Global Warming (was Re: Libertarian Economics)

Joao Pedro (
Sun, 21 Sep 1997 02:32:18 -0700


> Joao Pedro <> wrote:
> >Voluntary actions? You're talking of voluntary, unselfish actions from
> >the same species that constantly kills, destroys and robs other members
> >of the same species? I don't think that's possible in today's world,
> >there's just too many greedy and selfish persons.
> Eeeh.. Joao. Listen... You've got to try to respect the *other* viewpoint.
> I know, it's hard sometimes but if you want to convice anyone on this list
> you'll have to show consideration and understanding for their opinion,
> Otherwise you just get flamed or igored. Using words like 'kills' and
> 'greedy' in this context will make the discussion very emotional an hardly
> contructive.

What words would you use? Violent behaviour instead of killing and a
huge personal determination in pursue of wealth instead pf greedy? It's
the same thing.

> > wrote:
> >> If the consumer wants environmental issues addressed, the consumer will
> >> get environmental issues addressed.
> //snip//
> >In this list, and even in the internet, the average person is from a
> >much higher social scale and much higher intellectual level than the
> >rest of the population. IMHO, most persons are stupid, plain stupid.
> Shall we make that uneducated? That's a bit more respectful and I think
> also more accurate.

Persons who weren't taught how to use their intellectual capacities
(this is how an ex-teacher of mine would call it).

> Do not have the illusion that democratic governements can influence
> problems of this magnitude. They cannot, neither can the free market.
> Democracy has a planning period of about 4-years, politicians work to get
> things right at re-election time. The free market has a *much* shorter
> planning period than that, stockholders want a yearly return. For adressing
> climate change you need to be able to plan 50 years ahead. Only a very
> nasty totalitarian state could do such a thing. I do not want to live in a
> totalitarian state.

Interesting point.

> Homo Sapiens will survive, but if things go bad not more than 5-10% of them.

That's nice, want to burn some coal?

> Am I being a bit cynical here, yes I am. We are taking an awfully big risk
> with the only planet we have. We do not *know* we'll have nano-tech or
> nuclearfusion or a singularity to get us out of our troubles. I'm hoping
> for it, but I'm not sure. So it worries me a bit sometimes.

It should worry everyone.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joao, could you send me this document by E-mail to <>. I
> might have some use for this knowledge in the future (I do a lot of 4000+
> meter climbing), or it could be an intersting read. many thanks.
> 22-" High altitude-related neurocardiogenic syncope". J. Freitas, M.
> Carvalho, O. Costa e A. Falc„o de Freitas. Am J Cardiol, 1996; 77:1021
> Interesting page BTW (only read the english part ;-)

Sorry but, what are you talking about? What document? What is that
22-"High altitude..."?

Nice hearing from you,

         Hasta la vista...

"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen Visit my site at: