X-Message-Number: 19264 Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:45:05 +0000 From: Philip Rhoades <> Subject: George and Ron giving Americans a bad name . . References: <> Ron, When people are talking crap, someone has to tell them that that's what they are doing, I've got heaps of things I _should_ be doing but . . > Message #19248 > From: > Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:51:07 EDT > Subject: Re: CryoNet #19211 - #19221 > > Congratulations to George Smith for hitting the nail on the head when > it > comes to doomsdayer nonsense about the supply of oil along with all > the other > so-called 'limits of growth', liberal and environmentalist gospel for > the > last 20 years. So you would prefer that people didn't protest or say anything about toxic crap being put into land, sea and air? about drastic loss of biodiversity - _directly_ attributable to the activities of humans? Whatever the numbers, there _are_ limits to growth and continued loss of biodiversity _will_ kill us. Nano nirvana will not come fast enought to rescue all the people _currently_ alive. > Of course, their original projections forecast a > future ice > age, not warming, but that was somehow too counter-intuitive so they > reversed > themselves on the flimsiest wobbly climate data, ignoring statistical > reliability and natural variance, not to mention such obvious > non-human > sources of variance such as sun spot activity and volcanic activity > which > usually overwhelm human input by orders of magnitude. This is not > science > but really junk science supported by polls of 'scientists' , even > distinguished arrays of Nobelists, who usually have nothing to do with > the > specialties of relevance to the question at hand. For an eye-opening > review > of all this doomsday 'science' stuff, read the late great Julian L. > Simon's > The Ultimate Source 2 [Princeton U Press, 1996]. Talk about putting your foot in your mouth! - Julian L. Simon is a "Professor of Business Administration" - now there's a person that you would want to take serious advice from on biological/environmental/scientific matters! And they want to call economics a "science" . . sheesh . . What you are really saying is that you like development at any cost because look how happy you are in your situation - stuff the rest of the world. Like I have said before (to George), this Rambo-like, gung-ho, "nukem-first and ask questions later" attitude of yours and a large number of USians will get us all dead - permanently. This US attititude applies to lots of things including the natural (non-built) environment and international relations. Thinking is a good thing, thinking before you do something that could be very drastic is a _very_ good thing. > Believe it or not, > fellow > cryonauts, this is not at all off topic. At least you are right about that. > Doomsday think promoted by > many > people with scientific qualifications who should know better, aided > and > abetted, may I say, by most science fiction writers who continously > trash the > future for fun and profit, is a huge drag on cryonics promotion. A healthy skepticism about experts is good but aren't you just a _little_ worried about the amount of talent you have just said is on the other side? Even if there is just a small chance that they are right, don't you think we should be more careful about how we manage this little planet? (it's all we have at the moment and for the foreseeable future) - think about the ramifications of large-scale desertification, loss of biodiversity, top-soil loss, salination, production of persistent toxins . . > How > often > do you hear your friends say "where will we put all the people?" or > "how will > we support everyboby when we know resources are limited and running > out?" and > "what will be left for future generations?" or perhaps most often and > most > stupidly, "Why would I want to live in the future?" [implicitly > adding, "when > global warming will have caused the oceans to flood over the whole > earth, > when we can't breath the air or drink the water, or feed ourselves."] > To me > this is all truly catastrophic nonsense. It _could_ be catastrophic and it is not nonsense to worry about these things. You don't have to be an expert to know that there are problems. The river near where I grew up turned from a fish-filled, clean river to a toxic waste dump in a few decades (it was _mostly_ cleaned up for the 2000 Olympics) but the point is: where there is a buck to be made, people will do whatever they can get away with (they are obviously not thinking about their own grandchildren even!). > It is also an utterly false > conception of where we are really headed based on a very poorly > informed > conception of where we are now Yes, that is true - I think you are very poorly informed. > , and a ridiculously idolized view of > where we > were and what life was like 100, 200, or 2,000 years ago. The view doesn't have to be _idealised_ - there is no doubt that 200 years ago the air, land and sea were cleaner and healthier than they are now - no-one is advocating sending children back to the coal mines! Why can't we have the good, clean environment _and_ the advantages of living in a relatively advanced medical and technological age? In fact why can't most of the people in the world be in that state as well? That was a rhetorical question, I know why they can't - it is a political issue, the supremacy of RealPolitiks and greed overrides all . . > Cryonicists > will > have to fight hard to overcome these perceptions and mind-sets, > perhaps in > some cases allying ourselves with others who we find somewhat strange > bedfellows. Strange bedfellow alright! I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the freezer your right to say it! (and in the future, if it was up to me, I would make sure you were re-animated as well!). > Can I retain my sanity when I agree with the unelected > Texas > simpleton that the Kyoto Treaty is a bunch of crap foisted on > unsuspecting > political leaders by an army of ideologically tainted environment > 'scientists?' How do we fight back against this most destructive form > of > political correctness? Any ideas? Yes, the fact that you are alligning yourself with an "unelected Texas simpleton" should give you a pointer that all may not be right with your analysis. I'd be worried if I were you . . R&LL, Phil. -- Philip Rhoades Pricom Pty Limited (ACN 003 252 275) GPO Box 3411 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia Mobile: +61:0411-185-652 Fax: +61:2:8923-5363 E-mail: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19264