Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
> Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had posted this before: DDT was not banned. > > http://www.malaria.org/inthenews.html > > There was a proposal to ban it entirely in December, > it failed becuase > of the poor countries who still use it for malaria > control. > > Why use DDT? It can be highly effective for several > years in killing > mosquitos. (Eventually mosquitos more immune to DDT > predominate.) > Alternatives are about 50% more expensive. > > Why not use DDT? The World Wildlife Fund and > Physicians for Social > Responsibility, among many others, indict DDT > chillingly: as a > carcinogen, a teratogen, an immunosupressant, that > stays in biological > systems and concentrates as it moves up the food > chain. It was > responsible for almost wiping out some species of > birds in the United > States and measurable quantities were being detected > in mother's milk. > > The treaty on banning persistent organic pollutants > such as DDT > decided to make an exception for malaria control. > However, some > people, ahem, have decided to make this an issue to > bash environmentalists. > > For a paper from both sides before the treaty vote > see here: > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7273/1403 Thanks for the post; I think I hadn't yet read yours when I responded -- one of the cardinal sins on Brin-L! Debbi who still has over 250 posts to read, and may never get to resond to some as she'd like __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I > > think I'm being fair in paraphrasing her concluding > > thought by saying that she suggests that in the > > conclusion to my last message I was lumping together > > extremists and the mainstream environmental movement > > in talking about the banning of DDT. > > > > My rebuttal to that argument is simple - no one uses > > DDT anymore. Basically no one in the world. If > > it's only the extremsists, how come they won so > > completely? > > Question: how does the US ban of DDT prevent any other > country from making it? > > > Everyone knew - without any doubt whatsoever, > > _everyone knew_ - that banning DDT would cause a > > massive spike in malaria worldwide. It was > > nonetheless banned, and malaria did spike. 90+% of > > the people in the world who have died of malaria > > since > > DDT was banned _died because DDT was banned_. > > Do you have a site handy for that figure? (If not, > I'll try to find it at some point.) > > Debbi I had posted this before: DDT was not banned. http://www.malaria.org/inthenews.html There was a proposal to ban it entirely in December, it failed becuase of the poor countries who still use it for malaria control. Why use DDT? It can be highly effective for several years in killing mosquitos. (Eventually mosquitos more immune to DDT predominate.) Alternatives are about 50% more expensive. Why not use DDT? The World Wildlife Fund and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among many others, indict DDT chillingly: as a carcinogen, a teratogen, an immunosupressant, that stays in biological systems and concentrates as it moves up the food chain. It was responsible for almost wiping out some species of birds in the United States and measurable quantities were being detected in mother's milk. The treaty on banning persistent organic pollutants such as DDT decided to make an exception for malaria control. However, some people, ahem, have decided to make this an issue to bash environmentalists. For a paper from both sides before the treaty vote see here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7273/1403 #1 on google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, Yahoo is truncating messages again, so I can't > quote Debbi. Damn. We appear to agree that the > charges against the Bush Administration about > mercury have been vastly exaggerated. I'd disagree with the "vastly" - as I posted, "A close examination of the [EPA] draft proposal, however, reveals that by emphasizing a cap-and-trade program, Leavitt was trying to deflect attention from the heart of the proposal: It would downgrade mercury from being regulated as a "hazardous" pollutant to one that requires less stringent pollution controls. By doing so, EPA's "cap" would allow nearly seven times more annual mercury emissions for five times longer than current law." > I > think I'm being fair in paraphrasing her concluding > thought by saying that she suggests that in the > conclusion to my last message I was lumping together > extremists and the mainstream environmental movement > in talking about the banning of DDT. > > My rebuttal to that argument is simple - no one uses > DDT anymore. Basically no one in the world. If > it's only the extremsists, how come they won so > completely? Question: how does the US ban of DDT prevent any other country from making it? > Everyone knew - without any doubt whatsoever, > _everyone knew_ - that banning DDT would cause a > massive spike in malaria worldwide. It was > nonetheless banned, and malaria did spike. 90+% of > the people in the world who have died of malaria > since > DDT was banned _died because DDT was banned_. Do you have a site handy for that figure? (If not, I'll try to find it at some point.) Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
