In a message dated 8/27/2006 8:32:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, your theory presumes that manking is capable of having an effect
upon the climate. Yet, you also seem to assume that whatever
intentional effects we have on the conflict will always benign. There
is, of course, the risk that in attempting to tinker with a process we
hardly understand that we might end up causing even more damage to our
welfare. This would be particularly ironic if we were in fact making
serious sacrfices in order to effect these changes.Thus, it is not
sufficient to simply say "because the risks are high, we must take
action whatever the cost." These risks must always be balanced against
other risks.
There certainly is the risk of unknown consequences of our actions but doing
nothing will have the
predictable consequence of allowing global temperatures to continue to rise
As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no
cost in order to combat global warming. Should we not also be sparing
no cost to develop an asteroid detection and deterrance system? Or
perhaps sparing no cost to research the development of a shield for
gamma ray bursts?
One should allocate resources based on relative risk and consequence of that
risk.
Global warming is happening; its consequences are not fully understood but
scientists are pretty much totally in agreement that it is occurring as we
speak.
Another asteroid strike is probably inevitable as well but the best science
available
does not provide data on when this will occur. We get whacked about every 28
million years
and we are about 14 million years since the last hit so we are not exactly
overdue.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
