Ilya Shambat wrote:

There are many people who go on about responsibility. The problem is what they define responsibility to be.

If responsibility is defined as financial self-interest, then that would have many negative consequences for the country. Everyone would want to become a yuppie. Nobody would want to become teachers, scientists or police. These professions don’t make

very much money, but their contribution to prosperity are vast. With people avoiding these fields out of a wrong concept of what is responsibility, the country will be starved of a lot of what it needs.

Another problem is that this definition of responsibility is not actually responsible. What is being promoted is reckless consumption. Reckless consumption is not even more responsible than drug addiction. A drug addict hurts only himself and the

people who love him. A reckless consumer hurts the planet and its inhabitants.

In saying this I am in no way a hypocrite. I live modestly. I don’t drive. I have put in a lot of work into promoting a clean energy invention. My credentials on this matter are secure.

Far be it from me to militate against responsibility as such. But when you define something wrongly, you will get negative consequences. Responsibility is not correctly defined as having a big house and a Hummer. It is correctly defined as leaving the

world a better place than you have found it. By this standard, the teachers, the scientists and the police are more responsible than the yuppies and are worthy of a greater respect.
----------
Why did the scientists call for Zero Population Growth 50 years ago?
--
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)