Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=State-of-Wiscons%l=MAIL03-970922122437Z-6665@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:24:37 -0500 From: Jim Cory <mailto:CoryJ@MAIL01.DNR.STATE.WI.US> Subject: Re: IGNORANT! DANGEROUS! To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Dear V. Dimitroff,I'm not sure why Jay Hanson chose to submit his post at this time, perhaps just to wake people up. I have read some of the studies he references and as to their validity I cannot attest. It is only common sense however to conclude that the Earth has finite resources, that oil is non-renewable at the rate we are using it, and that it will one day run out.
As to when that happens I cannot say. Some researchers who have studied this issue (as noted in Jay Hanson's post) have predicted this will happen sooner than later. Some also conclude that it will have a detrimental effect on the world's economies. If you have ever driven on a freeway at rush hour, it's not hard to see there might be some truth to the latter statement.
It would be unwise to ignore the warnings of researchers who have studied the extent of the world's oil supply in detail. It would also be unwise to accept any one set of conclusions without reviewing the whole range of investigation. There will, however, come a time, in my opinion, when humankind will be faced with shortages of the fuel that powers modern society. What alternatives might we have in such a situation for substitute sources of energy and should we not reflect on our current directions in light of those options?
Jim Cory, GIS Analyst Wisconsion Dept of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster St Madison, Wi 53703 608-267-0799 mailto:coryj@dnr.state.wi.us
>----------
>From: V.Dimitroff[SMTP:mailto:vdimitroff@MAIL.PTL.COM.MT]
>Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:47 AM
>To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
>Subject: IGNORANT! DANGEROUS!
>
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>
>> The human enterprise has now exceeded the carrying capacity of
>> planet Earth. [1]
>
>The quoted W. Rees article and all the sources quoted therein do NOT
>prove such a statement. After pages of quiasi-scientific arguments
>(where nearly-mathematical formulae are based on dozens of assumptions,
>most of them questionable), the author reaches a "Conclusion" which
>states NOTHING! There is no scientific statement in the conclusion, only
>green-evangelist rhetoric (appropriate for a journalist, not for a
>scientist) - which leaves the reader wondering what the whole article
>wanted to prove.
>
>Many people blindly embrace and repeat such groundless statements, not
>realising the HARM they cause to the environmental cause (of which this
>humble poster is an ardent supporter).
>
>Think positive and, most important, THINK!
>
>V. Dimitroff
>