Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961007122120.5239I-100000@acy1.digex.net> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:55:29 -0400 From: Tu and Bob Myers <mailto:tuandbob@ACY.DIGEX.NET> Subject: Re: Sustainability To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Mr. Ballard-Tremeer,I think you're supporting my goal, as I was, and still am, yours.
On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Grant Ballard-Tremeer wrote in part:
> A discussion of values is a little different from a discussion of
> causes.
I think there's a big difference. Unfortunately many will not admit the difference.
> There was no mention of good or bad in my previous submission.
True.
> From a normative point of view we would not (and could not) carry your
> argument (tongue in cheek as it may infact be) to the conclusion that
> war is good.
I certainly hope not! The argument was meant to point out the holes in the "logic" used to "blame" technology for it's (mis)use.
> There is after all more than one reason we value the
> environment: human welfare (health, material and non-material
> well-being) and the intrinsic value of nature (biodiversity etc) are
> two.
Both laudable goals that I support.
> The current "Sustainable Development" fashion is possibly an
> attempt to satisfy both these values. The debate is around how to
> balance human needs (and wants) and nature needs...
We may be loosing the debate because people are ascribing "values" to inanimate objects and ideas, known as technology. As long as logic used in supporting an idea is faulty, the value of the idea is lost.
Bob