Eric, wiff his feewwings hurt: > > But not all disagreements are worthy of respect. > > Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but > you don't have to respect people you disagree with. Crystal clear. No, Eric, the crystal clear point is that when you get stupid enough, we don't have to pretend you're not stupid anymore, even if it ruins Thanksgiving dinner. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:42:37PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > No, I admit I left it Gautam to do that. No, you didn't. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > or support killing is acting morally. If so, then Gautam would > > clearly allow that a reasonable person could consider some of his > > views immoral...even though he has a different means of applying > > morality than they do. > > Hmm, still not contradicting my assertion. No, I admit I left it Gautam to do that. It seem like a reasonable thing to do. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > or support killing is acting morally. If so, then Gautam would > clearly allow that a reasonable person could consider some of his > views immoral...even though he has a different means of applying > morality than they do. Hmm, still not contradicting my assertion. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do feel that way. I have no doubt that Gandhi > (for > example) would say that my support of violent > intervention to stop mass killings (in Iraq, but > also, > for example, in Rwanda) is actively immoral. Thomas > Jefferson, to pick another example, would probably > say > the same. I disagree with them, but I believe their > position is perfectly reasonable. In a way, I even > admire it, actually. I don't feel capable of even > aspiring to that kind of absolute moral purity - I > just want to do the best that I can in a fallen > world. > But certainly, some reasonable and even admirable > people would think that some of my beliefs, and the > actions that I advocate because of those beliefs, > are > wrong in an absolute moral sense, not just a > pragmatic one. > > = > Gautam Mukunda Actually, there's another point to make, too. Hans Morgenthau, the father of modern realism, often argued that realism (that is, that states act in their own self-interest, and _only_ in their own self-interest, usually defined as the pursuit of power or security) had a normative component as well - not only _do_ states act that way, they _should_ act that way. He argued that the world is a better place (i.e., more peaceful) when states act in this fashion, and that to act otherwise was immoral, in part because it is imprudent, and prudence is a moral virtue when you are talking about international relations. So there's a moral criticism of (for example) humanitarian intervention to be made from the _opposite_ direction as well - that humanitarian intervention is immoral because of its consequences. I respect that position as well although, again, I don't happen to agree with it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reading your post this way, you appear to miss his > point. His complaint > was about people who put virtually everyone they > disagree with in the > immoral category. The complaint was not that > liberals thought some > conservatives, like Lott, were immoral, but that > they seemed to think > virtually every conservative was immoral. In other > words, his statement is > that a number of folks he differs with divided the > territory between > reasonable disagreement and immoral disagreement > improperly. They have a > far too small area for honest disagreement, pushing > virtually all of their > opponents into the "immoral" category. This is exactly what I was trying to say, but much better written than I managed. > > A much more interesting question to explore Gautam's > position would be > whether an honest pacifist-- who, for example, > accepts that Hussein killed > more people in Iraq than are dying now--- still is > opposed to all use of > deadly force could reasonably conclude that no one > who is willing to kill > or support killing is acting morally. If so, then > Gautam would clearly > allow that a reasonable person could consider some > of his views > immoral...even though he has a different means of > applying morality than > they do. > > Dan M. I do feel that way. I have no doubt that Gandhi (for example) would say that my support of violent intervention to stop mass killings (in Iraq, but also, for example, in Rwanda) is actively immoral. Thomas Jefferson, to pick another example, would probably say the same. I disagree with them, but I believe their position is perfectly reasonable. In a way, I even admire it, actually. I don't feel capable of even aspiring to that kind of absolute moral purity - I just want to do the best that I can in a fallen world. But certainly, some reasonable and even admirable people would think that some of my beliefs, and the actions that I advocate because of those beliefs, are wrong in an absolute moral sense, not just a pragmatic one. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:26:23PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > Yet, he has also clearly stated that there are some people that he feels > > hold an immoral position that he disagrees with. Thus, the reasonable > > hypothesis is that he respects some, but not all, of the people he > > disagrees with. > > Eh? No contradictions. Reading your post this way, you appear to miss his point. His complaint was about people who put virtually everyone they disagree with in the immoral category. The complaint was not that liberals thought some conservatives, like Lott, were immoral, but that they seemed to think virtually every conservative was immoral. In other words, his statement is that a number of folks he differs with divided the territory between reasonable disagreement and immoral disagreement improperly. They have a far too small area for honest disagreement, pushing virtually all of their opponents into the "immoral" category. A much more interesting question to explore Gautam's position would be whether an honest pacifist-- who, for example, accepts that Hussein killed more people in Iraq than are dying now--- still is opposed to all use of deadly force could reasonably conclude that no one who is willing to kill or support killing is acting morally. If so, then Gautam would clearly allow that a reasonable person could consider some of his views immoral...even though he has a different means of applying morality than they do. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 12:26:23PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Yet, he has also clearly stated that there are some people that he feels > hold an immoral position that he disagrees with. Thus, the reasonable > hypothesis is that he respects some, but not all, of the people he > disagrees with. Eh? No contradictions. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day >> Erik wrote >>> Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but you don't >>> have to respect people you disagree with. Crystal clear. >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:05:07AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > There is considerable empirical evidence both in his response and in > > past series of posts that contradict this assertion. Why do you make > > it? > > Huh? Lets look at Gautam's post and his posting history. In that post he gives an example of a position he disagrees with (we should not go to war in Iraq) that he says reasonable people can hold...and he offers good reasons for holding it. With this example, he has clearly contradicted your statement by expressing his respect for people he disagrees with...and I consider that post empirical evidence of his beliefs. In the years he has posted, he has stated, although he is obviously not a pacifist, his great respect for Gandhi. IIRC, he has stated that Gandhi ranks second on his list of people he respects...a very high position. He has stated why he respects Gandhi for his views, even though they contradict his own. At other times, I remember his referring to liberal professors by stating "he worships the ground they walk on." Yet, he disagrees with them. So, there is a wealth of written evidence for the assertion that he has great respect for some of the people he disagrees with. Yet, he has also clearly stated that there are some people that he feels hold an immoral position that he disagrees with. Thus, the reasonable hypothesis is that he respects some, but not all, of the people he disagrees with. I also respect the opinions of some, but not all, of the people I disagree with. As should be clear from this post, I respect Gautam, even though we often differ. But, I do not respect the opinion of my former colleague who stated, concerning the Oklahoma city bombing "its too bad about those babies, but those agents had it coming." This person clearly supported terrorism. I think that's an immoral position, which I cannot support. That doesn't mean that I think you are evil just because we differ on a number of topics. Thinking back, there are a number of topics I really felt that you were mistaken on, but none that I recall feeling you were basically immoral on. (I cannot state for certain that there were not one or two out of scores of topics, but I cannot recall any.) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:05:07AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > There is considerable empirical evidence both in his response and in > past series of posts that contradict this assertion. Why do you make > it? Huh? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day > On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:52:49AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Look Erik, this isn't actually that hard. > > Right, double standards make things quite easy. > > > But not all disagreements are worthy of respect. > > Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but you don't > have to respect people you disagree with. Crystal clear. There is considerable empirical evidence both in his response and in past series of posts that contradict this assertion. Why do you make it? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 06:52:49AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Look Erik, this isn't actually that hard. Right, double standards make things quite easy. > But not all disagreements are worthy of respect. Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but you don't have to respect people you disagree with. Crystal clear. > You can _honestly believe_ that option 1 was the right thing to do > in both cases. But if you _honestly believe_ that, then you do so > because you _honestly think_ that the blindness or death of millions > isn't as important as very, very small risks of unspecified future > harm. Or they could honestly disagree with you that the risks are not so small. If they think there is a 1% probability for a 90% human race die-off, then the probable number of people they are "trying to save" would be more than 50 million people. A 20% probability would be over a billion people saved, in their view. As you've asked me, why is it so hard to accept that someone honestly disagrees with you? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
