Rational Dialogue

Israel and the Palestinians

Dear Samuel,

I’m going to write in English and in Portuguese because I may share this letter with persons who don’t read the latter.

A.               Where I’m Coming From

Any discussion of any subject, no matter how objective the interlocutors want to be, inevitably reflects the intellectual and emotional backgrounds of the persons involved.  There are persons who put lots of weight on emotions, and for them arguments based on “objective” criteria and logic may fall on deaf ears.  And there are persons who try to be logical and objective, and for them emotional appeals or arguments have less or no weight.

Some of the most important—perhaps the most important, if we end up blowing up the planet because of them—factors in humanity’s struggle to survive and prosper are its religions.  Religions by definition, explicit or implicit, effectively must be totalitarian: why would a person believe something which he/she thought wasn’t true?  Ergo, if he/she believes something, it’s because it’s true.  And ergo again, if someone else believes something which contradicts what he/she believes, of course that someone else is wrong.

There’s a pretty good and relatively high inverse correlation between level of education and religious belief, especially in Europe, and there’s a very high inverse correlation between professional activities involving science and religious belief.  It varies from country to country, as you’d expect, but it’s consistently there.  Estimates are that 10% to 20% of the American population is anti-theistic while 50% to 75% of its scientists are.  In Europe the percentages are considerably higher.

Having been raised in a religious Protestant family—and Protestants, you may know, don’t subscribe to the laughably frequent “miracles” of Catholics and have no “saints” other than those cited in Biblical texts—I recall the awkward silence that followed when, after someone had read a text from the Bible, I at perhaps age seven asked why miracles haven’t happened since Biblical times.

To make a long argument longer, in my intentions to be rational I don’t buy arguments for religions.  I reject the argument that judgment must be suspended in questions of faith: it’s impossible to present a good reason why.  I reject the concept that religions and science can coexist: again, the only arguments are tautologies.  And because there’s no evidence to support the idea, I find unconvincing—which is to say, unbelievable—the argument that concepts presented in Biblical texts were inspired by a god or gods.  Biblical writings were clearly and rather obviously conceived by their writers.  They’re additions to the continuum of the metamorphoses of religions, one into another over time, all the result of man’s need to explain what he didn’t understand and—not incidentally—manipulate and consolidate political power by arguing divine backing.

As religions morphed from one into another, branches were formed; the most famous to Westerners, of course, is that Islam, Judaism and Christianity had a common patriarch, Abraham.  And since all are man-concocted sets of beliefs, each is as “valid”—or, I’d argue, “invalid”—as the others.  So a Muslim’s beliefs are just as valid or invalid as are a Jew’s or a Christian’s, regardless of how impossible it may be for the Jew or the Christian to accept that.  They’re valid or invalid because they’re all groundless.

Conclusion: a religious argument for or against anything is fallacious or unfounded.

B.               Turning Off and the Firmness of Illogic

When two persons begin to discuss religion with the intent of being rational, it’s common, I find, for persons who are religious to simply “turn off” at critical points in the debate.  When talking with anti-theists, religious persons generally react with surprise, almost always negative, when informed of their interlocutor’s position.  An inner sense of horror is not uncommon, especially amongst conservative Christians—“This guy’s soul is destined for Hell!”—which they may or may not try to hide.  Then, as to anti-theists, the religious persons mentally close their minds to further logical thought and the intention of debating ceases.

If the religious persons are talking with persons of other religious beliefs, their reactions tend to be less negative than with anti-theists, though now Islam is getting ranked right up there terms of provocation of negative reactions among religious conservatives.

(I trust, of course, that you haven’t hit the “Delete” key and you’re still reading.  If you have hit “Delete,” you’ve disappointed me.)

Attached is an article by Jeffrey Kluger in TIME magazine entitled, “I know the truth, so don’t bother me with facts.”  He cites a study in which 750 persons were asked to reconsider their positions on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York City in the light of objective information about the issue.  Fewer than one-third of the persons were willing to consider reconsidering!

Such logical rigidity characterizes religions.  They insist on initiating religious instruction when the subjects are children and—not at all incidentally—incapable of serious analysis and logical thought.  The children are taught to accept concepts that defy science—that is, logic and proof—and instructed to rely on faith when and/or if their religious beliefs are questioned.  As Richard Dawkins sarcastically observed in an essay, those persons who believe the most incredible and illogical things are admired by other religious persons for the strength of their faith!

