From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 16:46:18 GMT
Hi Matt,
I found your post depressing on two counts.
Firstly in your conclusion you say
> Now, whether you consider this to be junk science or not, that is your
> choice. They do not confirm any political agendas, but are purely
> objective. If you choose to willfully ignore these statistics, than it is
> your perrogative to work against the overall progress of humanity,and
> towards Quality in all its practical, and impractical aspects.
How can anyone sympathetic to the MoQ cite 'objective' as a source of authority? Surely we need to
assess the values shaping the analysis, and not relapse into stale SOM thinking in this discussion.
Secondly, you show no familiarity with Bjorn Lomborg's work, previously cited. To take just one
example, relating to food, the various green groups (eg Lester Brown's worldwatch institute) have
consistently raised threats to the world food supply over the last forty years, with alarmist
predictions about the food supply running out, and they have just as consistently been proven
mistaken in their predictions. In the last forty years per capita calorie consumption worldwide has
increased; in the developing world it has increased from around 1900 calories per capita in 1960 to
around 2600 calories per capita in 1995, and is projected (by the UN) to rise even further in the
coming years.
There are no 'objective' facts here. There are clashes of values, of more or less significance.
They, however, might be worth discussing in this forum, rather than the predictions which are
largely without value IMHO.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 15 2004 - 16:47:58 GMT