On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:53:02PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > They died because environmental activists _didn't care_, and they won > the argument, against all reason and evidence.
> There are any number of other examples. Golden rice. Genetically > engineered food crops in Africa. That was a really stunning example, > actually. The Western Europeans decided - openly and consciously > - that it was better for Africans to die in a famine than use > genetically engineered American crops. I can't imagine being so > callous - but for them it was about "protecting the environment." Sounds like you are attributing malevolence to them. Maybe they honestly disagree with you? Perhaps they feel that they are saving billions of lives (the human race) sometime in the future? By the way, this seems to be a partial answer to the question I asked you earlier about your tolerance for people honestly disagreeing with you. As long as it doesn't strike to close to home, they can disagree. But if it feels too personal, then they are evil. > I'd put it this way. I defy you to name a single person whose life > has been saved by the environmental movement. I don't deny that > there are such people - but no one can name them. But I can think of > quite a few people who are alive _despite_ the best efforts of the > environmental movement - starting with my parents. I think many environmentalists' judgement is way off on many things, but your argument here is not persuasive. Your game above is the same game that the anti-free-trade people play. "Name one person who has been helped by outsourcing?". They can name plenty who have been hurt by it. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