At 08:52 AM 4/23/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you think the blindness of millions of kids is > worth stopping some > > unspecified and very small risk that genetically > engineered rice might > > in some way harm someone, then you're into a > morally insupportable > > position. > > You're still doing it. Their judgement and evidence > may be shaky, but > they could honestly believe that there is a serious > risk of much of the > human race dying in the future. > > It seems to me the rant about people honestly > disagreeing only applies > when people disagree with YOU, not when you disagree > with people. > > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Look Erik, this isn't actually that hard. Yes, you should generally give people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt. But not all disagreements are worthy of respect. It was possible (for example) to honestly disagree on Iraq. It is possible right now to honestly disagree on any number of other issues. But on golden rice you've got: Definite blindess of millions of children vs. Very small risk of unspecified future harm And the vast majority of the environmental movement chose option 1. On DDT you've got: Death of millions due to malaria vs. Virtually no risk of environmental damage And the whole world (at the behest of the environmental movement) chose option 1. You can _honestly believe_ that option 1 was the right thing to do in both cases. But if you _honestly believe_ that, then you do so because you _honestly think_ that the blindness or death of millions isn't as important as very, very small risks of unspecified future harm. And that's morally unacceptable. I _don't care_ what their motivations are. It's like Debbi saying that she finds people starving to death abhorrent. I'm sure that she does. I'm sure that most (although not all) people in the environmental movement do. That _doesn't matter_. What matters - what has moral weight - is what you choose. And if you choose such things when the options are so clear cut, that is, very simply, wrong. Just because not all issues have a moral and an immoral side to be on doesn't mean that _no_ issues do. It just means that some do and some do not. Iraq (for example) was unclear. Even there, though, claiming that you opposed the war for the sake of the people of Iraq was morally questionable at best. But in the case of saving millions of people from starvation, or blindness, or death from malaria, then the question does have moral weight. And, as Gautam points out in his earlier posts, the millions of kids who will go blind and the millions of people who will die are mostly poor and non-white, and environmentalists are of necessity from rich countries because the people who the aforementioned policies will directly affect are frequently too poor to have time for such activities, as they are just barely eking out a living, and, while I don't have any figures showing a breakdown of environmentalists by ethnic heritage, the majority of the ones I see making statements like those or protesting are white. Forget The Other Forty-Nine. One Simple Thing You Can Do To Save The Earth: Leave Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you think the blindness of millions of kids is > worth stopping some > > unspecified and very small risk that genetically > engineered rice might > > in some way harm someone, then you're into a > morally insupportable > > position. > > You're still doing it. Their judgement and evidence > may be shaky, but > they could honestly believe that there is a serious > risk of much of the > human race dying in the future. > > It seems to me the rant about people honestly > disagreeing only applies > when people disagree with YOU, not when you disagree > with people. > > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Look Erik, this isn't actually that hard. Yes, you should generally give people you disagree with the benefit of the doubt. But not all disagreements are worthy of respect. It was possible (for example) to honestly disagree on Iraq. It is possible right now to honestly disagree on any number of other issues. But on golden rice you've got: Definite blindess of millions of children vs. Very small risk of unspecified future harm And the vast majority of the environmental movement chose option 1. On DDT you've got: Death of millions due to malaria vs. Virtually no risk of environmental damage And the whole world (at the behest of the environmental movement) chose option 1. You can _honestly believe_ that option 1 was the right thing to do in both cases. But if you _honestly believe_ that, then you do so because you _honestly think_ that the blindness or death of millions isn't as important as very, very small risks of unspecified future harm. And that's morally unacceptable. I _don't care_ what their motivations are. It's like Debbi saying that she finds people starving to death abhorrent. I'm sure that she does. I'm sure that most (although not all) people in the environmental movement do. That _doesn't matter_. What matters - what has moral weight - is what you choose. And if you choose such things when the options are so clear cut, that is, very simply, wrong. Just because not all issues have a moral and an immoral side to be on doesn't mean that _no_ issues do. It just means that some do and some do not. Iraq (for example) was unclear. Even there, though, claiming that you opposed the war for the sake of the people of Iraq was morally questionable at best. But in the case of saving millions of people from starvation, or blindness, or death from malaria, then the question does have moral weight. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 05:02:57AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 don't think so, no. "Golden rice" doesn't strike particularly close > to home. It's a question of You wrote: "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 guess your parents are in D.C. and you're in New York. Okay, maybe not so close to home... > If you think the blindness of millions of kids is worth stopping some > unspecified and very small risk that genetically engineered rice might > in some way harm someone, then you're into a morally insupportable > position. You're still doing it. Their judgement and evidence may be shaky, but they could honestly believe that there is a serious risk of much of the human race dying in the future. It seems to me the rant about people honestly disagreeing only applies when people disagree with YOU, not when you disagree with people. