Terrence, I don't think I'm much of a Luddite--well, maybe a little. I have to say that I find it a lot less stressful to live around animals and trees and running water than in cities. On the other hand, I don't have to worry about dying of a simple infection like people who lived a long time ago do, or being burned at the stake, so I think it is an oversimplification to say that life was actually less stressful. It was just stressful in different ways.
I keep reading what you write, and am struck over and over again by the fact that it is slick but not based on much science. You think it is cool to venture into outer space, and I think it is definitely interesting, but I don't think earthlings have an inherent right to colonize space (and especially to scatter orbiting space litter everywhere).
Actually, I think that you, like Michael Cummings, operate from a top down approach--you have a philosophy, which is in favor of vast personal freedoms and against any redistribution of wealth--and you will use whatever you can to defend that theory, whether it is scientifically provable or even logical. But you cannot really promise that the earth is not being destroyed, even though there is a debate about how long it will take, and whether the process is reversible or not. What if you're wrong? Why not take some sort of middle road which protects the most important personal freedoms, but funds the best scientists to explore environmental issues?
I think it's kind of funny to assume we will be able to create oxygen factories. Why not just make sure we don't get to a place where they are necessary? |
