On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Snip
You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.

If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing
- and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I
*shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to
defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you
seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting
emotional?
snip

I think there's inevitably an emotional component to the
discussion/argument. Emotion is probably beneficial but it depends
what it's combined with.
As humans I don't think were as important as we consider ourselves to
be. By the same token I don't think were as responsible for these big
events as we imagine.
Natural changes tend toward the amorphous. Human responses to these
changes usually range from stiff to rigid.
Civilised man responds to changes in sea level and flow patterns by
moving millions of tons of rock and pouring millions of tons of
concrete. Primitive man would just move out of the way.
People spend fortunes trying to preserve houses built on the edges of
crumbling cliffs because natural erosion isn't prepared to consider
title deeds and mortgage commitments.
Most of us share a concern for the quality of life of our
grand-children but isn't defending their home against starving,
dispossessed hordes inevitable for one reason or another at various
points in time?
Hollywood regularly makes a fortune from presenting mock-ups of such
situations for our entertainment and we lap it up appreciatively.
Sometimes we have to live it.
always a
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the (EGG) to email me.