Quote:
Originally Posted by Dormouse
Logging 'old growth' forests is the most profitable form of logging. That's rational. It may be ugly, nasty, brutish and senseless, but it is rational and very profitable - more so than any other form of logging.
|
But we understand that it is unsustainable, cruel, inhumane, and an ecological dead-end. We know it will harm us. That is what makes it irrational.
Quote:
|
But it is only irrational if you place high intrinsic value on a static environment.
|
Not static. Viable. There is a world of difference between making an environment inhospitable, and adapting to its dynamic reality. Change is a normal and healthy feature of the environment. We are not allowing ourselves to adapt to a normally changing environment though, we are presently engaged in bending it violently towards our own will. That is irrational. Its not intrinsic value, its practical value. Its in the interests of long term survival in a healthy and satisfying world.
Quote:
|
As it presently stands, raping the ecosystem is very profitable - therefore rational.
|
You must be an economist. Pure denial of the real world. Your idea can only be rational if we completely ignore the real consequences of such a way of living.
Quote:
|
Indeed - pragmatism trumps ideology.
|
But sometimes pragmatism means getting a job with a logging company that cuts down ancient trees for Japanese corporations to make disposable chopsticks of.... just like getting a job with the Nazis was practical, just like IBM thought it was practical to help those nice Nazis with computing power.
Quote:
|
They can try. According to the principles of liberalism, they are quite likely to lose in the long run. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Think of the progress that has already been made (lead paint, CFC's, toxins in the workplace, etc.). Slow and steady progress is far better and more productive than any 'big victory'.
|
There has been slow and steady destruction of the earth going on quite a few thousand years now. As our population increases the pace will definitely accelerate. The more efficient we become, the more rapid we undermine the viability of the planet to support life as we need it. In half a decade each person in any industrialized and economically advanced consumes more and more of the earth. The footprint only increases in size, it has never shrunk. And with China and India coming on line the size of our impact is accelerating. And of course we want south america, africa, and the middle east to join the world of the haves as well. Can you imagine what a disaster that would be?
Andrew