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 08:53:02PM -0700, Gautam > Mukunda wrote: > 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? I'm sure they do. The question is, is this a reasonable belief? Is it reasonable to say "There's some unspecified risk that this might possibly be dangerous to the people - no evidence that it ever will be, and no one has ever been harmed by it - but it's possible. So, just to avoid that impossible-to-determine, but very small, possibility - I think people should die through mass starvation." That's the logic chain you have to go through. I think that chain is morally unconscionable. > > 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 don't think so, no. "Golden rice" doesn't strike particularly close to home. It's a question of immediacy and impact. In this case, for example, _all_ of the pain from stopping things like this is inflicted on other (poor, brown) people. That's always a key sign right there - when someone else has to pay all of the costs of whatever questionable decision you make, and those costs are extremely high. > 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/ I don't think so. First, there's a difference in seriousness. Losing your job is bad. Starving to death or dying in food riots is much worse. Second, there's a difference in cost-benefit. It is virtually certaint that, over the long run, everyone will benefit from allowing offshoring and outsourcing. When you make the argument that it's a good thing, you can be as certain as you can be about anything that it is correct - free trade is a good thing. Here, on the other hand, you had a situation where there was a possibility (a very small one). In fact now, with the advantage of hindsight, we can see that the activists were entirely wrong - the Green Revolution was an absolutely good thing, as were the American food shipments that fed much of India before it could take hold. Strikingly, Ehrlich (for example) has never even admiited that he was wrong, instead continuing to make the same arguments, just pushed ever further into the future. So for the possibility that there would be some unspecified benefit from "natural" agriculture, or stopping the growth of genetically engineered rice, you have the _certainty_ of millions of deaths from starvation or millions of cases of child blindness. That's something so vastly different as to allow a moral calculation to be made, I think. You are right as to one thing. This is not like Iraq - I don't believe that there are two morally acceptable positions. But the reason for that is the difference in situations. In Iraq the moral arguments were unclear - it was definitely good for the Iraqi people (good), but the most important moral factor in the decision-making was is it good for the _American_ people (or British, Australian, what have you). That was unclear, and still is. But in the case of golden rice (for example) it doesn't work that way. There's a certainty of an extremely large benefit, while the possibility of any harm at all is somewhere between exceptionally low and non-existent. If you think the blindness of millions of kids is worth stopping some unspecified and very small risk that genetically engineered rice might in some way harm someone, then you're into a morally insupportable position. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
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
Re: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OK, Yahoo is truncating messages again, so I can't quote Debbi. Damn. We appear to agree that the charges against the Bush Administration about mercury have been vastly exaggerated. What does it say, btw, that with absolutely no knowledge of the issue it was still easy to predict that this would be the case? I think I'm being fair in paraphrasing her concluding thought by saying that she suggests that in the conclusion to my last message I was lumping together extremists and the mainstream environmental movement in talking about the banning of DDT. My rebuttal to that argument is simple - no one uses DDT anymore. Basically no one in the world. If it's only the extremsists, how come they won so completely? Everyone knew - without any doubt whatsoever, _everyone knew_ - that banning DDT would cause a massive spike in malaria worldwide. It was nonetheless banned, and malaria did spike. 90+% of the people in the world who have died of malaria since DDT was banned _died because DDT was banned_. They died because the environmental movement has been captured by extremists. They didn't die because environmental activists wanted them to die. 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." 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. As long as that is true, how do you think I'm going to feel about Greenpeace? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day
> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gautam: this administration's proposed alterations
> > to the Clean Air Act allow increased mercury
> >emissions, yet guidelines for consumption of
> mercury-containing
> > fish (such as tuna) by pregnant women and young
> > children have already been recently revised
> downward
> > (I can provide any number of links if you wish).
