Something a commenter posted on the Freakonomics blog the other day struck a chord... He referenced the popular saying:
Give a man a fish, he'll live for a day.
Teach a man to fish, he'll live forever.
The post got me thinking more about the analogy as it could be applied during all this Recession talk, and prompted me to try a Haiku Redux of that same saying...
Give a man a fish...
because he was just laid off.
Was a fisherman.
Maybe one of you more skilled in the ways of Haikus, limericks, etc., will come up with something better. :)
Showing posts with label Freakonomics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freakonomics. Show all posts
Monday, May 05, 2008
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
What I've been saying for years. :)
"People often talk about saving the planet. But really, the planet will be just fine without us, and the issue is more whether our species will be smart enough to survive the climactic and biological changes we are wreaking on ecosystems."
I've been reading the Freakonomics blog on nytimes.com lately, and I came across this article about Global Warming today. Besides finding the above quote (basically echoing the argument that I use against 'environmentalists' when I feel preached at), I thought it interesting to discover that the article was repeatedly suggesting, if not promoting the unpopular?/realistic?/scientific? argument that one person really can't do anything. The real point being that it's up to our governments to do anything that would actually have a planetary effect.
Maybe it's just my personality type, but I find that kind of logical/cynical honesty refreshing. I feel that the One-Person-CAN-Make-a-Difference!-type arguments are generally corny and not-powerful. Sometimes I even think that they hinder the development of the kinds of technologies and legislature that could actually help these situations, because people start to think that turning off the lights is all it'll take... In the end it can really dumb down the issue.
And it seems like these contributors are all sticking with the argument (for action against Global Warming) that [I think] you're stupid not to buy into - no matter what side of the political scale you weigh in on - and that is: No matter what the cause of Global Warming is, it is happening, and it could make life for humans difficult in years to come, so why not try to do something about it? The cause matters in terms of HOW we fight Global Warming (whether it's a naturally occurring temperature fluxuation or completely human-caused, or whatever...), sure, but WHY NOT do something about it either way? The only reason that I see for the massive onslaught of GW Doubters is $. (Dolla dolla bill, y'all.)
And I'll be pissed if in 50 years I find out that all the penguins had to die because the US was too scared to offend Big Oil to not consider the funding and development of alternative technologies.
I've been reading the Freakonomics blog on nytimes.com lately, and I came across this article about Global Warming today. Besides finding the above quote (basically echoing the argument that I use against 'environmentalists' when I feel preached at), I thought it interesting to discover that the article was repeatedly suggesting, if not promoting the unpopular?/realistic?/scientific? argument that one person really can't do anything. The real point being that it's up to our governments to do anything that would actually have a planetary effect.
Maybe it's just my personality type, but I find that kind of logical/cynical honesty refreshing. I feel that the One-Person-CAN-Make-a-Difference!-type arguments are generally corny and not-powerful. Sometimes I even think that they hinder the development of the kinds of technologies and legislature that could actually help these situations, because people start to think that turning off the lights is all it'll take... In the end it can really dumb down the issue.
And it seems like these contributors are all sticking with the argument (for action against Global Warming) that [I think] you're stupid not to buy into - no matter what side of the political scale you weigh in on - and that is: No matter what the cause of Global Warming is, it is happening, and it could make life for humans difficult in years to come, so why not try to do something about it? The cause matters in terms of HOW we fight Global Warming (whether it's a naturally occurring temperature fluxuation or completely human-caused, or whatever...), sure, but WHY NOT do something about it either way? The only reason that I see for the massive onslaught of GW Doubters is $. (Dolla dolla bill, y'all.)
And I'll be pissed if in 50 years I find out that all the penguins had to die because the US was too scared to offend Big Oil to not consider the funding and development of alternative technologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)