Oh we effect the environment on the macro level, it is on the global level that I have my doubts. Billions of people have to warm the environment some, but then we have killed billions of 4 legged critters that use to roam the globe, so that is probably a wash. No one but a self-serving fool thinks we do not affect the environment. But anyone who has a decent concept of numbers will realize that we do not account for more than about one-percent of the effect.
The thing is that almost everything we use is already here in the world. We, with much effort and expense, glean it from the earth and concentrate it to a point where we can use it. But if it was fully dispersed again it would cause no more problem than it did before we went looking for it. We are not gods, we do not make anything. What we are a artisans, who take something that is already there and shape it into something useful to us. On one side you have the exploiters, on the other you have the environmentalists, both in my opinion are dangerous extremists. The proper path is as almost always the middle one, a balanced one. However the middle way is unpopular with both sides leaving it in a minority position, so what we end up with is a teeter-totter effect as one side or the other has its way. I guess in the long run that is better than one or the other having its own way all the time <SIGH>. David Savage wrote: > > Apparently man can't adversely affect the environment. Didn't you know > the recent rises in global temperature are all natural phenomenon? > > Dave (while it may be the case, we can't be helping the situation) > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
