To: Peter Dierks who wrote (22733 ) 9/14/2007 1:03:27 PM From: ManyMoose Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588 Sounds like we agree on all counts. In college, I learned a definition of 'conservation' that comes to mind now. At the time I objected to it, but now it makes sense. I'm paraphrasing:Conservation is a deceleration in the consumption of resources. A reduction in the rate of acceleration (i.e. Reducing the acceleration from 200 ft per second per second to 100 ft per second per second is still conservation, even though you are still accelerating.) I don't think conservation means that you cease consumption of resources, and that is where I differ with the so-called environmentalists. They seem to think that any consumption is bad, as long as it's not their latte consumption that we're talking about. In college, I objected to that definition of conservation, because I held that if you are decelerating and the train is decelerating you still get smashed when you get to the intersection. That's what happens to squirrels when they try to cross the road in front of you. They change directions and get run over, where if they had just kept going they'd be safe on the other side of the road. I agre with your position on pollution, but I believe that there is a law of unintended consequences at play. For example, if you avoid smoke pollution by letting fuels build up without burning them, eventually the fire that you get is even bigger and hotter than the little one you had in your back yard that was annoying your neighbors. Now their house gets burned too. I drove by something like this going on a couple of days ago. I like to help people who need help but I like my motivation to be my decision, not their solicitation. Lots more to say, but gotta run.