most folks would agree that the eradication of rainforests would not be a good thing. most folks would agree that the cleaner we make our air, the better. most folks would agree that poisoning our waters till it can't sustain aquatic life would be a grim thing to behold. most folks would agree that the dwindling biodiversity 'o the planet is a bad thing. most folks would agree that we're kinda blowing through our fossil fuels at an alarming rate....and the way we convert these fuels into harmful elements into the enviornment is a bad thing. most folks would agree that the air in taiwan is sorta gross.
and so on, and so forth.

regardless 'o the science behind global warming, even if you disagree 100% on the science behind it, these points are things we all would probably more or less agree on. these are the "enviornmental commandments" i was referring to, aye.

i'm just thinking that we should act on them, as if there was some urgency in the matter. its just my opinion, mate, but i don't believe we're living like this is an immediate concern, do you?



*salutes*

avast ye master Soot, wind at yer back!

ps - just so it don't seem like imma lecturin' or anythin' like that, i readily admit imma part 'o the problem. my concern for these matters is more conceptual in nature, matey. in reality, i don't really care too much about it. if imma eating a tasty dinner, munching on some fine sushi, i don't lose any sleep over the tuna. you could come up to me and lecture me till you're blue in the face about how alot of them big fishes 'o the sea are vanishing at an alarming rate due to overfishing, i'd just ask you to pass the wasabi when you were done. personally, i just want to have fun here during me time on earth and not have to endure too much suffering or inconvenience.