Message-ID: <19970116145804370.AAA149@smtp.persocom.com.br> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:58:05 +0000 From: Joaquim Moura <mailto:joaquim.moura@PERSOCOM.COM.BR> Subject: comments on Dr.Steve and Wilbur's reasoning To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Dear Jon, let me again... I keep following your msgs. because I notice you are open to discuss complex concepts and facts and because you are not offensive. And you are almost getting it, because you discuss with an open heart (maybe more than your head...).>Well, maybe. But I don't think we need to lead the cheers and wax
>enthusiastic.
Jon, Jay is not leading the cheers, he is trying to make everybody on this list (supposed to be interested about these questions) more aware of important limitations that should inform our action - personally and professionally - in order to avoid the coming great die-off. And he is not alone, not at all...>After all, we don't really know what that "sustainable" level might be.
There is >no scientific consensus on that point, notwithstanding your claims.
Jon, the fact that you don't know where, exactly, is the sustainable level doesn't mean that you shall act as if it doesn't exist (in Brazil, reasoning like this one is considered common plain sense; how do you call it there?). The more prudent (and caring about our descendants) would be presuming it very low, very fragile, and save resources for the long term future. By the way, do you really love your descendants, say, the grandchildren of your grandchildren. Do you think they have the same right to be so happy as you were when you were a child, a young boy, a man? A hundred of years from now?>how fast must it be done and how much time do
>we have to adjust? One, two, ten generations before we get to some
>irrevocable point as far as "sustainability" is concerned? The time schedule
>can make a big difference.
The time schedule only makes difference if we start to change as soon as possible. If we don't start, more time will mean just more difficulty to reverse the trends and to minimize the suffering. If your plane has a problem, the sooner you change your flight plans the less risk you run of reaching the point-of-no-return and stay without any alternative. (Again common sense in Brazil - I am becoming amazed about the way you Americans use to reason. It looks like Brazilian childish reasoning - please, I don't want to be offensive, but some reasonings of yours and Dr. Steve, for example, are very very weak, not what we expect from American scholars and technicians.)>In any case, I don't think it is something to be welcomed. It won't just
>be anonymous people living in obscure lands who are hurt. Those folks will
>be someone's mother or brother, dear to them and an ethical concern to us.
>Might even be yours or mine.
Jon, again you presume that Jay (and I and others) are welcoming the future suffering, but we are trying to minimize it, reduce it, eliminate it if possible. Do you think we are wrong about trying? Or do you think that we should keep our ideas for ourselves, save just our families (soon this would prove to be impossible). I read another message (maybe yours) suggesting that Jay should take his family, his books, his hoe, and let the people choose their fate... But you know that educators, masters, leaders, caring and responsible people and scientists don't act this mean way, don't you? Cheers, J. _______________________________________________________________ Joaquim MouraCompanheiros das Americas / Partners of the Americas Comite Brasilia - Washington D.C. / Committee Comissao de Desenvolvimento da Juventude e da Cidadania / Youth and Citizenship Development Commission ** todas as opinioes controversas sao apenas pessoais ** ** all the controversial opinions are just personal **
WWW site: http://webwrite.com/partners.bsb-dc