Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
As argued on the rapid response and elsewhere, American policy on
enviromental issues has profound implications for the rest of the world.
The difficulty in persuading American citizens to limit their use of
fossil fuels and their country's dominant economic and military position
are, however, two sides of the same coin.
The USA is an open society in which the freedom of the individual
drives economic growth. The liberalism which allows for invention and
enterpise also prevents law makers from restricting the use of cars ( or
for that matter, guns) in ways that are less than desirable.
This contrasts with the position of the world's other superpower,
China. In his book about the time he spent as last Governor of Hong Kong,
Chris Patten argues convincingly that the Chinese Government will be
unable to reconcile the push for economic development with Confucian
ideals of loyalty and obediance.
Science itself is also paradoxical in its effect. The list of
improvement to the human condition brought about by science is huge and
includes general anaethesia, vaccinations, clean water, potentially
abundant supplies of food and power and improved communication not least
through the medium of the Internet.
The irony is that science also undermines the environment in which we
live and, while parts of the world enjoy great wealth, others starve.
The challenge for those lead the West is to balance prosperity with
our obligations to those less fortunate than ourselves and to the natural
world.
Taking the rough with the smooth
Dear Dr Smith,
As argued on the rapid response and elsewhere, American policy on
enviromental issues has profound implications for the rest of the world.
The difficulty in persuading American citizens to limit their use of
fossil fuels and their country's dominant economic and military position
are, however, two sides of the same coin.
The USA is an open society in which the freedom of the individual
drives economic growth. The liberalism which allows for invention and
enterpise also prevents law makers from restricting the use of cars ( or
for that matter, guns) in ways that are less than desirable.
This contrasts with the position of the world's other superpower,
China. In his book about the time he spent as last Governor of Hong Kong,
Chris Patten argues convincingly that the Chinese Government will be
unable to reconcile the push for economic development with Confucian
ideals of loyalty and obediance.
Science itself is also paradoxical in its effect. The list of
improvement to the human condition brought about by science is huge and
includes general anaethesia, vaccinations, clean water, potentially
abundant supplies of food and power and improved communication not least
through the medium of the Internet.
The irony is that science also undermines the environment in which we
live and, while parts of the world enjoy great wealth, others starve.
The challenge for those lead the West is to balance prosperity with
our obligations to those less fortunate than ourselves and to the natural
world.
A start can be made at www.thehungersite.com and its associate sites.
Yours sincerely,
Dr John Hopkins
Competing interests: No competing interests