|
 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:16:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:34:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I don't even understand what rational reason there is to oppose that
>> > idea. Is reducing pollution somehow a bad thing?
>
>> Yes, because it costs money to come up with alternatives, and people
>> are generally lazy and don't want to spend. Especially here in the US
>> with the 'consumer society' we live in, it's all about getting *stuff*.
>> We'd have to actually control our impulses in order to reduce
>> consumption.
>
> One problem with that lazy ideology is that most people assume fossil
> fuels will last forever. If we don't come up with alternative ways of
> producing energy, we are going back to the 19th century whether we want
> it or not, and that's going to happen relatively soon.
I don't think those who are lazy about it think they'll last forever,
just that they'll last long enough to be someone else's problem. Why
solve a problem today when a future generation can deal with the
consequences and adapt to it tomorrow?
> Well, at least pollution will be reduced when we run out of fossil
> fuels.
> Something positive at least.
I'm sure we'll come up with new ways to pollute the planet and then deny
that we're impacting the environment.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
