No offense taken. My main point though is that it doesn't matter
what I believe. If it's true it's true. If there's questionable
bits, there's questionable bits. But _my_ stance is that it's
practical to act as if it's true. Although I have to admit that
jl* - whom I often argue with on many issues, including this one
- does make a valid point when I mentioned
governments-doing-something. He pointed out that it can lead to
war. I hadn't considered that. For that possibility, I'd
personally recommend (if anybody asked me) that local /
provincial (state) / federal governments make positive changes
WITHIN their own borders. If the mission crosses international
lines, then diplomacy must be the method of action. Convince.
Debate. Talk it over. But war-like things such as sanctions to
force other countries to comply with the recommendations to fix
things regarding global warming is something I'd recommend
strongly _against_. Why? There's plenty to do within each
country's own borders first. ==== I've seen that. It's not that
impossible that it might be true because it might. But the
correlation/causation as well as confirmation bias has to always
be taken into account. Science often makes for terrible
historians. Sorry, but it's true. The reasons for war and
conflict are multivaried, complicated, messy. People like to
look for a SINGLE REASON for it all. "It's religion! look at the
stats!" "It's global warming! look at the stats!" "It's oil!
look at the stats!" All of these things and more _are_ possible
as singular causes or main causes. But it's _more likely_ to me,
from a historical point of view, that it's EXACTLY as
complicated as it appears to be. === You're right. I share the
same values. I grew up with "give a hoot, don't pollute"
campaigns and was a Boy Scout. I believe in leaving the place
better than where you got there. I looked into the "Keep America
Beautiful" campaign a few months ago, because I was always a big
believer in it. The garbage cans everywhere. Recycle bins. I
believe in it. I thought, "Oh good, this will be a
controversial-free zone. Lemme find its history". Nope. Even
THERE, there's controversy. There's critics who say that the
whole campaign, a cooperation between federal government and
large corporations, were designed to put the onus of
responsibility on recycling onto the INDIVIDUALS and _away from_
the corporations, who don't have to follow the same rules. Had
something to do with glass bottle deposit revenues and stuff. So
I was a little disappointed. There's a good chance they're
right. Responsibility shifted away from corps and towards
individuals by starting a mission. A campaign. Something for us
to believe in. And, I did. And, I do. But it was another
reminder how annoying and complicated these things get, when
they get to the level of public policy.
