In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> You take life too literally. The fact is we never get to make such decisions so the example is meaningless.
It's not an example, it's a thought experiment to see where your concern really resides. It is only meaningless if you want and choose it to be so. What other way to take that aspect of life that deals with major problems other than literally!
> No one wants to look at the real problem - population growth - it's not politically correct, all the rest is pissing in the wind. It also enables a lot of people to make a comfortable living pedalling fear and for others it's a political bread winner.
Population growth is a major problem, but population is already way too excessive, and depopulation doesn't provide a proper solution when the cure could be as unpleasant as the problem. Of course we need to curtail population growth, but throwing your hands in the air, blaming others and giving up because of the lack of attention to what you perceive as being the main problem, is itself one of the major problems, the reason for general intransigence on the issue, and the reasons governments get away with it so completely.
> If a sensible government takes measures that reduce energy consumption in a non aggressive way people will follow, the shock horror end of the world stuff just turns people off, it's a poor pedagogical method.
Governments follow people, not vice versa... ...if you otherwise leave it to Government, they will lead according to short term vested interests and ideology as has been all too evident of late. As I think it was Ghandi said: "you need to be the change you want to see"! It does surprise me how little evidence there is on these threads of such behaviour... ...it seems to me that the natural world is just an amenity of which the superficial aesthetic is worth preserving, but there is little underlying evidence of a connection or underlying concern for the environment and natural world, nor of those who inherit it from us, quite the opposite, as we jetset around the world, consume cars, eat far more than we need, throw even more away. Capitalism and individualism are endemic, and those like thatcher got under even your skin, and how ironic to see the swathes objecting to her record as they live according to her ideals. I'm not sure anything much other than money "turns people on", but a little bit of thought about the potential nature of our children's lives must surely be a little sobering?!