[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 05:03 PM
[b] As an atheist your comments about religion offend even me. I know I took a crack at the Dominion Christians, but most Christians do not condone raping the environment. (Atleast I hope so.)
5ever: Good analysis, and I see your point, but to me it is common sense. There is plenty of evidence to show the harm man has made to the environment wheather it be the ones I already mentioned, extinction of species, whatever. I guess I don't have the buisness at all costs mindset. I would be willing to pay a few extra dollars to say my electric company for them to cut their emissions by 60%. My next car will most likely be a hybrid (maybe an SUV hybrid, but a hybrid none the less ;) .) [/b][/quote]
Section, it is one thing to advocate sober, reasonable measures to curb pollutants. Reducing smog is definitely an advancement. You are right. I am not saying that environmentalism is nonsense or that improvements cannot be made. My only concern is in the constant hyping of some sort of catastrophy by the greenies. That bothers me. Environmentalism is a kind of religion. People have literally tried to blame the recent tsunami or the hurricanes in Florida on global warming.
Also, again, things are not that simple. Sure, you and I may not be injured by such heavy regulation, but developing countries would. Also, regulations do retard our economic growth and lead to job losses. Look at what happened when we de-regulated a lot of industries about 25 years ago, our growth improved dramatically, and our air and water are both cleaner now than they were then. There are many poorer countries than us who have dirty drinking water, even without the physical capital and undustrial pollutants we produce. So, if we impose strict regulations, we extend the time period needed for these countries to gain wealth. We also reduce the wealth of the currently rich countries, which means that those rich countries will give less and less in aid to the poorer countries.
It is not as simple as saying you'd be happy to pay more for a car, or saying that CEOs should take paycuts or that businesses are greedy, etc. Would you be happy paying more for a car and knowing that tons of American auto workers would lose their jobs as well? Maybe it is worth it, maybe it is not. That is where my earlier points apply. Is all of this regulation the difference between 98% clean air and 98.5% clean air, or is it more meaningful? Assume, for example, that air less than 98.5% clean is very unhealthy....then, the costs are worth it. But, if air that is at least 80% clean is perfectly fine, it makes little sense to disrupt things for an extra 0.5% when the air is already clean. Of course it could be "cleaner." It can always be cleaner.....
Global Warming is another issue. It is happening? Is it primarily due to human activity or not? How do we know that periods of similar climate changes didn't occure cyclically in the past? What assumptions are imbedded in the models used?
We use models all the time here at work. I often tell clients that I predict such and such an asset class will deliver an annualized real return of x% over the next 7 years. I have impressive presentation materials, and matahmatical equations to back it up. But sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm wrong.
[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Feb 3 2005, 07:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Feb 3 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Section109Row15[/i]@Feb 3 2005, 05:03 PM
[b] As an atheist your comments about religion offend even me. I know I took a crack at the Dominion Christians, but most Christians do not condone raping the environment. (Atleast I hope so.) [/b][/quote]
I grew up in the church and any flavor of Christianity that endorses the idea of the rapture (usually Born again Protestants) not only could give a rats ass about the environment, but as I said previously they welcome environmental destruction as a harbringer of the end times.
this isn't my OPINION... it's a FACT.
it should offend you - but don't imply that im making this up because i am not...
In the world of the Christian Right, concern for the environment is an atheistic socialist plot to bankrupt godly American industry - also environmental disaster is one of Biblical signs of the return of Christ. Why would anyone want to prevent Christ's return?
it sounds crazy... it is offensive - but it is not slander - it is reality. [/b][/quote]
I was speaking more towards JMI, but I think you have gone a little over the top too. My biggest problem with Christianity in the US is that many equate being a Christian to being a Republican where in my opinion Jesus certainly wouldn't endorse Republican ideals. (I'm not saying he would endorse the DNC either, just that if he had to choose it would be a no brainer.) The only issue I can see where Religion would side with Republicans is abortion. Jesus would not be against gay marriage, he would not be for tax cuts for the wealthy while there are millions of people living in poverty, he would not be for pre-emptive wars, he would not side with corporations over individuals, etc...
Christians for the most part are good generous people, its their political affiliation that baffles me. Just because some guy gets behind a podium and spouts off lines from the bible doesn't make him a better Christian.
the real problem is probably cultural more than anything else - even though the Bible pretty clearly points out that man's role on this planet from the beginning was to act as a steward of the Earth to watch over and care for it (Genesis 2_15), let's be real are Evangelicals really going to side with anything the left supports? More than that even if they cared about the environment (which most of them don't), it's not like that issue would overcome their love of the rest of Bush's policies...
you are right Christians are good and generous people - tops in both categories - but one thing they simply do not seem to care about is the Environment.
I think you guys are assuming an awful lot about Christians. Also, it is possible to care about the environment and still think the left's environmental policies are ineffectual. This type of lazy stereo-typing is the same thing that equates opposition to affirmative action with racism and oppostition to abortion with misogyny. Frankly, it gets tiresome. If you don't support the Democrats on an issue du jour, you are assumed to be a callous, stupid, greedy person. That is simply not the case.
Evaluate the merits of a proposal instead of constantly questioning the motives of the people who espouse proposals. You guys are against the Iraq War and have struggled to convince Bushies here that you do love America and are patriotic. I agree with you - dissent is healthy and pro-American and I recognize that, though we disagree, you guys are sincere in your belief that this war is counter productive. If I sincerely believed that as well, I'd be just as passionate. We both like America and want to see it become safe from terrorism, we simply disagree as to the means, not the end goal. So, please try to extend that courtesy to others, who may disagree with you in good faith about what the best means to an end are. Sure, some people don't care, but some do, a lot. They simply disagree with you.