From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:50:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.165823.24732@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.181851.24811@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>
>>Oh which of the 100s maybe 1000s of possible scenarios should I start
>>with that would enable us to destroy all life on this planet.
>
>I have yet to see a single realistic scenario, so just give me your best.

Oh now we've moved from ANY scenario to "a realistic scenario". Man could cause
the destruction of life on this planet by simply dumping all his garbage
(chemical, nuclear ect.)into the ocean breaking the food chain. We're not
even talking about the use of nuclear weapons here. Let's not forget that this
whole thing started by me disagreeing that "Man does not have the ability to
destroy this planet." Well maybe it doesn't work for you but the destruction
of all life on the planet fits my definition of destroyed. 

>>Oh you mean 
>>the destruction of all life on this planet doesn't fit your defination of 
>>destroyed?

>Right, even lifeless planets are planets, no?

As stated before---YES IT IS STILL A PLANET. What F'in good is a lifeless
planet? 
>
>>Well when this world becomes a lifeless rock floating through space 
>>unable even to substain life then you can jump up and down and say "See I was 
>>right, the planet is still here". Oh wait you'll be dead too so I guess you 
>>won't be jumping up and down huh?
>
>"Huh?" is right.  Saving the planet is not my goal.  Saving mankind is closer,
>but still not good enough.  What I want to save is the current state of the
>planet.  I don't want man to continue to wreak havoc on the biosphere.

I don't want man to continue to wreak havoc on the biosphere either, that's
why I'm in support of some real long term ecology planning. With the 
destruction of the Rain Forest and pollution rates rising in the oceans I'd
say preserving the current state just isn't good enough.
Here's just a little tiny clue for you:Mankind and this planet kind of depend
on each other right now. If you don't believe this then get off. Man depends 
more on the planet then the other way around but the planet does depend on us 
to maintain its ability to support life.  If you actually have somewhere to
go let me know because I'd love to check it out myself. 

>Actually, even preserving the current state of the planet is less than what I
>want.  I want fewer people, and I want some of the damage we've already done
>to be undone.

We *shouldn't* need fewer people since we have the technology to feed, clothe,
and even educate everyone. What we don't have is the economic incentives
to accomplish it. But intil we figure out how to pay for all this good stuff
just exactly which people would you get rid of? I'm all for repairing any 
damage that is repairable. Look Dave, it seems we both want pretty much the 
same thing here:responcible ecology planing that will stop damage being done
and repair whatever that can be repaired. So can we now stop argueing over
whether or not a lifeless planet is still a planet? 

Stan Knight
|Removal of all ecology concerns from all busness will no doubt help business|
|in the short term, but the long term cost will be a bitch to pay.           |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections