You do know that many industrialized nations have falling birth rates, right? And that many are actually worried what to do with too few young people?

Indeed, but that doesn't touch on the blazing illogic of the argument presented me.

I'd think a free marketer would be good with that dynamic, and would not need to go around the bend, with suicide as the "logical conclusion"

Again, you're missing it. Not too surprising, really. If saving the planet is more important than anything else , and the planet is suffering because there are too many people on it, the logical conclusion to draw is that he would be far more effective in affecting the saving of our planet by removing himself from it, many would be by preaching to me about how I need to do as he and his near Luddite morons suggest.

You've got a hand it to the Unabomber. He had a heavily underlined copy of "earth in the balance" in his collection. Say what you will about him, I will likely agree. But at least, he understood the relationship between what the environmentalists preach, and the logical conclusion of it.

It's funny. I don't seem to recall to many environmentalists labeling him an "extremist". Or, for that matter, a "terrorist".

I'm glad the situation as I describe it makes you uncomfortable. It should. But what it should also do is drive you to a closer examination of the logical foundation of the environmentalist movement in the west. I tell you with no uncertainty whatsoever, that these extreme examples that I've cited, are the logical conclusion of that brand of non-thought.

There is a pattern in which birth rates tend to fall with increased GDP, implying that a wealthier world will have fewer children.

I'd think a free marketer would be good with that dynamic, and would not need to go around the bend, with suicide as the "logical conclusion"

If not, perhaps he doesn't take it as seriously as he'd like the rest of us to take it, eh?

It was interesting to watch his reaction; apparently something resembling the first thought he has ever had entered what was left of his feeble brain, and he simply didn't know how to respond. He saw, I'm sure for the very first time, the logical consequences of the argument he was pushing, and didn't like what he saw.

I asked such a question to someone who was busy telling myself and my wife there are too many people on the planet, and we had to take steps to solve the issue. I wondered aloud if he was that worried, wasn't suicide wasn't an option ...and suggested he go for it. After all, it's to 'save the planet' and the earth's survival depends on our actions now.

Oh yeah, bit. That was an entirely sane answer.

Funny thing, he stopped babbling, after that.

He just started edging towards the door, right?

In other words convenience is a non-issue in relation to maintaining a habitable environment. One thing matters, and the other just doesn't.

Amusing. And the question is, how far are you willing to go to 'save the environment'?

I asked such a question to someone who was busy telling myself and my wife there are too many people on the planet, and we had to take steps to solve the issue. I wondered aloud if he was that worried, wasn't suicide wasn't an option ...and suggested he go for it. After all, it's to 'save the planet' and the earth's survival depends on our actions now.

Funny thing, he stopped babbling, after that.

Odo... you apprently have learned nothing from history, and those occasions when government was given the power to make such chocies for us.

Whereas free markets have never had problems...

SRSLY!1!!!!11

She concedes — as do I — that these tradeoffs may in fact be worthwhile if the “good” existing product is truly dangerous to our habitat. But it’s important to at least weigh the costs and benefits and not treat the “green” alternatives as a cost-free exchange.

The costs are very much weighed. The thing is that the relative "coefficient of importance" for the convenience term is...0.

In other words convenience is a non-issue in relation to maintaining a habitable environment. One thing matters, and the other just doesn't.

The problem is that we have so many short sighted people on this planet that place their petty selfish desires before their own (and everyone else's) survival because they are just too damn stupid to know better (or to listen to those who do).

Plenty of examples of that in this thread...

I don't think the problem is that green is always bad, but that green sometimes isn't what it purports to be either. Just like any other product there is good stuff and bad stuff.

I do think the point that "green" isn't something that is regulated or defined is a good one. Just because the label says "green" that doesn't necessarily mean it is green or that it will do the job the label says.

I should eat more green vegetables .. no, darn, Obama might require that, so no vegetables for me!

Individual choices that have a profound social impact (what economists call "negative externalities") should sometimes be regulated.

And therein lies the root of the thing, James, for every governmental intrusion into our lives. What could not fit under such a definition of justification? I think I've answered Odo's complaint as well. Not Might, Odo. It WILL happen.

The blog owner, an economist, came back and said insulation was bad because the government might require it even in climates where it is not necessary.

I think that shows how people have their radar out. You may like insulation in your home ... but you start to worry about someone "making" you do it even before that happens.