Well, first of all, let me say I just watched the new Star Trek-movie, so please forgive the bad analogy. Anyway, afterwards we went to a nice bar, talked about various random stuff and finally ended up on environmental issues. Of course, I had to take the politically incorrect position that environmental issues weren't that important. Let's just say that a heated discussion followed which, in the end, escalated and ruined an otherwise nice evening. So that's that.
I don't mean soulless Cyber-Zombies by "true Borg" (at least as yet), but their incredible ability to adapt quickly to new circumstances.
When it comes to environmental issues, I have a very specieist and (in my eyes) pragmatic view and am rather optimistic concerning humanity's ability to adapt to new situations. Others may call me uncaring or something, I don't know.
Basically, the question is whether or not we have to preserve the environment, use gas/oil responsibly and the like.
Now, my position isn't exactly politically correct but it makes sense, at least to me.
No, we don't.
Why not?
Well, basically, our technology is what makes us able to surpass our natural limits.
Combustion engines are still a very big part of our life, our whole economy (and with that our society) depends on them.
We use tons upon tons of oil every day and people say we will run out soon, we have to stop using them so much!
Well, let me ask you this: Why?
We have the technology to substitute combustion engines.
It's just not appealing enough yet.
When oil begins to run low, won't the economic pressure regulate the problem by itself?
Less oil means higher prices, higher prices means a bigger incentive to use alternatives like, say, the electric engine.
Many say the technology isn't good enough yet. But that's not really true, there've been many improvements on the electric engine and even big brands like Mercedes have begun to delve back into the matter.
And even if the technology was years away from being as powerful as combustion engines are today, that doesn't really matter either, does it?
If gas/oil becomes too expensive (or rather expensive enough), won't people willingly choose the "worse" engine, simply because they can't afford the combustion engine?
Won't the market automatically lead us to the newer, maybe less powerful but more environmentally safe alternative?
That would not be because it's moral, but because it's cheaper; however, does the reason why really matter?
And I believe that the same is true for pretty much every difficult decision we face today.
Aren't we, as a whole, automatically being pushed towards newer technology simply through the economic need?
Isn't self-regulation enough?
Well, that's my view on the matter and I was wondering what you think.
Am I onto something here or just uncaring and short-sighted?
