This is G o o g l e's cache of http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/2001III/msg00513.html as retrieved on 26 Nov 2003 15:36:27 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:n_i0RouAJbUJ:csf.colorado.edu/forums/pfvs/2001III/msg00513.html++%22David+MacClement%22+site:csf.colorado.edu&hl=en


Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: david macclement 

[pf] "It works, don't change it!" The conservative view.
< < <
Date Index
> > >
[pf] "It works, don't change it!" The conservative view.
by David MacClement
18 July 2001 22:51 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
· What is it with "It works, don't change it!"? The conservative view.

· I'm just reading (& won't be including in my 20 July report) :-
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jul2001/2001L-07-18-07.html

· It includes:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  The Sierra Club's senior Washington representative Melinda Pierce citing
data from the U.S. Geological Survey estimating that ANWR's North Slope may
contain less than a six month supply of oil at the nation's current
consumption rates. 
   "Even the oil industry itself admits that any oil discovered would take
a decade to come on line," Pierce added. "To achieve true energy
independence America needs a quicker, cleaner, cheaper and safer long term
energy strategy … based on conservation, renewable energy and stronger
efficiency standards." 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

· Two excellent economics reasons why the ANWR's North Slope is not
suitable for inclusion in a US National Energy Plan.

· Yet the simple-minded, like "W", grab onto _any_ idea that will (they
think) enable them to _not_change_ their way of life. (By the way; it's
them - the rich, the "rulers" - who so strongly try to maintain the "-- as
usual" approach to _everything.)

· Why are the simple-minded consistently unwilling to seriously consider
more than very minor change? Just the simple-mindedness; or insecurity, or
lack of imagination, or "just habit", or what?

· Unrelated to who voted them into office; I'm talking about all such, as
individuals.

· I've just been talking with Tom Warren (who used to help me create
extracts for my now-weekly environmental news reports), and he's very down.
Can't see any positive future - I tried to show him there _is_ a way
forward, though it won't return us to the world he and I mourn, that we
grew up with.

· It's so patently obvious that not just change, but _really_major_ change
in the current way of doing things is _absolutely_necessary_, if the
balanced ecology of some future time is to have close connections and
similarity with what there was in about 1950 (my standard).
  We humans, by using our best brains and imagination, can help bring that
about, provided we're not held back by simple-minded conservative thinkers!

David.
David MacClement [davd @ ihug.co.nz] (remove spaces)
http://davd.tripod.com/GrRR-010713_titles.html#top
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
***********************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.${encoded_sub_id}
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: csf@moscow.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


< < <
Date Index
> > >
Positive Futures List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to Positive Futures < < <
Thread Index
> > >