I have a book, co-edited with Ian Abley coming out on this very subject, Sustainable Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age, this December, published by John Wiley.
In message <p05100311b795f506ddf9@[216.254.77.128]>, Doug Henwood
<dhenwood at panix.com> writes
>Like I say, I wouldn't go all the way
Oh you tease....
In message <XFMail.010807125131.cgrimes at tsoft.com>, Chuck Grimes
<cgrimes at tsoft.com> writes
>
>It is an empirical question, after all. mbs
>
>-----------
>
>Which question?
>
>1) Don't we have more time left to make it a whole a lot worse?
Assumes that man's intervention in nature makes it worse, whereas on the contrary it makes it better, on the whole. As Worldwatch analyst Lester Brown points out, the Earth's carrying capacity has increased many many times over, thanks to increased agricultural (and industrial) productivity. So, for example increased grain yields mean more land is converted to forest or protected park use - a point I can remember being denounced as a Limbaugh-ite for making a few years ago, but that is now generally accepted.
>
>2) Is there any reason to change, since it isn't that bad, yet?
>
There's every reason for change, more productivity increases imply a better use of natural resources, too. What there isn't is a reason not to change, and to prevent new technological innovations.
>3) Shouldn't we wait for science to make up its mind before we do
> anything?
To demand of science absolute certainty would be against the meaning of science. Only faith provides absolute certainty. You cannot be absolutely certain that vaccination will not kill rather than cure, but its creators took the chance and saved literally millions of lives.
>
>Hmm, the imponderables...
>
So ponder them -- James Heartfield