I think you're taking this a little too far... Just because some Americian
Indians killed some beavers a hundred years ago doesn't mean mankind will
destroy itself with its own greed. Look a little closer at the situation...
Did the Americian Indians _know_ they were driving the Beaver to extintion?
Were the Americian Indians even aware of the concept of extintion. Two
hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson (a very educated man) argued that
extintion was impossible.
The same argument applies to modern situations. People learn that CFCs are
causing damage to the ozone and draw the same conclusion you do. "We'll
just keep using CFCs for our air conditioning and refridgerators without
regard to the damage we do. Our greed will destroy us." This is simply not
the case. Today, we have laws about what chemicals can be used in these
devices, and CFCs are not one of them. CFCs were not used in spite of our
knowledge of the damage they did, they were used because we _didn't know_
the damage they did.
Greed is part of our genetic (not memetic) heretage. We are greedy because
it is to the advantage of our genes to be greedy. When our greed creates a
situation that endangers our genes' survival, we change our actions. We do
not, however, lose our greed. It is not to our genetic advantage to do so.
By the way, I use the term Americian Indian because I prefer it to the term
Native Americian. I was born in this country too. I am a native of
America. I am not, however, an American Indian.
Thanks,
Dave Leeper
dleeper@sybase.com
"The power of Reason is that it frees us from the blinders of Religion." -
Dave Leeper
----------
From: virus-owner
To: virus
Subject: Re: virus: Re: my heart
Date: Friday, October 27, 1995 10:53AM
>>At any rate, they were much less damaging to the
>>planet than the civilization which overran them.
>
>There are some important exceptions to this statement, important enough to
lead
>us to pause before we consider them mere exceptions to a rule.
>
> When the incentive came to trap beaver to
>eradication, they did so. Until that time, they did not.
>
>My guess is that the context of incentives has far more significance than
>"attitudes toward nature" or the like.
>
What a sad commentary on human beings. We are solely motivated by greed,
even to the exclusion of a survival instinct. Our entire population might
be eradicated because greed is more important than environmental concerns.
*****************************
* ADDICTED TO CYBER SURFING *
*****************************
http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/youdoit.html