All this to appeal to your sense of logic and reason: don’t turn off.  Try to be open-minded about Israel and Palestine.  Keep reading.

C.               Anti-Semitism

The Bible exhorts Jews’ to slaughter their enemies and perpetrate all manner of savagery.  Things as bad as—or, considering genocide, perhaps worse than—what the Palestinians do or are accused of doing.  But civilized persons in the 21st century have morally outgrown Biblical texts.  That’s why religions which rely on the Bible must use its texts selectively, a compelling argument its text were concocted by men and not a god.

Since at least medieval times Jews have been subject to outrageous abuses for a number of reasons.  Evolutionary developmental arguments point to distrust of the alien: to the extent that Jews have beliefs and practices which are different from others’, they’ve been distrusted.  And there’s simple human jealousy or envy: to the extent that Jews—whose average intelligence is demonstrably high and whose cultural values prize education—are above average achievers, they’re envied by the dullards and the sloths.  Certainly that’s behind a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment these days.

One has to keep in mind, of course, that what we see today as outrageous abuses—e.g., the Inquisition—weren’t abuses to those who practiced them.  They were following the precepts of their religion, carrying out what they chose to believe were their god’s instructions.

What’s ironic is that now Jews in Israel discriminate against Arabs, who may not have the same full rights as Israeli Jews, because the Arabs don’t share Jewish beliefs.

In my case, you won’t find in my background any meaningful evidence that anti-Semitism is part of my attitudinal or belief structure.  It is not.  Anti-religion for certain is part of me, but not anti-Semitism: I don’t discriminate.  I reject all religions.  And I don’t envy or feel jealous of high achievers: I admire them, providing their achievements are legitimate.  (George Soros comes to mind as a good example.)

D.               Rights of Persons as to Land

Matters dealing with real estate have their own, entirely separate body of law for a simple reason: they don’t make land any more, Dubai-style man-made islands notwithstanding.  And for reasons which arguably are not entirely rational, humans tend to become attached to their real property.  Unfortunately for some, power and a lot of other factors are involved, and persons who are fond of their property often end of losing it.  Historically recent examples include the indigenous peoples of North and South America, aborigines in Australia, African tribes, and on and on.

As to the hopeless arguments in favor of those displaced persons, society today usually frowns, grimaces, shrugs and says, “Oh, well…”

Now, do you think that’s morally Right (with a capital R)?

E.               The Promised Land

Since I’m aggressively anti-theistic, I obviously put no weight in arguments that a particular piece of land belongs to any group because it was promised by a god.  Especially if such promise is in self-serving texts written by the promisees.  Especially, too, if other groups have gods which may give them counterclaims.  And especially if long periods of time have passed when such other groups occupied the land and suddenly were displaced from it.  If the amount of time that’s passed is what makes claims to land valid, it would seem that the correlation should be inverse: more time elapsed, less valid the claim.  Less time, more valid.  (A cynic or a skeptic would say this is precisely the reason for Israel’s intransigence as to the peace process and its continued colonization of the west Bank.)  But no weight should be given to one or another group’s gods, because their gods are by definition in conflict, and none is superior to the others.  (In fact, there’s no evidence at all that any exists.)  And remember that religion is totalitarian.

You know where I’m going, of course.  I cannot accept arguments that certain square meters of land in the Middle East belong to Jews because a Jewish god promised them in texts the Jews themselves wrote.  If that argument were valid, get ready to vacate Brazil and give it back to the indigenous tribes.  America, move out: the Indians are back.

F.                Practicality

Although efforts to establish a Jewish state began before World War II, the Holocaust gave those efforts practicality, credence and justification.  So Israel was established, even though it meant dislocating Palestinians who had lived on the land for centuries, periods as long as European settlers have been claiming land as their own in the New World.  Arguments based on religion that Palestinians’ rights should be ignored are illogical.

G.              More versus Less Advanced

Societies differ, obviously.  Their social, economic and cultural levels differ.  Who’s to say which is “higher” or “better”?  The Finns are pretty satisfied with their consistently high ratings in international comparisons, but does that make Finland better than Brazil?  Better than Canada?  Better than anyplace?  In an ideal world perhaps we’d all be free to move wherever we’d like to choose the “best” place to live, but I’ll wager a lot of persons wouldn’t move at all.  And certainly not all would find any one place better than others.

