> The frank and honest answer, whether you argue
>this from a biblical perspective or not -- there
>ISN'T any easy answer to the questions we've
>been asking in this thread. There ISN'T any
>easy or foolproof way to determine what is a
>moral use of technology and what isn't. The
>best we can hope for is that each person who has
>a hand in the development and/or implementation
>of technology will make an intelligent, informed
>decision based on the best interests of God and
>humanity.

And strangely, even though Sam and I would most assuredly have a very different definition of "morals" if asked, I find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with this assertion.

The gains must be weighed against the losses. It's a simple mathematical equation. However, what we often get is people not even attempting to balance this equation or people who don't take into account both short *and* long term losses/gains.

Is using a renewable resource faster than it can be renewed a good thing? No. Is being wholy dependant on a non-renewable resource a good thing? No. But is the answer to not use those resources at all, or drastically alter every facet of our society to accomodate for this? Maybe. But I'd sooner think that the answer is to find a quicker renewing or recyclable resource to use instead.