On 7 Dec 99, at 9:39, Eugene Taurman wrote:
> This will not solve the problems you speak about. Profit might not be the
> cause of environmental degradation and there is no causal or structural
> proof for this. In fact even strong statistics cannot prove causality only
> association. So this is a hotbed of differing values we are talking about.
> One needs to have a systems approach here, see Senge on the tragedy of the
> commons.
Just a historical note. Let's keep in mind that the industrial process has
existed way before our understanding of environmental impact - it simply
wasnt' taken into account. So, to remediate a historical perspective would
require so much retooling that a large number of companies could, quite
simply, no longer function economically.
That's not to justify some acts, but an explanation that it isn't just
profit here, but profit within a context of a historical legacy.
...and one thing, by the way, I always get a kick out of. We talk about
"those" companies doing nasty things for the profit motive, but I
guarantee you that if you have a pension plan, "those" companies are
helping to earn YOU the money to provide a pension.
> It is also important to understand that only societies, which make a
> profit, have time and money to concern them selves with environment,
> poverty, pollution, and sicknesses. Societies that are poor have no time
> to recognize these issues much less fix them. So the societies with mostly
> profitable companies are the ones who lad the way to improving and
> maintaining our earth.
AN EXCELLENT POINT.
Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com for work related topics, lists.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>