[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Brashears on Hanson
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
: : I'm sorry, my point, not well made, is that as long as you accept
: : Jay's assumptions, he is correct. Unfortunately, those assumptions to
: : not apply in the real world.
: Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: reality.
An incorrect one, alas.
: The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: (self)destruction.
Perhaps so, but using invalid arguments to support this position,
as Hanson does, serves to discredit rather than justify such a
position.
As far as your statement goes, perhaps you would do better to
qualify "destruction" and/or define "Nature". To a physicist,
for instance, your position is utterly meaningless.
Asserting your feelings is not a way to have the slightest influence
on those who disagree with you in the first place, but perhaps it
will make you feel better.
For myself, since I do think that environmental problems are indeed
serious, and that progress on them requires careful reasoning,
your and Hansen's shabby arguments and vain emoting make me feel
substantially worse.
mt
Follow-Ups:
References: