Quote:

Oh, and I found it a little condescending and insulting personally.

I read variations of the article on a couple of sources and I couldn't agree with you more.

Does this mean we shouldn't be good stewards of the earth? No. Does this mean we should devastate our economies to try control something that's beyond our control?

No.




I would re-word the last statement thus: "Should we devastate the environment (and our economy) trying to do something that's beyond our control?"

Oops, we just did.

I've been following the Deepwater Horizon "issue", and it's extremely bothersome. And for some reason, I thought of this thread and the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

I'm wondering if James Lovelock was all that wrong. Which reminds me of something George Carlin said:

"think how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider".

Sadly this may provide an insight into how this disaster came about.

If during the course of applying science and technology, we can't prevent disasters, how can science/technology answer the original question?

I have a friend (a banker) that thinks that technology will come up with an alternative to fossil fuels (oil) for powering our vehicles (airplanes, cars, trucks, busses). I suggested that his faith in technology is misplaced. The only country that has ships that aren't powered by oil is the USA. One of them was here in our harbour the past few days - quite a sight - USS Ronald Reagan - an aircraft carrier.

Glenn