The evidence is obvious that the social, economic and cultural levels of Israel and its neighbors are significantly—even vastly—different.  The fact that they’re different—higher versus lower is what Western Europeans would be likely to say—doesn’t mean they’re better in everyone’s opinion.  Osama bin Laden is pretty firm on the point that Western societies are inferior to his concepts of Islamic society, and there’s no way you’ll convince him otherwise.

Israeli arguments—or simply beliefs—that they’re superior to their neighbors are based on judgments that include individual and societal preferences, and not inherently logical differences.  Even, though, if we choose to decide that societies in which religious law treats women in a manner “inferior” to the way they’re treated in the west—or in Israel—are somehow “wrong,” that doesn’t serve to justify improper Israeli behavior.

H.               Occupation of Others’ Lands

Again, let’s be practical: Israel’s a reality.  Not because of gods but because of political decisions.  Arguments that the state has no reason for being—the rationale being that for close to two millennia the land’s been in others’ hands—simply won’t fly.  But neither will the argument fly that Israel has a god-given right to anything, based as it is on man-made texts written a long time ago to attend the objectives of its authors.  Especially if equally “valid”—or perhaps “invalid”?—texts in the hands of Israel’s neighbors compete with such old texts.

So Israel, as a practical matter, ought to agree to get back to the 1967 borders.  Legitimately it should agree to do so only under conditions which will provide reasonable likelihood that its neighbors won’t send rockets over or drop bombs on it or start wars.  To argue this is not anti-Semitic, it’s practical.

Assuming the 1967 borders are valid, the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are occupiers, and they‘re taking land that belongs to others.  Socio-economic or cultural differences are not the issue.  The issue is taking land that belongs to others.  How on earth can one justify that?  You have a nice apartment in Rio de Janeiro, one which José Dirceu—inspired by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez—might like to have, perhaps for one or another girlfriend.  Inadequate or no recompense, of course, especially if he considers you—a Jew—to be different from him.  Like the idea of losing your home?

I.                  Criticism of Israel

When Israel is criticized, its defenders all too often rely on two arguments, one a non sequitur and the other irrelevant or a second non sequitur.  They first remind their interlocutors how Jews have suffered at others’ hands over the centuries, something only ideologues deny.  But that doesn’t justify Israel’s occupation of others’ lands.  Next they argue that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, as the speech by the Pilar Rahola alleges.  I argue that a person may or may not have a positive attitude towards Judaism but can still present logical and legitimate arguments criticizing Israel’s colonization of the West Bank.  So a cry of anti-Semitism against such arguments is either irrelevant or a non sequitur.

Yasser Arafat was corrupt and incompetent.  Hamas—a creation of Israel’s, I believe—is a gang of fanatics with whom reasoning is difficult if not impossible.  Ahmadinejad is a would-be dictator.  And on and on.  Israel has enemies.  No doubt about it.  But that doesn’t justify its occupation of others’ land.

If you have not read Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s criticism of AIPAC—published on Harvard’s website in 2006—you really should.  (I have the complete text, both with and without footnotes, and can send it to you.)  Alan Dershowitz, not surprisingly, screamed his usual “Anti-semitism!” non sequitur.  Nonsense: it was solid, reasoned criticism.

I’m attaching an article by Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom which I came upon through CounterCurrents.org, a liberal website.  I don’t know who Avnery is nor what Gush Shalom does, except that both he and it are peace-seekers.  They’re the ones who are Right.

Next-to-last, I’m attaching another article from TIME about the Israeli occupiers who are destroying Palestinians’ olive trees.  The report is infuriating because of the smug Israeli sentiment exemplified by the last paragraph, precisely what gives Hamas its moral and psychological ammunition:

The view from the hilltop is stunning; Binyamin’s smile is knowing.  “I’d love to sit in the valley,” he says.  “We’re caught up in a conflict of people against people.  I hope the guy from Bureen will have a good future.  But all my efforts will be to assure that his future won’t be here.  Because this land belongs to the Jewish people.”

And finally, providentially—though I don’t believe in Providence—Roger Cohen’s article published in The New York Times on 28 October 2011 and its translation here in O Estado de São Paulo today.  As he writes, it’s Crunch Time.

 

Back to you, my friend.

