I really do not see the point of explaining why a point of view is wrong when plainly those who are expressing it do not even themselves take it seriously enough to act upon it.
Nathan in particular takes exception to my argument that it is hypocritical to continue to increase energy and resource consumption while warning of the dangers of increased consumption. He thinks that I am arguing for an individualistic solution when we need a collective solution. So where's Nathan's - or Doug's or Miles' - collective solution?
After listening to the environmental argument for too long on these lists it is obvious to me that these opinions are not meant to be acted upon. They are merely meant to mark out the holder of such views as morally superior to the rest of the hoi polloi.
If you really think that one month from now any one of you will be doing anything about the collapsing arctic shelf, I might be interested, but why should I entertain opinions that are simply insincere?
Incidentally, Miles asks why a reduction in consumption implies a reduction in wages. Do I really have to spell it out? -- James Heartfield Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age is available at GBP19.99, plus GBP5.01 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'. www.audacity.org