Re: ‘Progressive view’ (The News, Oct. 12)
The nice thing about democracy is that it allows for a difference of viewpoints to be expressed, and yes, even passionately argued.
Conviction in one’s beliefs should be considered an admirable trait, not an example of exclusion, radicalism or dogma. Yes, there is a need for progress.
Yes, progress can be good. The real point that later writer Gary Child does not seem to grasp is the direction that the aforementioned progress should take.
Using his terms, in one of these “polarized positions”, the “progressives” are all in favour of altering the local environment (expensive), engineering solutions to the problems the alterations cause (often expensive), all in the noble name of creating jobs to improve our lifestyle (while increasing their potential bottom line as a just reward).
The “regressive” element that Child and his business friends so often complain about (as a fly on the wall I have heard them), are not out to drive civilization back to the stone age, but to look a little closer at what we have, what we really need, and the future consequences of our actions.
In nature, any population that exceeds its resources, dies.
Defining that limit is the real problem between growth and conservation, as it will impose a limitation on what we can safely build to maintain or improve our lifestyle.