William

Attachments

• 2010-10-29, TIME, Kluger, Jeffrey, ‘I Know the Truth, Don’t Bother Me with Facts’.doc (205 KB)
• 2010-10-23, CounterCurrents, Avnery, Uri, ‘Weimar in Jerusalem’.doc (311 KB)
• 2010-10-29, TIME, Vick, Karl, ‘Olive Harvest War, Palestinians vs Settlers’.doc (139 KB)
• 2010-11-01, OESP (NYT), Cohen, Roger, ‘Chegou a Hora de Israel Decidir seu Futuro’.doc (83 KB)
• 2010-11-01, NYT, Cohen, Roger, ‘Crunch Time’.doc (83 KB)

Conspirationists

English Version — Portuguese Version Follows BelowVersão em Inglês — Versão em Português Segue Abaixo

Latin Americans have a curious way of viewing and interpreting other countries’ actions.  They tend to be conspirationists from beginning to end, and believe that everything other countries do somehow is planned.  Such an attitude reflects their experience with their socialist, protective, I-know-what’s-best-for-you governments who have outsize influence on their societies.  It perpetrates self-pitying arguments that the Latin Americans are victims, on the receiving end of others’ hostile—or at a minimum antagonistically competitive—planned actions.  Conveniently, then, they’re not responsible for their lack of success or outright failure: “Others did it to us.”

In the foreign policy sphere, countries’ actions typically are determined—for good or ill—by their political leaders and diplomatic corps.  In the sphere of business and economics, though, depending on the country, there may or may not be specific governmental determination.  In socialist or theocratic nations—e. g., North Korea and Iran—governmental presence and action pervade the economic sphere.  But in countries with market oriented economies the influence of the government is much less important.

True, governments in market-oriented countries do influence their businesses, as for example the anti-corruption policies for exporters, begun in the U.S. and now implemented in the European Union as well.  Governments also exert influence with tax policies and other economic tools.  The misdirected agricultural subsidies of the governments of the U.S. and the European Union are sad examples.

But Latin Americans err dangerously when they fail to understand that individual decision makers in the economic sphere are what drive dynamic economies like those of the United States.  ABC Furthburner Corp. decides on its own to invest in Brazil, not because some Grand American Government Plan suggests it should.  GM and Ford likewise.  And others, like, say, Intel, decide not to invest in Brazil on their own.

The situation in the Amazon Region is another category of individual decision-making.  Brazilians rightly are proud that most of what some call the world’s lungs is theirs.  Brazilians are not proud, though, of their non-management—or mismanagement—of the region, which ramped up significantly in the 1970’s with federal tax incentives to clear virgin forest for herds of cattle.  As world demand for hardwoods climbed, Brazilians non-management of the Amazon remained firm, now supported in part by ridiculous, paranoid claims that foreigners plan somehow to take over the region.  Many Brazilians see every purchase of Amazonian property by a foreigner, whether for productive investment or for preservation of virgin forest, and always an individual decision, as part of the Grand Amazon Takeover Scheme.  No doubt some foolish foreigners (certainly not this one) think Brazilians should relinquish control of the Amazon, but not anyone seriously grounded in reality.

Brazilians waste precious time and enormous resources on bureaucracies that supposedly Plan, in part to face the conspirationists’ notions of other nations’ nonexistent Grand Plans.  In reality the bureaucracies, to the extent they do plan anything, usually get it wrong, just as planning bureaucracies throughout the eastern European socialist block got it so wrong for so many decades.  The example which stares Brazilians in the face is the “planning” in its energy sector.  The bureaucrats in Brasília seem determined to get it wrong, and do.

Market economies, and their participants, are dynamic and fast-moving, acting individually to maximize their growth and profits.  Planners in Brazilian bureaucracies, concerned about others’ Grand Plans, are ill-equipped for the hard work and creative, competitive thinking of the marketplace.  They serve only to impede the ability of Brazilian private enterprise to face the challenges of their international competitors.

Versão em Português — Versão em Inglês Acima

É curiosa a forma como latinos americanos encaram e interpretam as ações de outros países.  Tendem a ser conspiracionistas do início ao fim, e acreditar que tudo que outros países fazem seja de alguma forma planejado.  Tal atitude reflete sua experiência com seus governos socialistas, protetores, eu-sei-o-que-é-melhor-para-você, que acaba tendo influência exagerada nas suas sociedades.  Perpetra argumentos de auto-piedosos em que os latinos americanos são vítimas, no lado recebedor de ações de outros sempre hostis—ou no mínimo antagonicamente competitivas—e planejadas.  Convenientemente, então, não são responsáveis pelo seu insucesso ou mesmo fracasso: “Outros o infligiram a nos”.

