OK,
First off, this is a very tentative report. The authors admit that, if one wants to take issue with it, it can be picked apart. They do not consider it proof, but rather an indication that they need to look at this some more, and a wakeup call that habitat destruction may not be the only thing to really worry about. (My source for this is NPR, a report I remember hearing last week which can probably still be heard on NPR.org, butwhich I am not going to go looking for.)
That said, while it makes perfect sense, but this report is not a standard to wave in battle. It's too ambiguous as of yet.
As for capitalism and the environment, I don't really have a gripe with the philosophy of capitalism provided the actual cost of environmental degradation and general pollution is factored into the price of things, something that hitherto has not been done in any sort of structured way. I don't know how this would work or even whether it would mesh with capitalism, so if one of the more ardent capitalists here wants to take a stab at explaining why that's a good/bad idea that should/would never work, please, educate me. (Really, I am asking for enlightenment, not being sarcastic.)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm a radical moderate living on the left while the balance is tilted to the conservatives. I really only disagree with extremism, and I believe that the answer to any economic problem is going to be part capitalist, part socialist. Communism is a nice dream (in one way, and a nightmare in another), but human nature will undermine it every single time. It's never been tried because it can't even be set up on any large scale. On the other hand, rampant capitalism starts to verge on kleptocracy when it gets too comfortably entrenched, like things are now.
Can't we all just get along? (Don't be silly!)
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Last edited by Tophat665; 01-11-2004 at 01:52 PM..
|