Sir Nicholas Stern, according to Foster, particularly tends to espouse the concern for the future generations:
The alleged ethical trump card in the enviro-socialist stance is that the market has no way of accounting for the fate of people a hundred or two hundred years hence (although it seems to have done a bang-up job in the past two hundred). Future generations "lack representation." To discount the future -- by this account -- is to cheapen the lives of the unborn.
Stern suggests that the unborn should have equal "weights" with present generations. "Are there any persuasive ethical arguments," it asks, "for discrimination by birth date?" Well, abortion certainly seems to be one, since mothers have by definition to be born before their babies. But in fact we need not get into the thorny ethics of the "Right to Life," since this is not a matter of the living taking precedence over a fetus, but of the bizarre notion that the living should not take precedence over those who have not even been--and may never be--conceived.
The main precondition for the prosperity of future generations is the health of present generations. Enviro-socialism seeks to turn this obvious logic on its head. But the notion that the present might sacrifice itself to the collective future is bizarre. By impoverishing ourselves we necessarily impoverish our descendents, and make them less equipped to deal with any challenges they might face (and we also further impoverish the present poor, contrary to the redistributionist fantasies of Kyoto).
I'm not sure that I agree with everything Foster says in the editorial, but it is a fascinating read.
The irony, as he points out as an aside, is that all this concern for the unborn seems to ignore the present reality of abortion.
But of course, in a world view where humans are the supreme culprits, I suppose that abortion is simply another tool with which to offer sacrifices to Mother Earth.
* * * *
Update - More Enviro-Socialist Hypocrisy:
Lorrie Goldstein - Let 'em live like Common People.
Toronto Sun Letters :
Lorrie Goldstein - Let 'em live like Common People.
Toronto Sun Letters :
Do as they say?
I was somewhat disenchanted to learn that two champions for global warming control have not been practising what they preach. My day started poorly by learning that David Suzuki's entourage of seven are touring the country in a bus with 40 seats. Later, to my dismay, I learned that Al Gore showed up to his Toronto engagement in a gas-gulping limousine. What message are we to take from this?
Grant Kelly
Angus
* * * *
Great post at Officially Screwed, "Suzuki Paying for Salvation...". The post itself is worth the read, and then in comments we have one reader referring to "Kooky Suzuki" which gave me a chuckle, and another gives a link to one awesome debunking site: A Dog Named Kyoto. I could spend the whole day reading that blog!
Tom Brodbeck - Suck it up, Suzuki!
Tom Brodbeck - Suck it up, Suzuki!
Saturday Update: Suzuki lashes out at Alberta premier.
5 comments:
And, with this logic, only non-breeders should ever waste money on personal pleasure because doing otherwise is stealing from those eventually to be created.
Yes. All personal pleasure must be carbon-neutral.
This is the second attempt for this comment. The first one ended up in a cybernetic gulag.
The irony, as he points out as an aside, is that all this concern for the unborn seems to ignore the present reality of abortion.
Joanne, this is one conundrum that our friends in the NDP are going to do their best to ignore.
This is the second attempt for this comment. The first one ended up in a cybernetic gulag.
Wow! There's a new one. I'll have to remember that next time blogger is bad.
Did Al Gore get to TO on a commercial flight or did he come by private jet? Kooky Suzuki's bus isn't nearly as bad as a private jet. The real hypocracy is pretending that the global warming theory is an established fact, when it is nothing more than a crackpot theory.
Post a Comment