From: Matthew Poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 22:34:41 GMT
Hello,
Sam: 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.
Poot: Ok, I agree.
SAM: 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.
Poot: Well, the key phrase used here: In the developed world.
In the developed world , or developed countries, we will be much better off
than most. Our caloric intake has risen, and will keep rising for years to
come. But, it is this unnecessary glut which causes shortages in other
places. Think about it....
SAM: 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.
Poot: Let the discussing begin :-)
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 - 22:35:47 GMT