On 1-5-2009 16:29, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:49fa99cb$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
>>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote in message
>>>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>>>> really bothers me.  We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>>>> of responsability.
> 
>>> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
> and
>>> cannot be, part of.
> 
>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> 
> Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
> nothing to break.
> 
There are a couple of theological and philosophical schools about what 
the fact that we as a species 'rule' the earth means. One is that we are 
given the power to do what we want and another stresses the concept of 
'stewardship'. I know a fair number of small 'left wing' churches that 
strongly support the latter but it is also important for big parts of 


rather typical for the sort of born again Christians that were in the 
previous US administration. Or at least those within that church that 
supported this view were given more money and other support to spread 
these concepts by those that had earned lots of money by not thinking of 
their grandchildren. It might be that part of this difference may be 
attributed to a different value of the Buxton index* on the two sides of 
the Atlantic, but whatever the cause, I am an atheist who is firmly 
rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me 
the creeps.

* The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or 
institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an 
entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )

Post a reply to this message