tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2859567876135439896.post5133929674503760164..comments2024-03-12T04:56:36.742-04:00Comments on Minimizing Entropy: A veil of moralityDMAKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10430943593190838423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2859567876135439896.post-14066298002848402132023-05-24T10:38:47.379-04:002023-05-24T10:38:47.379-04:00Thanks for thhis blog postThanks for thhis blog postBagels Recipeshttps://www.bagelcooks.com/bagels/lox_bagels_with_dill_on_a_sesame_seed_bagel_15292042543.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2859567876135439896.post-59558345770662581002011-12-12T23:32:27.274-05:002011-12-12T23:32:27.274-05:00Interesting ideas but there are a few things I am ...Interesting ideas but there are a few things I am not totally convinced of: (1) you claim the economist's are being patronizing but aren't you being equally patronizing by suggesting that you know what is best for poor countries (i.e. leave their environment pristine)? As you point out, the monetarily wealthy countries of the world did a whole lot of polluting to develop the wealth needed to establish environmental standards. Have you considered that in order to create the wealth and infrastructure needed to have a sustainably high standard of living and strong environmental policies, that some nations that don't have much of an alternative may have to pollute their environment to develop the initial wealth they need? (2) "they fail to recognise that it is the policies of imperialism and colonialism of the very nations that The Economist calls "rich" that have led to poverty and conflict in the global south." I do believe that their are aspects of truth to what you are saying but I think you may want to take a longer look at this idea. Many countries that were colonized have been significantly more monetarily successful than similar countries that weren't. Many economists have argued that there were potentially very significant benefits to a nations monetary wealth/development to be colonized by a wealthier nation (e.g. USA, British built infrastructure). I suppose it depends on your goal. If you don't care about having many of the perks of a highly industrialized nation (high standards for health care, advanced automation/mechanization, communications, transportation, education, entertainment, luxury) than it is much easier to understand your argument. Because if we don't care about the aforementioned things all we have to protect is the environment in its current form. If we don't have a technologically advanced society than we will not stand a chance at adapting to a changing environment. I certainly agree that our society has in many ways descended into a terrible sort of decadence. At the same time, some of the "advancements" I wouldn't change (e.g. modern medicine, mechanization) because I think it is worth the environmental sacrifices.Matthew L.noreply@blogger.com