On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:32:33 EST, Wirt Atmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] > find new and better ways to feed and fuel our demands. We live better now > than we ever have, and yet we're leaving a smaller footprint on the earth > than we > ever have before on a per capita basis. I don't mean to divert this discussion from what the OP asked in the first place, but this statement is misleading. Whether we live better now than we ever have depends on who "we" is. If "we" means people consuming 90% of the world's energy, then yes, that statement might be true. But if "we" means >90% of the world's people, then that statement is false by almost any chosen statistic. [...] > As an engineer myself, I tend to have a lot of faith in our future. I do > believe that we will work through most of our problems with some ease and > grace. > And as a biologist, I tend to believe the perhaps startling conclusion that > wealthy, urbanized, well-educated populations are the only real hope for > maintaining the biodiversity on the planet. Impoverished populations take a > terrible > toll on the environment as they grow, either as they did in East Germany when > they were under Communist rule or as they do in Africa now. I'd be interested in knowing what evidence there is to say that poor people make a larger, negative, impact on the environment, compared to rich people. -- Sebastian Luque
