REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) (03/10/86)
TK> Date: 7 Mar 86 12:19:22 GMT TK> From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tom Keller) TK> Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level TK> I would like to suggest to you that *YOU* volunteer to be TK> amongst the first to contribute your death the "slowing of the TK> population explosion". If you are unwilling to do so, then **HOW DARE TK> YOU** suggest that it is in any way acceptable to visit this fate on TK> some unknowing and probably unwilling soul? I am already in the lottery for death by lung cancer caused by other people smoking near me (but I protest that as unfair to me), by cancer and other diseases caused by fumes from automobiles (which I accept but don't want to get any worse and would like to ameliorate), by cancer etc. caused by burning coal and fuel oil (which I want to greatly reduce by using nuclear energy instead), by explosion when gasoline trucks get in accidents if I happen to be near, by earthquake and other natural disasters, by poisoning from overturned trucks containing toxic chemicals (which I want to see better regulated to reduce chance of accident), etc. etc. -- Note I didn't say I wanted to name some person out there to die, I was referring to the lottery of risk from accidents and biosphere contamination. It is not fair for you to ask me to volunteer to "win" the death lottery when I wasn't asking anyone else to do that; it is enough that I play the lottery the same as anyone else. -- Regarding overpopulation, I am already making the sacrifice; long ago I decided to have only one or two children, maybe three but probably not, instead of the 5 children our neighbors in Sylmar had (they're catholic by the way), or the 8 that are advocated by a certain TV program, or the 20-some-odd that some couple in the appalachians had. Now if everyone else in the world would make the same sacrifice I'm making we'd have a lot more time to work on the problem of resources running out. TK> This is simply another case of "I don't care what the risks and TK> costs of my progress are, so long as *I* don't have to bear them" TK> syndrome...becoming more and more popular of late. Nope, I'm bearing down to do my part to alleviate population explosion on Earth, and if everyone else does likewise this planet will continue to be tolerable. How about you, how many children do you have already and how many do you plan to have?
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/11/86)
REM sent me this article as a letter. I attempted to reply to him twice. apparently mail only travels in one direction between his site and mine. I will therefore respond to him here: In article <8603101133.AA02049@s1-b.arpa>, REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) writes: > TK> Date: 7 Mar 86 12:19:22 GMT > TK> From: hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Tom Keller) > TK> Subject: Re: absolutely vs. relatively safe level > TK> I would like to suggest to you that *YOU* volunteer to be > TK> amongst the first to contribute your death the "slowing of the > TK> population explosion". If you are unwilling to do so, then **HOW DARE > TK> YOU** suggest that it is in any way acceptable to visit this fate on > TK> some unknowing and probably unwilling soul? > > I am already in the lottery for death by lung cancer caused by other > people smoking near me (but I protest that as unfair to me), by cancer > and other diseases caused by fumes from automobiles (which I accept > but don't want to get any worse and would like to ameliorate), by > cancer etc. caused by burning coal and fuel oil (which I want to > greatly reduce by using nuclear energy instead), by explosion when > gasoline trucks get in accidents if I happen to be near, by earthquake > and other natural disasters, by poisoning from overturned trucks > containing toxic chemicals (which I want to see better regulated to > reduce chance of accident), etc. etc. -- Note I didn't say I wanted to > name some person out there to die, I was referring to the lottery of > risk from accidents and biosphere contamination. It is not fair for > you to ask me to volunteer to "win" the death lottery when I wasn't > asking anyone else to do that; it is enough that I play the lottery > the same as anyone else. -- Regarding overpopulation, I am already > making the sacrifice; long ago I decided to have only one or two > children, maybe three but probably not, instead of the 5 children our > neighbors in Sylmar had (they're catholic by the way), or the 8 that > are advocated by a certain TV program, or the 20-some-odd that some > couple in the appalachians had. Now if everyone else in the world would > make the same sacrifice I'm making we'd have a lot more time to work > on the problem of resources running out. > I reject your disclaimers. Granted, every one of the problems you mention is a hazard. I see this as no excuse for unnecessarily introducing new, even more dangerous hazards. I repeat here: the nuclear industry, the govenrment, and the nuclear supporters have been repeatedly caught in lie after misrepresentation regarding the safety, health and cost issue surrounding nuclear energy. They have invalidated themselves as sources of reliable information on the subject. I therefore do not see any reason for any thinking person to accept the protestations of these sources as to the relative safety of plutonium. I refer you to the asbestos issue. The government, the asbestos industry and the medical establishment insisted for *YEARS* that asbestos was completely safe. We all know how wrong they were. There is some evidence to suggest that for a substantial portion of that time, they were fully aware of the dangers of asbestos. Yet they continued to propagandzie the alleged safety of the substance. Certainly, the toxicity of plutonium is at *LEAST* as difficult to evaluate as the dangers of asbestos. (I do include the radiation hazards as part of the safety issue, so for the sake of brevity 'toxicity' may be considered to mean 'safety and toxicity') The government and the nuclear industry have far too much to gain, for me to accept that they simply would not commit such perjury. I suggest that anyone that believes they would not is hopelessly naive, or a complete fool. > TK> This is simply another case of "I don't care what the risks and > TK> costs of my progress are, so long as *I* don't have to bear them" > TK> syndrome...becoming more and more popular of late. > > Nope, I'm bearing down to do my part to alleviate population explosion > on Earth, and if everyone else does likewise this planet will continue > to be tolerable. How about you, how many children do you have already > and how many do you plan to have? I have none. Nor will, I, as I chose to have a vasectomy at 25. My reasoning for this decision was highly personal. Suffice it to say that I considered the issues of population, genetic pool purity (not to be confused with any Aryan or racial philosophies), my own peace of mind (being a highly nervous and impatient man), and the well-being of any potential children (I could not bring myself to impose me as a father on some poor, unsuspecting child). Obviously, everyone cannot and should take this step. The issues of nuclear energy (and materials, including waste) are complex, and are *NOT* strictly technical. There is no simple answer. A mindless acceptance of th govenrment/nuclear industy's party line on the safety and desireability of nuclear energy is every bit as stupid and wasteful as the mindless (anf ignorant) approach many anti-nukers take. One of the greatest problems I see in resolving the issues is in finding reliable, believable information on the technical aspects. The end is not in sight. Hopefully, those who would push progress ahead at any cost can be kept under control sufficiently that they will not destroy the entire ecosystem. Hopefully, those that blindly oppose *ANY* progress will be suffiently controlled that the human race does not stangnate. The really important issue is to learn to evaluate any and all progress in terms of human safety,welfare and needs, as well as economics, profitability and technical feasibility. Thank you. (odd...shouldn't this discussion be taking place in net.politics?) -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)