CJ, let me also toss out my "Atkins theory" on the environment. As you know, many people, including Bill Clinton, have successfully shed pounds using the Atkins diet and its variant, South Beach. Why is that? Scientists are still actively debating that, but one thing is for certain. When it comes to nutrition and diet, Atkins turned conventional wisdom on its head, especially with his "fat good, carb bad" theory. Remember when carbs were good, and fat was bad? Remember the four food groups, and how that evolved (with millions of dollars in taxpayer money) into the various iterations of the food pyramid? (Have you seen the latest incarnation of that pyramid? It's a joke now.)
Now I'm not saying that we should "go Atkins" on the environment. But the reason why Atkins was successful is that the human body is a lot more complicated than we think. It used to be "you are what you eat" and "garbage in, garbage out." Now we are finding out that there are many steps in the process of nutrition that we are overlooking or oversimplifying.
Likewise with the environment. There are probably many factors of the environment that we are discounting or overlooking in jumping to the conclusion of man-made global warming. Are we as humans having an effect on the environment? Of course we are; six billion of us are bound to make an impact. But what sort of impact are we having, and is it really all that worse from the alternatives?
Anyway, I'm just musing, so don't flame me too hard. ;-)
Tenchusatsu |
