Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Agreed. I'm among the greatest champions of efficiency and conservation, but I don't see it as necessary.
|
I don't see anything as necessary in and of itself ... Thing A is only necessary to get or avoid Thing B , under Conditions C.
For example: Breathing
It is not necessary in and of itself ... it is thing B ( staying alive ) under the conditions C ( of needing to breath to stay alive ) ... that produce the necessity of A from the combination of B & C ... but it is not A by itself that is necessary on its own... if someone can alter either B or C , thing A might not be necessary anymore.
As such I would agree conservation itself is not necessary on it's own ... nothing is.
My point was that ... it is the drive to conserve and for conservation that have resulted in many many innovation in human history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
It is the scarcity of a resource that necessitates innovation
|
The scarcity of a resource likewise to the above does not create a necessity in and of itself... it is only one part.
Scarcity does not have to lead to innovation ... If the mental step to desire conservation of that thing is never made ... it doesn't matter how scarce it is ... scarcity can only be one of many reasons for conservation efforts ... it is not the only reason for conservation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
The more scarce and desirable a resource, the more innovation to conserve it.
|
Bold added.
Exactly my point ... it is the efforts to converse thing A that many times in human history result in innovation ... without the desire to converse thing A , it makes no difference how scarce it is.
My original point was and still is to disagree with the concept proposed of ... "conservation doesn't bring innovation" ... because efforts for conservation have brought innovation many many times in human history ... some of the biggest innovations in human history.