On Bob wrote:
I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich
people.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the >world and is most
vulnerable to rising sea >levels. Do you think that they’ll be
shouting "Jobs, not dry land?"
In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is up to the rich who use a
vastly disproportionate amount of the worlds resources and who have the
technologic skill to do something about the environment to do it. This
is not charity it is self-preservation for the haves as well as the have
nots. A major economic and environmentatl upheaval will create chaos. It
will scramble the deck. Those on top are unlikely to be on top
afterwards not because they are inherently corrupt but because being on
top is luck in the first place and you tend not to get lucky too many
times in a row.
I don't disagree with any of that. Certianly those that have more have
more to loose. That doesn't mean (and I'm not implying that anyone said
this, just making an observation) that the less well to do are all brain
dead morons that don't give a sh*t about what might befall civilization as
a result of industrialization.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
