Dear Matthew: Thank you for your comments. Normally, I do not read such mail.
But yours inspired me to write back. As I grow older (62), I become more of
a cynic. I would like to propose the following for your and the lists' conside
ration.
1. There are no universally acceptable definition of "sustainable development"
Mine is right, yours is wrong
2. Why do mountain people, or any other group, need more protection than other
s?
3. Survival of the fittest is the law of nature. It necessitates change. As
Chairman Mao said, Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
4. In a world of limited resources, there are always winners and losers- they
may be animate or inanimate.
When a Walmart moves, Mom & Pop operations go out of business
Try to distribute last 1000 gallons of water into competing demands of
industry, agriculture, medicine, water sports, homes, etc
Agriculture and medicine save lives but increase over population and natura
al resources depletion
5. What would the world be like if the dinosaurs were not extinct?
6. If animal and plants and their droppings are parts of nature, aren't humans
and their droppings (hazardous waste, abandoned industrial sites, etc) also
parts of nature.
7. Rain may be good for a farmer but how about a potter?
8. Justify the developed world preaching the nondeveloped about not burning th
e rainforests to protect the ozone layer while we continue to squander the
natural resources. Every person in a developed country consumes 30 times
the natural resources consumed by a person in the non developed world.
Enough of a professor's soap box. Hope it gives us ideas to ponder. Jivan Sar
an
