From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Air conditioning not a luxury....
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:51:01 GMT

In article <580005@hplred.HP.COM> curry@hplred.HP.COM (Bo Curry) writes:
[much deleted]
>I'll clarify my position on A/C, if you want something more concrete to
>argue with. I have no particular opinion on whether A/C is good or bad,
>in the abstract. I believe we should make an effort to minimize the
>environmental effects of A/C's, by using non-CFC working fluids and
>efficient designs. What I object to is the characterization of A/C
>as a "necessity", when the large majority of the world's people get
>along quite well without it. I don't object to indulgence in luxuries,
>mind you, so long as one is aware that that is in fact what one is
>doing. To lose this awareness smacks of "creeping yuppieism",
>and speaks badly of my countrymen. If we get to the point where we cannot
>distinguish clearly between necessities and luxuries, we will be
>poorly equiped to make difficult choices if that becomes necessary.

What you seem to fail to realize is that we *already* "cannot distinguish
clearly" between necessities and luxuries.  Why?  Because a "necessity"
is simply something that you require to survive, no more and no less.

Most people simply need food and water to survive.  This makes *most* of
the things you own luxuries.  Things like your clothes, your shoes, your
glasses (if you wear such things), your car, your home, your furniture,
your razor, your cooking utensils, your watch, etc.

So let's cut to the chase, shall we?  It is almost *never* a question of
whether or not something is a luxury.  It is a question of *how much* a
luxury something is.

Or, more precisely, it's a question of *how useful* something is.  That
is, how much easier does it make your life versus how much you pay for
it?

In certain areas, e.g. Arizona and Texas, air conditioning is much less
a luxury than it is in areas like Canada.  That is, air conditioning in
the former areas makes much more of a difference than it does in the
latter areas.  Indeed, in areas like Arizona and Nevada, where the
temperatures approach 120 degrees, air conditioning may actually qualify
as a necessity in some situations: one would literally die without it.
Of course, one can presumably avoid such situations.

>I realize there are those (e.g. JdeA) who deny that difficult choices
>will ever become necessary. I would envy his complacency, if it weren't
>so saturated with bitterness.

John de Armond is one of the few people who seem to realize that humans
are really quite good at solving the problems they encounter, and that
humans will very likely, if given sufficient time, resources, and incentive,
solve any problem you care to name.  With respect to the environmental
issues, it seems to be a matter of viewpoint whether or not there really
are any serious environmental problems that need to be solved immediately.
Many worry that by the time these issues become serious enough to get
most people's attention, it will be too late.  This is entirely possible,
but I think it can be said of any particular potential problem you care to
name.  In general, you *cannot* know ahead of time whether or not it will
be too late to solve a given problem (unless the problem is *extremely*
well-defined and well-known).  That makes it very much a crap shoot when
it comes to deciding whether to solve a potential problem now, or solve
it later when it *does* become a problem (especially when you don't even
know that it *will* become a problem).

If the earth were as fragile as many environmentalists like to believe, I
suspect life on it would have disappeared long ago.  The earth has seen
much worse than what we're giving it.  This is not to say that there's
nothing to worry about, but rather that I think it's likely that we have
enough time to figure out exactly what's going on so that we can solve
whatever problems exist the right way.

Nor is this saying that we shouldn't change the way we do things in order
to lessen the adverse effects that we have on our environment.  Rather,
we need to make the changes in such a way that we maximize what we gain
versus what we lose, while remaining within the realm of possibility.  I
don't think that many of the proposed "solutions" (such as not building
any more powerplants and concentrating solely on increasing energy
efficiency, or building fixed, inflexible mass-transit systems instead of,
rather than in addition to, more flexible automobile-based transit systems)
qualify.

Many people seem to enjoy predicting gloom and doom.  It's not an activity
that's restricted to the more questionable environmentalists, since you
can find many in various religious groups who do essentially the same
thing.

Above all else, I think we need to keep our heads when addressing problems,
whether they be political, environmental, economic, or social.  Blind
rhetoric and religious fervor have no place in the problem solving process.
Otherwise it's at best by chance that the problems get solved at all.

>Bo Curry


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,misc.activism.progressive,sci.physics