: : I have no problem with collective collaboration on a local level between people who fully agree. But this bears no relation to what your so-called "socialism".
: Erm, since socialism is a democratic system, based on local co-operation, and joint ownership of teh means of production, I'd really liek to see quite what distinction you're drawing here.
My brother and I collectively own a VCR. If you want to call it socialism go ahead. I'm not an essentialist and could care less what that particular relationship to the means of entertainment exists as in your particular mind. We have collectively decided cooperate in using the said device. (What you advocate is every VCR is everybody's and unless there is a VCR for every single person there will be competition for the usage of these devices.)
: Plus doesn't this contradict teh doctrrine of competition prevails?
Competition must be the most misunderstood word in the world. My brother and I had two choices:
A) buy a VCR and share it (i.e. cooperate)
B) buy two VCRs seperately
Options A & B competed with each other, in our minds, and cooperation (A) out-competed non-cooperation (B).
: :I shy from debating science issues because they hold no interest for me.
: Considering ecology is a scientific question, perhaps you then shouldn't venture any opinions on the matter one way or the other?
That's why I wasn't venturing any opinions. Gideon challenged me to find 'even one' source that disagreed with his and I took a mere half-hour and did so.
: Plus, you are basically admitting that you cannot judge the quality of teh sites, merely the quantity, which is basically an argumentative fallacy, ad numerum?(?- I'll check).
No, I was answering Gideon and at least one of these sites was a MIT Ph.D in astrophysics; I somehow think the words MIT, Ph.D, and astrophysics in the same sentence might lend some credibility. See above.