From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: No looking at your neighbors' papers....
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:58:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.185008.24375@unet.net.com>, stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>
>Oh now we've moved from ANY scenario to "a realistic scenario".

Sheesh, any twit can imagine a number of unrealistic scenarios.

>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.

Once again, this falls far short of the "goal" of destroying the planet.  It
might succeed in killing off mankind, though I don't think it's a given, but
there will still be *plenty* of life left on Earth.  BZZT!  Thanks for
playing.

>... Well maybe it doesn't work for you but the destruction
>of all life on the planet fits my definition of destroyed. 

It doesn't work for me "planet" <> "life on planet".  And you still haven't
"achieved" destroying all life on the planet.

>... What F'in good is a lifeless planet? 

Hint: what was Earth before it a was a lifeful (?) planet?

>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.

Agreed.

>Here's just a little tiny clue for you:Mankind and this planet kind of depend
>on each other right now.

Wrong.  Mankind depends upon the planet, but the planet doesn't depend upon
mankind.

>If you don't believe this then get off.

Excuse me?

>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.

This is bizarre.  What vital functions do you see man performing to maintain
life on Earth?

>We *shouldn't* need fewer people since we have the technology to feed, clothe,
>and even educate everyone.

Who said anything about *needing* fewer people?  I just *want* fewer people--
it'd be less crowded, and mankind would find it much easier to reduce his
environmental impact with a smaller population.

>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 propose attrition, not terminating the living.

>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. 

OK, I can support that.  I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but it's a
worthy goal.

>So can we now stop argueing over whether or not a lifeless planet is still a
>planet?  

Sure, as soon as you stop confusing the existence of planets with the
continuing viability of our species.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8306 alt.politics.clinton:9265 alt.rush-limbaugh:6929