From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Date: 29 Dec 1992 13:37:39 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article alexj@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Alexander Jackl ) writes:
>In article dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>   >But more importantly, I suspect that most of what we hear about
>   >'environmental damage' is a lie. It is fear-mongering with the
>   >specific purpose allowing more and more government control of
>   >business and the individual. Some people/groups will say and do
>   >anything to try and justify 'big government'. 
>
>Oh come on!  I have been following this thread for some time now... I
>have heard some interesting and feasible thoughts expressed.. but this
>doesn't seem to have nay connection to experience or historical data 
>at all.
[stuff deleted]
>3) People are not going to be "a: driven away b:pissed off".  Nice ideal-
>doesn't seem to be what happens in relaity.  People react much too late. 
>Envrionmental damage is not obvious usually till the deed is done!  Not 
>irreversible usually but to the point where clean up is a huge, expensive 
>endeavor.  People do not know enough about the environemnt to react quickly
> to the threats pollution provides.

Hmm. Well, you seem pissed off! Would you got to a gas-station, if you
knew that they dumped all the used oil in the gutter? Maybe if they
had the cheapest gas in town. But the shows the value of the 
environment in peoples minds. If it is valued highly, something 
will be done; if it isn't valued highly, then people will ignore
it. You seem to operate on the same priciple as many liberals, 
that being: people are too stupid to know what is good for them,
so a bunch of elitist ivy leaguers must rule from Washington DC. 

>4) I invite anyone who thinks that 'environmental damage" is a lie to study
>the subject.  I am not one of those people who run around screaming "the sky
>is falling! The sky is falling!" but I have studied this subject.  FOr a while
>I thought most environmentalist were total, extremist radicals who were
>jumping at shadows. And, indeed, some are, but the VAST weight of evidence and
>data supports the fact that dangerous levels of damage are being done
>to our environment in hundreds of arenas.   I am serious- study this matter
>and you will agree.  I have yet to meet someone who has seriously studied 
>this issue and did not agree- conservative OR liberal.  

You are playing fast and loose with accusations, but don't even bother
to cite one example. I think most people who study the issue seriously
(and I don't mean 60 minutes) will conclude that most of the environmental
causes have been total BS. Let me name a few nasty examples of green-
scare tactics that just don't play out in reality: Alar, global cooling,
global warming, acid rain, styrofoam, etc... 

If you are being honest, name some conservative scientists who believe that
'dangerous'(nice scary buzzword, BTW) levels of damage are being done
to the environment.


 /  Amiga  ///    |  U.S.C. Trojans  | O Bar  | David Leslie        \
|         ///     |     Fight On!    | E O    |                      |
|     \\\///      |        --        | Meu    | dleslie@usc.edu      |
 \     \XX/ A1000 |     Go Kings!    | Lar!   |                     /
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism