🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JMC.95Mar28150449@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
>Subject: Re: SCIENCE TO SLOW
>Date: 28 Mar 1995 23:04:49 GMT

>You haven't told us precisely what you advocate or what the costs of
>that are. 

John: Your right.

 I was arguing that some of the posts I've read (including 
many of yours) can be taken to suggest waiting for more scientific data 
before getting serious in the legislative realm. The scientific process 
being what it is, this is inappropriate.

Action is required before the final proof. If it turns out that the actions 
taken were overkill, relatively few suffer. If action is not taken, many many 
may suffer. Elsewhere a point was made that our steardship of the planets 
other inhabitants requires a 'better safe that sorry' attitude.

Global warming is only one of many serious issues to be addressed. Others 
include
1) Ozone thinning
2) Overgrazing/overfishing
3) Aquafer depletion
4) bio-diversity losses and desease exposure (mostly) logging/livestock 
industry
5) polution in its various venues and sources.

Any one of these might be dealt with and solved, but the sum of the total 
could indeed be greater than the sum of the parts. One systems weakness 
weakens another, so the range of problems are connected and create a very 
large problem indeed.

Given population shifts and the normal asperations of emerging nations to be 
consumers like us, I find it hard to be hopeful. Perhaps denial is an easier 
road.

Robert Granholm
Vancouver
yet lacking a cute signiture

 >- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, 
Stanford, CA 94305>*>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk 
nonsense.

>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/