> 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.

Seems that way, doesn't it? But even the simplest mathematical equation becomes unrelentingly difficult if you don't know what the terms are. Could you give me a satisfactory answer to, say, 2 - 3 without any knowledge of the relative values of 2 and 3?

Sure, that doesn't always apply - but usually when it doesn't, it's because the issue was too simple to need it (e.g.: is it worth risking a global nuclear holocaust to improve TV reception by 5%?).

Granted, the equation is simple - it's the terms that give us trouble.

> 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.

Of course. But, again, that doesn't always apply, and, even when it does, it's often more a pipe dream than a reality, is it not? Everything has a side effect; everything comes to balance eventually.

dkd1