Dear J M: When giving thought to this issue, I also recognized the power differentials existing between 'first' and 'third' world countries. This inequity results in industrializing countries internalizing the eco-oppressive ideologies of established industrialized nations (as a result of capitalism and the world trade market), and are therefore NOT developing a consciousness based on traditional resource usage. If this was a fair world, power would be equated with environmental responsibility to affect change--however, the environment (on the whole) is not a renewable resource and should not be used as a leveling device for past or future inequalities. Yes, the 'developed' countries certainly do have an ethical responsibility to create change in resource utilization, and it is these countries that have the means to preserve/conserve...BUT, if these nations do not live up to their obligations does that give 'underdeveloped' areas the right to "catch up" in terms of environmental exploitation? I understand how many industrializing countries feel: now that the imperialistic exploitation of their resources has ceased, the imperial powers are seeking to foster and impose a neo-colonial moral ecological ideology based on conservation (and thus hindering their ability to compete in the world market). The environment, however, cannot be used as an attempt at global affirmative action (the benefits will be short term...). Conservation/preservation pedagogy should be advocated for ALL countries regardless of past, present, or future imbalances of power... Any thoughts? Take care, Jaimie Carboy Dept. of sociology Georgia State University Atlanta GA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 7 Mar 1995, J M Brough wrote: > I would like to comment on Mark Peterson's letter - > 1. Why do they have this responsibility? - > Surely this goes with living? The source of the responsibility is > our own awareness of it. Thus a lion is not "responsible" for > the zebra she kills for food but a human being has knowledge and > awareness of the consequences of an action and therefore must be > responsible for those consequences. > 2. Are responsibilities equal? - I don't think they can be. My own > belief is that responsibility should be proportional to power and > control. The more power you have to affect the environment the > greater the degree of responsibility you have to protect it. > It follows that people living in the 'developed' world, who use much > more energy per capita than those in 'undeveloped' countries, have a > greater responsibility to conserve the environment and its resources. > > How do we get people (and governments and businesses etc.) to accept > their responsibility? I wish I knew. As individuals we can make our > views known to those in government, and in business, and we can vote > with our money by only doing business with those of whose ethics we > approve. On a personal level most of us know what we ought to do, > whether we do it or not is a different matter. The attractions of an > energy-using existence are seductive. The satellites and other technology > that allow this message to zip around the globe didn't get there for > free. Are we to go back to sending messages via a runner with a > cleft stick? > Sincerely, June Brough. > > J M Brough > Senior Secretary > School of Mathematics and Statistics > The University of Birmingham > Edgbaston > Birmingham B15 2TT >
