Post by Alan YoungPost by In The DarknessNo, you starve the humans and let them die,
because the amoeba can't get enough sunlight
in the Mojave!
You need to take high school biology again. Amoebae(?) don't live in
deserts.
Actually, some do. They're ephemeral, though, lasting only as long as
the puddles do after a rain and thereafter returning to a sort of
"spore" stage.
Post by Alan YoungYour hyperbole ad absurdum argument is cute, but we are of a religion
that holds all life, and especially all ecosystems, to be sacred.
Solar-energy farming might be the best use for some land, but the
envirnomental impact *must* be taken seriously, even if it affects only
low-biomass systems (like deserts). If we hold our energy "needs" (or
greed--where is the distinction, anyway?) to be senior to whole
ecosystems, we might as well drill for oil in the ANWR, or in
Yellowstone... 8-(
My points, excactly. Thank you, Hummingbear.
George Santayana once observed that "Those who know no history are
doomed to repeat it" - or words to that effect. The same might well be
said of those who choose deliberately to ignore history, no matter how
exalted their motives may be.
The internal combusion engine, for instance produces carbon dioxide
(well, so does the external combustion engine, for that matter) which
was originally assumed to be infinitely absorbable by the atmosphere
since it is a "natural" component thereof. Certain propellants of
aerosol sprays were assumed to be harmless because no on could imagine
how they might have any adverse effect on the ecosphere at all. Various
compounds of sulphur - also a naturally occuring element and one which
is released through geothermal activity - were assumed to be harmless
and were released into the atmosphere by means of (again) the internal
combusion engine as well as emissions from various factories. History
implies strongly that, had the science surrounding the release of these
substances been done *before* they were introduced to common usage, we
might have avoided or at least ameliorated the adverse effects that
ensued from their introduction in such quantities into the biosphere.
Please note that I do not oppose the introduction of alternate sources
of energy - *after* the science has been done to discover what effect
they may have on the ecology of Mother Gaia as a whole as well as to
find methods by which any adverse consequences may be avoided or abated.
Wicca, as a religion, seems to me to *demand* that such precautions be
taken: one of the differences between Wicca (as I was taught it, at
least) and the JCI complex is the degree of anthrocentricity embodied in
our religion as opposed to theirs. Wicca does *not* regard _Homo_sap._
as being the highest possible form of life, and *does* recognize that
the Gods are perfectly capable of using our own areas of blindness to
destroy us when they feel we merit such treatment - go back and reread
the great Greek tragedies for examples. Granted, such divine
retribution was individual rather than wholesale, but nothing of which I
am aware says the Gods MUST limit their punishments strictly to
individual persons.
Furthermore, at this stage in the development of human technology, I do
not, personally, find that "But we didn't know it would do that!" is an
acceptable excuse - not when we have at our disposal the means to
discover exactly what "it" *will* do.
Nor have I much sympathy with the rather puerile demand that, " But I
want it NOW!!!" - which I have seen repated rather too frequently for my
taste in this thread.
Blessed be,
Baird