From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 11:33:37 GMT

In article <C0IJJy.CMv@news.iastate.edu> sartre@iastate.edu (Michael J. Wendling (515) 294-6186) writes:
>In article <JMC.93Jan6150304@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>My original point was simply that the environment was in better shape
>prior to the industrial revolution than it is now.  This, I believe,
>is undeniable. 

Well, I deny it.  The only rational standard of judgement of good and bad
is human life.  By that standard, the environment is infinitely better now
than it was before the industrial revolution.  My environment is warm, dry,
and well-lit.  My environment contains cars, phones, books, cheap clothing,
supermarkets filled with a wide variety of healthy clean food, and good 
medical care.  Perhaps the fact that you have never had to do without these
things has caused you not to really appreciate how valuable they really are.
Or maybe you just have some sort of inhuman perspective on values in general.

>Secondly, why is it that people think that improved standards of
>living inherently require damage to the environment?  

Do you think that turning a patch of wild land into homes and business
is in it's essence a destructive process?  Do you really think that 
cutting down trees and building homes is a process of "destruction"?
I don't.

>Does anyone
>disagree that the industrial revolution proceeded with basically no
>concern for the environment?  

I disagree.  The industrial revolution was cocused almost entirely on 
improving the environment for man, and that's why it was so effective
at doing so.  If by environment, you mean everything not useful to man
then yes, the industrial revolution did not concern itself with that.  If
you mean "green and leafy places", it was only as a result ofthe economic
productivity brought about by the industrial revolution that allowed 
people to be concerned with such things and create parks and other 
nature preserves.

>With a little more long term
>thinking (not one of the western worlds strong points) 

On the contrary, it is one of the hallmarks of western thought!  Of
course there have been other cultures where long periods of time were
discussed, but "thinking" is a pretty weak way of describing it.

>we could
>have advanced socially while having minimal inpact on the world.

Yes, just like we could have an advanced society without poverty
as long as we accepted the orders of socialist thugs.

I WANT to change the world!  I WANT to make it better for people (and myself 
in particular).  I don't think that wild land is a perfect environment.
According to what standard could you judge it to be so?

>As I said before, I like the earth as it was before the industrial
>revolution.

What do you like about it?  The filth?  The disease?  The poverty?
The boredom?  The illiteracy?  Perhaps the political systems?  Or the
science?  Maybe the famines and the starvation?  Do tell?

>If you think this means don't like a nice hot shower in the morning
>you're wrong.  I just think it would be cool if the hot water came
>from solar energy or some other well thought out energy strategy. 

Of course!  You want all of the benefits of the industrial revolution without
everything it requires, like individual freedom (to shower however one likes),
the laws of physics (which make certain energy sources unworkable), and
a capitalist economic system which doesn't waste resources on unproductive
products and practices like heating water with the sun.

>Save the earth - ridiculous?  Think just a little before attacking.

I suggest you take your own advice.

--Brian