Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (52133)	8/19/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

What point, Neocon? I thought you were originally trying to address MY point, which was a relatively simple one. And that is that some sort of distinction needs to be drawn between man & his works, or Man in Nature as against Man vs. Nature, or, to borrow your terminology, Nature and Culture. Unlike other animals, man is a conscious actor, a creator and/or destroyer. Since he does, I believe, have free will, he can choose to build or to destroy. And sometimes he will make the wrong choice, thinking it was right. For every grandiose Nature-defying project that turned out well there is likely to be another that will create more problems than it solves. And I do not see why you ask me to compare the destructiveness of natural disasters and human destructiveness. They are not comparable. Humans are thinking beings, they can make choices. A tornado, an earthquake, cannot. It was the change in the world's climate that turned the once lush Sahara into a desert. It was human stupidity that dried up the Aral Sea and turned Karakalpakia into a desert. The former could not have been avoided. The latter could have been. Personally, I think Nature's "resilience" is tested quite enough by the natural disasters she herself produces. I do not think it necessary for us humans to continue testing her with our own man-made disasters. Joan