Na esfera de política estrangeira, ações de países tipicamente são determinadas—pelo bem ou mal—pelos seus líderes políticos e corpos diplomáticos.  Na esfera de negócios e economia, entretanto, dependendo do país, poderá haver—ou não—determinação governamental específica.  Em nações socialistas ou teocráticas—e. g., Coréia do Norte e Irã—a presença e as ações governamentais dominam a esfera econômica.  Mas em países com economias orientadas pelo mercado a influência do governo é muito menos importante.

Verdade, os governos em países orientados pelo mercado influenciam sim as suas empresas privadas, como por exemplo as políticas anti-corrupção iniciadas nos EUA e agora implementadas na União Européia também.  Governos também exercem influência com políticas de impostos e outras ferramentas econômicas.  Os mal direcionados subsídios à agricultura dos governos dos EUA e da União Européia são exemplos tristes.

Mas latinos americanos erram perigosamente quando deixam de entender que, na esfera econômica, tomadores individuais de decisões são o que impulsionam economias dinâmicas como a dos Estados Unidos.  ABC Furthburner Corp. decide sozinha investir no Brasil, não porque algum Grande Plano do Governo Americano sugere que deva.  A GM e a Ford idem.  E outras, como, digamos, a Intel, decidem sozinhas não investir no Brasil.

A situação na região amazônica é outra categoria de tomada de decisões individuais.  Brasileiros são devidamente orgulhosos que é sua a maior parte do que alguns chamam os pulmões do mundo.  Brasileiros não são orgulhosos, entretanto, da sua não administração—ou má administração—da região, que aumentou significativamente na década dos anos 1970 com incentivos de impostos federais para limpar floresta virgem para rebanhos de gado.  Na medida em que subia demanda mundial para madeiras nobres, o não gerenciamento brasileiro da Amazônia permanecia firme, agora apoiado por ridículas afirmações paranóicas que estrangeiros planejam de alguma forma tomar conta da região.  Muitos brasileiros vêem cada compra de propriedade amazônica por um estrangeiro, seja para Investimento produtivo ou para preservação de floresta virgem, e sempre uma decisão individual, como parte do Grande Esquema de Tomar a Amazônia.  Sem dúvida alguns estrangeiros bobos (certamente não este) pensam que brasileiros devem abrir mão de controle da Amazônia, mas não alguém seriamente fundamentado na realidade.

Brasileiros perdem tempo precioso e recursos enormes em burocracias que supostamente Planejam, em parte para fazer frente a noções dos conspiracionistas de inexistentes Grandes Planos de outras nações.  Na realidade as burocracias, na medida em que conseguem planejar algo, usualmente fazem-no errado, da mesma forma que as burocracias de planejamento no bloco socialista do leste europeu erraram tanto durante tantas décadas.  O exemplo que está na cara dos brasileiros é o “planejamento” no seu setor energético.  Os burocratas em Brasília parecem determinados de errar, e erram.

Economias de mercado, e seus participantes, são dinâmicos e andam com rapidez, agindo individualmente para maximizar seu crescimento e lucros.  Planejadores em burocracias brasileiras, preocupados com os inexistentes Grandes Planos de outros, são mal equipados para o trabalho duro e para o pensamento criativo e competitivo do mercado.  Servem somente para impedir a capacidade de empreendedores brasileiros privados de enfrentar os desafios dos seus competidores internacionais.

Can We Rein in Selfish Individuality

English Version — Portuguese Version Follows Below

Anyone familiar with evolutionary development knows we’re nothing more than animals.  Like other animals, we’re not at the “end” or the “top” of any evolutionary chain, ladder or scale.  Rather, we’re simply where we are, just as beetles, mollusks, giraffes and cats—one of my favorite animals—are where they are.  Belief that we’re superior or more worthy in some sense than any other species is nonsense.  We have a greater capacity to think than other animals, and we’re more powerful so we can manipulate and destroy other species, but we’re not better or more worthy.

Evidence of our not-betterness or not-more-worthiness is our insistence on thinking and acting in ways that may be or seem individually rational (or not) but are collectively irrational:

·                    Religion.  Religion heads the list as individuals’ needs for psychological backup to face their inevitable deaths, or deal with things they choose not to understand, induces them to suspend their capacity to reason.  They’re suckered to spend money and time, guided by mythical beliefs.  They murder and maim in the name of all-merciful gods.  They pursue destructive and suicidal ends.  They refuse to reason and even pride themselves on it!

