Based on your prior comments, one might conclude that you consider yourself above the "deer and antelope" in importance and, for that matter, above all other humans present and future as well.

You have every right to express your opinion. Both of us, and everyone else, certainly have the "right to be wrong." As you say, I'm not afraid to exercise that right. It's the differing opinions that make a discussion of any sort interesting. I don't care much for "preaching to the choir."

What I seek, by "sharing my opinions" is a rational discussion, including arguments at both extremes and anywhere between them. I'm not going to yield because we live in an adverserial culture, and one has to stake out a position at the one extreme or the other in order to avoid being draw into the middle. The goal, of course, is to flush out arguments that have not been presented yet.

Arguments are statements of opinion, strengthened, sometimes, by facts. The larger argument is a "Grasshopper vs. Ant" argument. You're saying you want to have all the fun and enjoy all the available benefits of a rapidly growing economy, and "the devil with the consequences." You're not alone in that viewpoint. You say that it matters not that there will be "a few PPM more CO2" in the atmosphere for your offspring to deal with, since you don't view CO2 as a pollutant. I've pointed out, though not in the interchange with you, (see my comments to Jeff Post) that it's a matter of dosage and rate of increase. Lead is a naturally occurring element. A small amount of it introduced into your head probably wouldn't be a problem either, except when you introduce it at a high rate of speed. That's what the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been. It's a large increase of a material that normally occurs in smaller quantity, introduced at a very much faster-than-normal rate. That's already been pointed out a few times by others, though, yet it's been ignored by those who insist on doing all the damage themselves for their own benefit, expecting others to clean it up after them.


Only one, aside from the U.S. since I was part of a delegation the rest of the time. It happens that that's the one in which I was born, but tell me, in how many countries outside the U.S. have you lived for over 10 years at or below the median income/prosperity level in that country? How can you possibly claim to know what's going on, based on experience gained living as a plutocrat? The time I spent in Europe was spent earning less than the median income there. I was, after all, in the army and assigned on special duty to the State Department.



If you're referring to your time in Mexico, you should probably consider that you were not part of the "mainstream" with 1000x the typical net worth of the citizenry. If you want to see experts in corruption, you should visit the middle-east, or Asia. It's the claim and widespread belief that it doesn't exist in the U.S. that makes it so evil. In other countries, it's simply a fact of life. Those touchups on the x-ray inspections of piping used in the construction of that fictitious nuclear plant in The China Syndrome that concealed the defective materials provided by one subcontractor is a good, though admittedly ficticious example of what I mean. Though that's not considered "normal" by the public at large, it's considered "standard practice" by the construction industry, at least it is by my experience.



Of that, there can be no doubt. If they were any better at it, they'd probably not be caught at it as often as that happens.

It's not the just politicians, though. It's the corporate executives, bankers, mid-level managers, and even common workers, who behave in a manner totally inconsistent with their role, favoring self-interest over their agreed and assigned duties. Our current generation of business executives have demnostrated themselves to be rank amateurs as well, relying primarily on corrupt practices to enrich themselves at the expense of those whom they're supposed to serve. They've amply demonstrated their inability to do what they're paid to do, too. That's why Ford, GM, and the soon-to-be Chrysler, once Daimler-Benz unloads them, are all about to go "tits up."


I only expect humans to be as they are, which is incapable of doing "good" for the planet. They've never disappointed me in that regard. There's no point in arguing what's good and what's evil, since what's good for one is often evil for someone else. The things that I deplore are the things that, over time, turn out to be good for nobody and evil for all.