> Do please. Because, quite frankly, I don't believe
> you. I mean, I'm sure you think you're correct, but
> the level of dishonesty on issues like this is so
> total that I don't believe _anything_ put out by any
> environmental group. Gregg Easterbrook - who's
> wrong on many things, but does pretty well on
> environmental issues - pointed this out as well.
>
> http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1500
Oh, ouch, I _was_ thinking purely of the medical
guidelines, but I actually just _said_ I'd link about
the EPA rules, didn't I? :P Navigating the EPA site
is _not_ for the faint-hearted, or time-constrained.
For those who want to skip straight to the spin -
because spin there is - scroll down to ***.
Easiest first - The new guidelines, issued this spring
(the review date is a typo):
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/84/98055.htm?z=1671_0_0017_f1_01
"March 19, 2004 -- To protect developing babies from
high levels of potentially brain-damaging mercury, the
government issued guidelines today to warn women who
are pregnant, nursing, or even considering having
children to eat no more than two servings of fish each
week.
"The FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency
jointly issued the new guidelines, but they are still
emphasizing the benefits of eating fish...Mercury
occurs naturally in the environment and can also be
released into the air through industrial pollution.
Mercury falls from the air and can accumulate in
streams and oceans, where it is turned into
methylmercury. It is this type of mercury that can be
harmful, especially to the developing brain of an
unborn baby or young child...
"...Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white")
tuna, has more mercury than canned light tuna. So when
choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may
eat up to six ounces (one average meal) of albacore
tuna per week, they say..."
That last is controversial, and one panel member
actually resigned over its inclusion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8179-2004Mar19¬Found=true
"The controversial recommendation regarding tuna was
immediately attacked as inadequate by a member of the
FDA advisory panel that addressed it. University of
Arizona toxicologist Vas Aposhian today resigned from
the panel, saying that the advisory did not reflect
the experts' view that child-bearing women and
children should not eat albacore tuna at all and
should eat less light tuna than the advisory states.
"We wanted albacore on the list of fish not to eat,"
Aposhian said. "We knew that wouldn't happen because
of the pressure from the industry, but we certainly
didn't think there should be a recommendation to eat
six ounces of albacore."
The above WP article also states: "Mercury, which gets
into water and then the food supply through industrial
pollution, builds up to potentially hazardous levels
of methyl mercury in larger fish."
On rising levels of mercury in the air:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/acs-io120303.php
"Mercury levels in yellowfin tuna caught off the coast
of Hawaii have not changed in 27 years, despite a
considerable increase in atmospheric mercury during
this time, according to a new study...Mercury enters
the environment naturally and through industrial
pollution, mostly from coal-fired power plants.
Scientists have estimated that the amount of mercury
in the atmosphere today is about two to three times
what it was 150 years ago."
[The above article proposes that oceanfish
methylmercury levels is 'due to natural causes' rather
than increased air or water pollution, since tuna
caught off Hawaii have ~ the same levels as they did
27 years ago. This finding does not apply to other
fish -- "Morel is more cautious, however, about
extending the findings to coastal fish. Bluefish, for
example, run up and down along the eastern coast of
the United States feeding on the continental shelf,
and they may be taking up human pollution there. Lake
fish are also a different situation, Morel says, since
scientists have established a strong link between
pollution and mercury levels in lakes."]
Other sources of mercury contamination come from
mining (this is about San Fran Bay, and attributes
overall improvement in water quality there to the
Clean Water Act and improved sewage treatment:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/13/BA59867.DTL
"-- Mercury, leaking from closed mercury and gold
mines, is one of the bay's more serious contaminants.
The water-quality objective was exceeded in 38 percent
of water sample