·                    Political Economy.  Socialists ignore the lessons of the failures of socialism—the term in the real, economic sense: state ownership of facilities and resources—since its inception at the beginning of the 20th century.  They ignore socialism’s inevitable and insatiable capacity to foment corruption, most especially in societies whose tradition of rectitude and sense of a collective good is limited.

·                    International Policies.  “Me first, buddy!” is the cry.  Or, “I know what’s right for you!”  And with that rational dialogue is suspended, the weapons are honed and aimed, and conflict begins.

·                    The Environment.  One can only assume that those who drive SUV’s, who build coal-fired power plants, who clear virgin forests, and most especially who deliberately ignore or distort the scientific evidence of global warming, do not have children, let alone grandchildren: they’re going to get theirs, and to hell with the future.  If they do have children, though, perhaps those children will end up like the better-off inhabitants of Greenland who had the privilege of being the last to starve to death.

What we need, of course, is the capacity to recognize our limitations, our animalness, and somehow invent systems to rein in our individuality for a better collective good.  Such reining in never will come from utopian hopes for self-control: we’re animals.  It must come from education and economic incentives combined with penalties for insistence on individuality at the cost of the societal good.

Versão em Português — Versão em Inglês é Acima

Qualquer pessoa familiarizada com desenvolvimento evolucionário sabe que não somos nada mais que animais.  Como outros animais, não estamos no “final” ou no “topo” de qualquer cadeia, escada ou escala evolucionária.  Em vez disso, simplesmente estamos onde estamos, assim como besouros, moluscos, girafas e gatos—um dos meus animais favoritos—estão onde estão.  Crença de que somos, em algum sentido, superiores ou mais valiosos que outras espécies é besteira.  Temos uma capacidade de raciocinar maior que os outros animais, e somos mais poderosos o que nos possibilita manipular e destruir outras espécies, mas não somos melhores ou mais valiosos.

Evidência de nossas não-melhores ou não-mais-valiosos é nossa insistência em pensar e agir em formas que poderão ser ou parecer racionais individualmente (ou não) mas que são coletivamente irracionais:

·                    Religião. A religião lidera a lista na medida em que as necessidades de indivíduos para reforço psicológico para enfrentar suas mortes inevitáveis, ou lidar com coisas que optam em não compreender, as induzem a suspender sua capacidade de raciocinar.  Guiados por crenças mitológicas, como bons otários gastam seu tempo e dinheiro.  Assassinam e mutilam em nome de deuses todo-misericordiosos.  Seguem fins destrutivos e suicidas.  Recusam-se a raciocinar e até se orgulham disso!

·                    Economia Política.  Os socialistas ignoram as lições dos fracassos do socialismo—o termo no sentido real, econômico: a propriedade de instalações e recursos nas mãos do estado—desde que começou no início do século 20.  Ignoram a capacidade inevitável e insaciável do socialismo para fomentar a corrupção, mais especialmente em sociedades cujas tradições de retidão e sentido do bem coletivo são limitados.

·                    Políticas Internacionais.  “Eu primeiro, amigo!” é o grito.  Ou, “Eu sei o que é bom para você!”  E com isto o diálogo racional é suspenso, as armas são afiadas e apontadas, e o conflito se inicia.

·                    O Ambiente.  Podemos somente presumir que os que dirigem SUVs, que constroem usinas que queimam carvão, que limpam florestas virgens, e mais especialmente que deliberadamente ignoram ou distorcem a evidência científica sobre o aquecimento global, não tenham filhos, e muito menos netos: eles vão ter os deles, e ao inferno com o futuro.  Se tiverem filhos, entretanto, talvez esses filhos acabem como os habitantes melhor abastados da Groenlândia que tiveram o privilégio de serem os últimos a morrer de fome.

O que precisamos, é claro, é a capacidade de reconhecer nossas limitações, nossa condição de sermos animais, e de alguma forma inventar sistemas para restringir nosso egoísmo para um bem coletivo melhor.  Tal restrição nunca virá de alguma esperança utópica de auto-controle: somos animais.  Deverá resultar de educação e incentivos econômicos combinados com penalidades quando da insistência na ação individual às custas do bem da sociedade.