|economic interests are far too great to think about the long term. On a
|trip to germany I was amazed by their far greater intelligence on the
|environmental issue. I'd be interested in hearing some opinions about
|our global responsibility on this issue.
Sure, the Germans are more informed on recycling, etc. But do they have
any "wilderness" left? No. So what example do we take from them? Their
forests and parks are much more manicured and "managed" than most still
are in the US. Some would call such management and the hopes of managing
the rest of the planet "hubris."
Jim
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 3 09:18:10 MST 1995
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 11:14:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by acs.wooster.edu
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (susan clayton)
Subject: global responsibility
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Protecting the natural environment requires us to think about issues in a
longer time scale and wider range than most of us are used to. Especially
in the U.S., we are very focused on individual rights and each of us
getting what we "deserve" (without thinking too much about how this might
affect others). For example, an individual landowner might feel s/he
should be able to do anything s/he wants with her/his land, and this sounds
like something we would all agree with until we start thinking about how
other people, generations down the line, and other species may be affected
by this landowner's decisions. Because we are so focused on the
individual, campaigns that focus on what each individual can do (as Diana
was describing) can be very effective. But I think to truly make the
radical changes in lifestyle that are called for, we may also need to move
to a value system less focused on individual rights and more focused on the
interconnections between people.
