mike wrote in message <6jtef2$lk6$1 at uni.library.ucla.edu>...
>True, but solving our environmental problems is not "rocket science" (i.e.
>it doesn't require huge funding to figure out the solution). 1. Reduce
>consumption (i.e. all the disposable "conveniences" and the idiotic pursuit
>for keeping up with whatever is trendy at the time). 2. Control
population
>growth (why any thinking person would want to bring children into this
>nightmare of a "society" is a mystery to me).
>Of course, these are impossible goals since the world is filled with
>shallow-minded half-wits. If you think you can save the world, all the
>power to you. In 50,000 years the human species will be history and none
of
>what happened today or tomorrow will have mattered.
Depends on what you call"rocket-science". Take a look at a good definition
of engineering. It means living in the real-world and working out real
solutions. If you just abdicate, you are not a rocket-scientist. If you deal
with reality, you are.
Your abdication makes you just as much a problem as those "shallow-minded
half-wits". You might even say that if you understand the problem and do
nothing to solve it, you are a "whole-wit"
