THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Brent on 20 Jul 2010 21:07 On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs > between what is necessary for society and for business and what is > safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society. No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest, it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems.
From: Larry G on 21 Jul 2010 07:54 On Jul 20, 8:26 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <61bee29a-3f9a-4e45-b006-3ca8d9bf3...(a)i28g2000yqa.googlegroups..com>, > Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >they have modern appliances guy. In fact, they use tankless water > >heaters rather than the water heaters that we do that use more than > >twice as much energy to keep water continuously hot rather that heated > >when used. > > Tankless water heaters are not clearly an energy saving device. > > >no "consuming energy" is not a sin but consuming more than most other > >people in the world > > Most people in the world are living at a subsistence level. I refuse > to accept guilt because I am not. > > >while complaining about the consequences of such > >prolifigate use and denying the impacts that result is pretty > >hypocritical. Even if you don't "believe" in GW, do you "believe" in > >mountain-top removal and mercury contamination of many rivers at such > >levels that we warn pregnant women and kids not to eat the fish? > > What's the matter with mountain-top removal? Do rocks have rights? > Mercury is another matter, but just because I object to mercury > pollution does not mean I have to buy the environmentalist line. > > >Is it a "sin" to use way more than you really need? (as opposed to it > >being a "sin" to use _any_ ? > > What I _need_, as in to survive, is very little. It is no sin to > exceed that. I refuse to stop using my computers, dishwasher, water > heater, refrigerator, automobile, or air conditioner, and I further > refuse to feel guilty about any of those things. > > -- > The problem with socialism is there's always > someone with less ability and more need. All of the industrialized countries use less than what we do and have comparable standards of living - if less consumptive AND ...the ALL live longer. The Europeans and Japanese do MUCH MORE than "survive". I do not think it is a "sin" to exceed average per capita usage (for the industrialized world).. but it clearly refutes the excuse that it cannot be done.
From: Larry G on 21 Jul 2010 07:57 On Jul 20, 8:28 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > In article <9ac355fd-db8e-406d-a489-d8e4c5763...(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups..com>, > Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >How much energy should you use? You should use no more than the > >average amount of industrialized countries average per capita use - > >about 1/2 what you use now. > > Why? What makes that a magic number? > > >you should pay for the true cost of Nuke Power - which will include > >the actual insurance costs associated with that power - as opposed to > >those costs being subsidized. > > Insurance costs aren't true costs at all. Insurance costs are what > some actuary speculates future costs will be. insurance costs are VERY REAL to investors guy. They will not invest in any enterprise that can go broke and the investors lose all their money. if we want to do with the realities - like why NUKES are slow to get built - we have to address the realities of why. We are no better than the enviro wackos when we do the same thing - refuse to deal with the realties.
From: Larry G on 21 Jul 2010 07:59 On Jul 20, 9:07 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs > > between what is necessary for society and for business and what is > > safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society. > > No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to > do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect > in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems > of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest, > it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of > 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems. and your alternative?
From: Brent on 21 Jul 2010 09:00
On 2010-07-21, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:07�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs >> > between what is necessary for society and for business and what is >> > safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society. >> >> No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to >> do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect >> in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems >> of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest, >> it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of >> 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems. > > and your alternative? Been there, done that. Pay attention. |